PAGENO="0001" SURFACE MINING RECLAMATIO~ HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 3132, S. 3126, and S. 217 BILLS TO PROVIDE FOR FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION IN THE RECLAMATION OF STRIP MINED LANDS APRIL 30, MAY 1 AND 2, 1968 Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 4. 1n8/13 5~/31 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1968 t a 0 r. DOC~. V H ~T~1'~S PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Cha~rnvan CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California ALAN BIBLE, Nevada GORDON, ALLOTT, Colorado FRANK CHURCH, Idaho LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona FRANK E. MOSS, Utah CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon CARL HAYDEN, Arizona GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin LEE METCALF, Montana JERRY T. VERKLER, Staff Director STEwART FRENCH, Chief Counsei E. LEWIS REID, Minority COUfl8ei (II) PAGENO="0003" S. 3132 Executive communication Tennessee Valley Authority report S. 3126 S. 217 Department of Interior report S.2934 STATEMENTS Abdnor, Joseph S., assistant to the president, Pickards Mather & Co., representing the American Mining Congress Agnew, Dr. Allen F., director, Water Resources Research Center, Indiana University Auvil, Jesse H., Jr., chief geologist, Georgia Department of Mines and Mining, Atlanta Baker, John A., Assistant Secretary, Department of Agriculture: accom- panied by K. E. Grant, associate administrator, and D. M. Whitt, director, plant sciences, Soil Conservation Service; and E. P. Cliff, chief, and R. G. Florance, legislative reporting; Byron Beattie, director, Watershed Management, Forest Service Ball, Charles, director, community renewal programs, City Planning Associates, Inc., Mishawaka, Ind Bearner, R. W., executive secretary, Wyoming Mining Association Caudill, Harry M., chairman, Congress for Appalachian Development, Group To Save the Land and People, and the Sierra Club; accompanied by Gordon K. Ebersole, executive director, CAB Conservation Foundation Cox, James L., general manager, International Minerals & Chemicals Association, representing Phosphate Counsel of Florida; accompanied by Robert L. Koob, division vice president, Interr~atiorial Minerals & Chemical Corp Coyle, Walter A., president, Precision Aerial Reclamation Davison, Edward K., Davison Sand & Gravel Co., New Kensington, Pa Eckles, Richard T., coordinator, Department of Natural Resources, State of ~ Emigh, G. Donald, chairman, Phosphate Lands Conference; accompanied by 0. A. Power, Mineral Development Department, Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., and Dennis W. Olsen, ~ Frawley, John P., Appalachian Stone Division of Martin Marietta Corp.; accompanied by William Carter, executive director, and Charles Buey, ~ Additional ~ Grossniklaus, Mrs. Alice J., secretary, Community Council for Reclama- ~ Hall, John L., assistant executive director, The Wilderness Society Hall, Robert E. Lee, senior vice president, National Coal Assoeiation __ Hathaway, Hon. Stanley K., Governor of the State of Wyoming Johnson, Hugo E., president, American Iron Ore Association; accompanied by John D. Boeritje, Jr., president, Pittsburgh Pacific Co., and Dr. S. W. Sundeen, general manager, Research and Development, Cleveland-Cliffs Iron ~ Lausche, Hon. Frank J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio Leirfallom, Jane, Commissioner of Conservation, State of Minnesota; accompanied by Eugene Jere, director, Division of Water, Soils and Minerals CONTENTS Page 3 8 9 9 18 26 95 97 311 325 65 297 352 87 298 189 207 213 275 222 147 161 283 302 18 350 163 27 (ILl) 263 PAGENO="0004" LeVander, Hon. Herald, Governor, State of Minnesota~ Little, Grover C., Jr., executive director, West Virginia Division, Izaak Walton League- Long, Gene, general manager, Reclamation and Land Use, Truax-Traer Coal Co Moody, Joseph E., president, National Coal Policy Conference; accom- panied by Edwin R. Phelps, vice president, Peabody Coal Co., George Sail, director, Mined Land Association, James Reilly, vice president, Hanna Coal Co., and Robert E. Lee Hall, vice president, National Coal Association Supplementaistatement National Association of Manufacturers National Crushed Stone Association New Mexico Mining Association Orth, Franklin L., executive vice president, National Rifle Association of America Padgett, Ward, chief mine inspector, Department of Mines, State of Oklahoma; accompanied by Thomas Kiser, president, Ore Producers Association, Tn-State Area, Oklahoma Peplow, Edward H., Jr., executive secretary, Arizona Mining Association. Phelps, Edwin R., vice president of engineering, Peabody Coal Co Pomeroy, Kenneth B., American Forestry Association Prater, Lewis, Idaho Bureau of Mines, representing the Governor of Idaho. Reilly, James, vice president, Consolidation Coal Co. of Pittsburgh Rigg, John B., Colorado Mining Association Sail, George, director, Mined Land Conservation Conference, National Coal Association State Mining and Geology Board of California Studebaker, Sam S., president, National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Thiele, Paul, president and chairman of the board, Thiele Kaolin Co., Sandersville, Ga Tippy, Roger, assistant conservation director, Izaak Walton League. Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior; accompanied by J. Cordell Moore, Assistant Secretary, and L. Boyd Finch, staff assistant, Office of the Secretary Utah Mining Association Wachter, Frank C., vice president, Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp Waugaman, Hon. William, director, Alaska Miners Association Widner, S. R., and John Spurling, of Missouri Williams, Hon. Jack, Governor, State of Arizona Zeigler, George A., chairman of the board, National Limestone Institute, Inc.; accompanied by Robert Koch, president, M. J. Grove Lime Co.. COMMUNICATIONS Antonioli, Peter J., secretary-manager, Mining Association of Montana: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated April 29, 1968 Babcock, Tim, Governor, Montana: Letter to Hon. Lee Metcalf, chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, dated May 1, 1968 Bein, Hugh, Del Monte Properties Co., California: Letters to Hon. Thomas H. Kuchel, a U.S. Senator from California- April 3, 1968 April 25, 1968 Douglas, Phillip, executive secretary, Sport Fishing Institute: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated May 21, 1968 Dole, Hollis M., State geologist, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Oregon: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated April 24, 196&. Dunkelberger, Edward, Covington and Burling, Washington, D.C.: Letter to James G. Watt, secretary, Natural Resources Committee, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, dated April 14, 1968 Greco, Frank E., secretary-treasurer, Wedron Silica Co., Chicago: Letter to Hon. Ernest Gruening, chairman, Minerals, Materials, and Fuels Subcommittee, dated April 19, 1968_.. Iv J?age 267 342 294 113 120 305 155 353 308 287 328 122 296. 210 133 181 127 359 303 293 337 29 354 289 324 202 357 280 350 346 371 375 367 356 362 369 PAGENO="0005" V Gutermuth, C. R., vice president, Wildlife Management Institute: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Committee on Interior and Page Insular Affairs, dated May 10, 1968 366 Harrison, John R., president, Lakeland Ledger, Florida; Letter to Hon. Lee Metcalf, chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, dated May 2, 1968. 372 Hastings, Richard H., law offices, Sullivan, McMillan, Hanft, and Hastings, Duluth, Minn. : Letter to Hon. Lee Metcalf, chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, dated May 3, 1968 367 Kimball, Thomas L., executive director, National Wildlife Federation: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated April 30, 1968 365 Laxalt, Paul, Governor of Nevada : Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, U.S. Senate, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated April 26, 1968 355 Marsh, Victor R., Jr. ; Black, McCuskey, Souers, and Arbaugh, attorneys and counselors at law, Canton, Ohio: Letter to Hon. Frank J. Lausche a U.S. Senatorfrom Ohio, dated April22, 1968 369 Minor, Gray, director of public affairs, Pacific Cement and Aggregates, San Francisco, Calif. : Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated April 12, 1968 371 Shiely, J. L., Jr., president, J. L. Shiely Co., St. Paul, Minn. : Letter to Hon. Walter Mondale, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota, dated March 26, 1968 369 Smith, Roger, vice chairman, legislative committee, Glendive Chamber of Commerce, Montana: Letter to Hon. Lee Metcalf, chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, dated May 14, 1968 372 Stearns, James G., director, State of California-Resources Agency, Department of Conservation : Letter to Hon. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, dated April 18, 1968 360 Teske, A. J., secretary, Idaho Mining Association: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated April 29, 1968 357 Watt, James G. secretary, Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated May 10, 1968 360 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Bitun~inous coal and lignite, statistics for surface mining, 1966 132 Coal acreage mined, planted and reclaimed, 1966 131 Land disturbed by strip and surface mining as of January 1, 1965 176 Memorandum of understanding between coal surface mining companies and Colorado Department of Natural Resources 277 "Polk Lakes Are `Doomed'-Phosphate Said Primary Cause," article by W. D. Shilling from the Ledger, Lakeland, Fla., April 28, 1968 372 Resolutions: National Wildlife Federation and State of California 360, 366 "Restoring Surface-Mined Land," Publication No. 10827 of the Depart- ment of Agriculture 73 Statistical reclamation report 130 Status of land disturbed as of January 1, 1965 178 Suggested amendments to S. 3132 217 U.S. Imports of Metals, 1966 107 PAGENO="0006" PAGENO="0007" SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1968 U.S. SENATE, CoMMIrri~E ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Lee Metcalf presiding. Present : Senators Nelson, Metcalf, AIlott, Jordan of Idaho, Bible, Fannin, and Hansen. Also present : Jerry T. Verkler, staff director ; Stewart French, chief counsel ; Porter Ward, professional staff member, and E. Lewis Reid, minority counsel. Senator METOALF. The committee will be in order. This is an open, public hearing by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on proposed legislation for the protection and reclamation of lands and waters from the effects of surface mining operations. There are three bills for this purpose now before the committee. They are 5. 3132, which was drafted and submitted by the Department of the Interior and which Senator Jackson introduced for himself and Senators Nelson, Lausohe, and Anderson ; S. 3126, which is spon- sored by Senator Nelson, and S. 217, sponsored by Senator Lausche, with Senators Bartlett, Fuibright, Metcalf, Nelson, Scott, Tydings, Young of Ohio, and Kuchel as cosponsors. Without objection, I will direct that the text of all three of these measures appear at the conclusion of these brief opening remarks, together with the text of the executive communication by which the draft of S. 3132 was submitted and any departmental reports we may have. All of these measures are similar in purpose, and I am happy to be able to point out that the chief sponsors of `S. 3126 and S. 217 have joined Senator Jackson, the chairman of this committee, in sponsor- ing the administration bill. Thus, it can be anticipated that S. 3132 will be the measure on which the committee will act, with, of course, such amendments as are adopted. The administration bill, S. 3132, is based on a study undertaken by the Department of the Interior with the active cooperation and assist- ance of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health, Education, and Welfare, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Appalachian Regional Commission. This study was authorized and directed by section 205 of the 1965 Appalachian Regional Develop- ment Act, Public Law 89-4, on a nationwide scale. (1) PAGENO="0008" 2 The Interior Department submitted to the President a eomprethen~ sive, strikingly illustrated report last fall on the results of this study entitled "Surface Mining and Our Environment." S. 3132 would put into effect many of the findings and recommendations set forth in this report. The title of the bill is descriptive of its subject and purpose It states that the bill is "To provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the States with respect to the future regulation of surface mining operations ~ ~ The key phrases are "cooperation with the States," and "future regulation." That is, under S. 3132 the States themselves would have initial and primary responsibility for regula)tion and control of future surface mining operations within their borders, and for making pro- vision for restoration and reclamation of lands and waters that may be detrimentally affected by surface mining operations I might point out that Senator Nelson's bill and that of Senator Lausche, which is restricted to surface mining of coal, would provide programs for use of Federal funds for reclamation and restoration of the 2 million acres of already surface mined lands that the Interior Department's report finds require treatment "to alleviate a range of environment damage both on site and off site" The cost of such a retroactive program, so to speak, would be tre mendous-upward to at least $50 million the Interior Department estimates-whereas the cost of the prospective program established by the admin~istration bill would be relatively modest While we are on the subject of cooperation between the States and the Federal Government, I would like to speak a word in behalf of cooperation-continued cooperation-among the several agencies of the Federal Government that have jurisdiction and responsibilities for lands and waters that are affected by surface mining Each agency has its own particular expertise, and the expertise of all will be needed to meet, in an equitable manner, the problems arising from regulations and reclamation of surface mined areas Unquestionably long range planning for such a program as we envision requires geologic knowledge, such as possessed by the Geo- logical Survey , mineralogical knowledge, such as that of the Bureau of Mines ; and water pollution control knowledge, such as thatJn the' Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. All these are agencies of the Department of the Interior It also has within it other agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation, that have knowledge and skills invaluable to the program At the same time, the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture also have essential expertise for reforestation and cover crops for surface mined lands, as does the Corps of Engineers of the Defense Department with respect to many problems of hydrology Other agencies also have the trained personnel and the background of experience necessary to make the control and restoration program successful. In short, it is the hope and expectation of the Congress that the surface mined lands program will be a truly cooperative one as to the Federal agencies as well as to the States In bringing these remarks to a close, I want to point out that the committee is well aware of the basic importance of surface mining to PAGENO="0009" 3 Sour local and national economies. The Bureau of Mines reports that something like 80 percent of our Nation's mineral production, tonnage- wise, is from surface mining. The report states that more than 50 minerals are produced in very substantial part by surface mining, including gold, iron ore, copper, and uranium as well as the huge tonnages of coal, and the sand, gravel, . and stone, all of which are so basic to construction and roadbuilding. We also recognize and pay tribute to the progressive action that already has been taken by the industry itself, and by the States, to meet the problBms this legislation seeks to solve. At the same time, we face the fact that in many areas very real prob- lems do exist with respect to effects on our environment, present and future, of surface mining. The environmental report points out that about 20,000 active operations are disturbing the land at a rate esti- mated in excess of 150,000 acres annually. Data submitted by the sur- face mining industries indicate that in 1964 the amount of land par- tially or completely reclaimed was equivalent to only 31 percent of the area disturbed that year. Surface mining activities are expected to expand rapidly in coming years. The report concludes: Some damage from surface mining is inevitable even with the best mining and land restoration methods. But much can be done to present damage and to reclaim mined lands. "Elementary principles of resource management dictate that our Nation put a stop to unnecessary damages from future mining, and begin an orderly program to repair damage from past mining." It is for this purpose that Senator Jackson introduced S. 3132, and that we are considering it here today. (The data referred to follows:) [S. 3132,, 90th Cong., second sees.] A BILL To pr'ovtcie for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the States with respect to the future regulation of surface mining ope'r'atio'ns, and fo~ other purposes Be it enacted by the senate and House of Representatives of the United ~Jtates of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may `be cited as the "Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968". DEFINITIONS Sire. 2. For the purpose of this Act, the term- (a) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior; ( b) "reclamation" means the reconditioning or restoration `of an area `of land `or water, or both, `that has been adversely affected by surf~tce mining `operations; (,c) "commerce" `means trade, traffic, commerce, transporta~ion, `transmission, or communication among the several States, or between a State and any other place outside thereof, or within `the District of Columbia, or a possession `of the United States, or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof; (d) "surface mine" means (1) an area of land from which minerals are cx- tracted by `surface mining methods, including auger mining, (2) private ways and roads `appurtenant to such area, (3 ) land, excavations, workings, refuse bank's, dumps, spoil bank's, structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other property `on the surface, resulting from, or used in, extracting minerals from their natural deposits by `surface mining methods `or the onsite processing `of such minerals; (e) "surface mined areas" means any area on which the operations of a sur- face mine are concluded after the effective date of a State plan or the regulations issued under section 8 of this `Act, `whichever is applicable; PAGENO="0010" 4 ( f) "person" mean;s an ~dividua1, partnership, association, corporation, or other business organization; (g) "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam; anti (h) "State plan" or "plan" means the whole or any portion or segment thereof. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING SEC. 3. The Congress finds and declares- (a ) That extraction of minerals by surface mining is a significant and essential industrial activity and contributes to the economic potential of the Nation; (b) That there are surface mining operations in the Nation that burden and adversely affect ~ommerce by destroying or diminishing the availability of land for commercial, industrial, recreational, agricultural, and forestry purposes, by causing erosion and landslides, by contributing to floods and the pollution of waters, by destroying fish and wildlife habitat and impairing natural beauty, by counteracting efforts to conserve soil, water, and other natural resources, by destroying or impairing the property of citizens, and by creating hazards danger~ ous to life and property; ( c) That regulation by the Secretary and cooperation by the S;tates as con- templated by this Act are appropriate to prevent and eliminate such burdens and adverse effects; (d) That, because of the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical, and other physical conditions in mining areas, the establishment `on a nationwide basis of uniform regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclaina- tion of surface mined areas is not feasible; (e) That the initial re~ponsibility for `developing, authorizing issuing, and en- forcing regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclamation of surface mined areas should rest with the States ; and (f) That it is the purpose of this Act to provide a nationwide program to pre- vent or substantially reduce the adverse effects to the environment from surface mining, to assure that adequate measures will be taken to reclaim surface mined areas after operations are completed, and to assist the States in carrying out such a program. MINES SUBJECT TO ACT Sue. 4. After the effective date of this Act, each surface mine, the products of which enter commerce or the operations of which affect commerce, and the surface mined area thereof shall be subject to this Act. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION SEC. 5. (a) In furtherance of the policy of this Act, the Secretary is author- ized, whenever he determines that it would effectuate the purposes of this Act, to cooperate with appropriate State agencies in developing and administering State plans for the regulation of surface mines and the reclamation of surface mined areas, consistent with `the provisions of section 7 of this Act, and to cooperate and consult with other Federal agencies in carrying out the provisions of this Act. (b) In cooperating with appropriate State agencies under this Act, the Secre- tary may provide such agency (1) technical and financial assistance in planning and otherwise developing an adequate State plan for the regulation of surface mines and the reclamation of surface mined areas, (2) technical assistance and training, including necessary curricular and instructional materials, and finan- cial and other aid for administration and enforcement of such a plan ; and (3) assistance in preparing and maintaining a continuing inventory of surface mined areas and active mining operations within the State for the evaluation of current and future needs and the effectiveness of mining and reclamation regulatory measures. (c) The amount of any grant the Secretary may make to any State to assist them in meeting the total cost of the cooperative program in each State shall not exceed 50 per centum of such cost : Provided, That such payment shall not be made for more than three years unless a State plan has been submitted and approved by the Secretary and thereafter such payment shall be contingent at all times upon the administration of the State program in a manner which the Secretary deems adequate to effectuate the purposes of this Act. (d) The appropriate State agency with which the Secretary may cooperate un- der this Act shall be a single agency designated by the State to have responsibility PAGENO="0011" 5 for the administration and enforcement of a State plan approved under this Act: Provided, That the Secretary may, upon request of the Governor or other appro' priate executive or legislative authority of the State, waive the single State agency provision hereof and approve another State administrative structure or arrangement if the Secretary determines that the objectives of this Act will be enhanced by the use of such other State structure or arrangment. ADVISORY COMMITTEES SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary may appoint advisory committees which shall include, among others, State representatives, persons qualified by experience or affiliation to present the viewpoint of operators of surface mines, and persons qualified by experience or affiliation to present the viewpoint of conservation and other in~ terested groups, to advise him in carrying out the provisions of this Act. The See- retary shall designate the chairman of each committee. (cb) Advisory committee memt~ers, other `than employees of Federal, State, or local governments, while performing committee business, shall f~e entitled to receive compensation at rates fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per day, including traveltime. While so serving away from their hom~es or regular places of business, memhers may be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence at i-aites authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons intermittently employed. STATE PLAN SEC. 7. (a) A State may, after public hearings, submit to the Secretary at any time a State plan or a proposal for a i~evision in a plan previously approved ~by the Secretary for the regulation of surface mJnes and the reclamation of sur- face mined areas located within the State. The Secretary shall, after giving ap- propriate Federal agencies a reasonable opportunity to review and comment thereon, approve a State plan or revision thereof if- (1) He determin:es that, in his judgment, the plan includes laws and regulations which- (A) promote an appropriate relationship between the extent of regulation and reclamation that is required and the need to preserv~ and protect the environment; (B) provide that an adequate mining plan he filed with, and approved by, the State agency and a permit be olbtained to insure, before surfac~ mining operations are commenced or continued, `that they will be con- ducited in a manner consistent with `said mining plan; ` ( 0) contain, in connection with surface mines and surface mined areas, criteria relating specifically to (1) `the control of erosion, flood- ing, and pollution of water, (ii) the isolation of toxic materials, (iii) the prevention of air pollution `by dust or burning `refuse piles or other- wise, (iv) the reclamation of surface mined areas by revegetation, re- placement of `soil, or other means, ( v) the maintenance of access through mined areas, ( vi ) the prevention of land or rockslides, ( vii ) the protec- tion of fish and wildlife and their habitat, and (viii) the prevention of hazards to public health and safety; (D) promote the reclamation of surface mined `areas by requiring that reclamation work be planned in advance and completed within reasona~hly prescribed time limit's; (ID) provide for evaluation of environmental changes in surface mined area s and in areas in which surface mines are operating in order to accumulate data for assessing the effectiveness of the requirements established: ` (F) `provide adequate measures for enforcement, including criminal and civil penalties for failure to comply with applicable State laws and `regulatlons ; periodic inspections of surface mines and reclaniaf ion work ; periodic reports by mining operators on the methods and results of reclamation work ; the posting of performance bonds adequate to insure the land is reclaimed ; and `the revocation of permits for failure to comply with the terms of the permits or of the provisions of the regulations o'r laws under which permits are issued; and (2) The Secretary determines that, in his judgment, the plan includes- (A) `adequate provision for State funds and personnel to assure the effective administration and enforcement of the plan and, if needed, the establishment of training programs for operators, supervisors, and PAGENO="0012" 6 ree1ama~tion and enforcement officials in mining and reclamation prac- tices and techniques; ( B) pr&viis~on ~or the making f such reports to the Secretary as he may require ; ~(O) ai~tberizaition by State law and that it will be put into effect not later than sixty days after its a~pproval ~y the Siecretary. (b) After approval of a plan, the Secretary, on the basis of such inspections, investigations, or examinations as he deem~s appropriate and reports submitted by the State, shall make a continuing evaluation of the effectiveness of the ap- proved plan and the enforcement thereof. Whenever he determines, after notice to the State agency referred to in suhse~ction (d) of section 5, and opportunity for a hearing : (1) that the State, in administering the plan, has failed to comply sub- stantially with it or to enforce it adequately, he shall notify the State thereof and if within a reasonable time the S~tate has not taken adequate measures, in his judgment, to correct the ~ituation, he may withdraw his approval of the plan and issue regulations for such State under section 8 ~ of this Act ; and ~ (2) that a revision of an approved plan is appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this Act, he shall notify the State thereof, and if within a reason- able time the State has not revised said plan and thtained the approval of the Secretary thereon, he may withdraw his approval of the plan and issue regulations for such State under seet~ion 8 of this Act. FEDERAL REGULATION OF SURFACE MINES Sne. 8. (a) If, at the expiration of two years after the effective date of this Act, a State fails to submit a State plan, or a State has submitted a plan which has been disapproved and has within such period failed to submit a re- vised plan for approval, the Secretary, in consultation with an advi- sory committee appointed pursuant to this Act, shall issue promptly regu- lations for the operation of surface mines and for the reclamation of surface mined areas in such State : Provided, That if the Secretary has reason to be- lieve that a State will submit an acceptable plan within one additional year after the expiration of the two-year period, he may delay the issuance of Fed- eral regulations for such one-year period of time. If a State has within two years after the effective date of this' Act submitted a plan for approval and the two-year period provided in the fir~st sentence of thisi section has expired before the Secretary has approved or disapproved the plan, the Secretary shall delay the issuance of Federal regulations pending the approval or disapproval of the plan. The Federal regulations issued by the Secretary for a particular State shall be consistent with the principles' set forth in s~blsection (a) (1) of section 7 of this Act. (b) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the regulations which he proposes to issue for a particular State. Interested persons shall be afforded a period of not less than sixty days after the publication of such `regulations within which to submit written data, views', or arguments. E~cept as provided in s~bsection (e) of this sE~ction, the Secretary may, after the expiration of such period and after consideration of all relevant matter presented, issue the regu~ lations with such modifications, if any, as he deems appropriate. (c) On or before the last day of a period fixed `for the submission of written data, views, or arguments, any person who may be adversely affected by the regulation's which the Secretary proposes to issue may file with the Secretary written objections thereto stating the ground's therefor and requesting a public hearing on such objections. The Secretary shall not issue regulations respecting which such objections have been filed until he has taken final action upon them as provided in subsection (d) of this section. A's soon as practicable after the period of filing such objections' has expired the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a notice specifying the provisions of the regulations to which such objections have `been filed. (d) If such objections requesting a public hearing are filed, the Secretary, after notice, shall held a public hearing for the purpose `of receiving evidence relevant and material to the issues raised by such objections. At the hearing any interested person may be heard. A's soon a~s `practicable after the completion of the hearing, the `Secre'ta'ry shall act upon such ~bjections and make public his decision. PAGENO="0013" 7 (e) The Secretary may from time to time revise such regulations in accord- aiice with the procedures pr~scrihed in subsections (a) through ( d) of this section. TERMINATION SEC. 9. If a State submits a proposed State plan to the Secretary after Federal regulations have been is'si~ed pursuant to seetiou 8 of this Act, and if the Secre- tary approves the plan, su~h Federal rguiati~ns shall cease to be effective within the State sixty days after the ap~~fovaL of the State plan by the Secretary. Such Federal regulations ~hall agaiii b~uui~ ~ffective if the Secretary subse- quently withdraws his approval of the plan pursuant to ~ubsection (b) of seclion 7 of this Act. INSPECTIONS AND INvEsTIGATIONS SEc. 10. ( a ) The Secretary is authorized to cause to be made such inspections and investigations of surface mines and surface mined areas as he shall deem appropriate to evaluate the adminsitration of State pJans, or to develop or en- force Federal regulations, and for such purp~ses authorized representatives of the Secretary shall have the right of entry to any surface mine or upon any surface mined area. ( b) The head of each Federal agency ~ha]l permit by agreement authorized representatives of the State ~r the Secretary to have the right of entry to any surface mine or upon any surface mined area located on lands under his juris- diction, unless the Secretary of I)etense finds that such entry would not be in the interest of the national seearity. REGULATIONS Szo. 11. Phe Secretary may isaue such ieguations as are deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. INJUNCTIONS Sno. 12. At the request of the Secretary, the Attorney General may institute a civil action in a district court of the United States for a restraining order or injunction or other appropriate remedy (a) to prevent a person from engaging in surface mining operations without a permit from the Secretary required under section 8 of this Act, or in violation of the terms and conditions of such permit or the F~ederal regulations issued under section 8 of the Act ; (b) to prevent a person from placing in commerce the products of a surface mine produced in vio- lation of an approved State plan ; or ( c) to enforce the right of entry under section 10 of this Act. The district courts of the United States in which such person resides or is doing business or is licensed or incorporated to do business shall have jurisdiction to issue such order or injunction or to provide other appropriate remedy. PENALTIES Sno. 13. (a) If any person shall fail to comply with any regulation issued under section 8 of this Act for a period of fifteen days after notice of such failure, such person shiall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $100 for each and every day of the continuanice of such failure. The Secretary may asses's and collect any such penalty, and upon application therefor may remit or mitigate any siic:h penalty imposed. ( b ) Any person who knowingly vio'lates any regulation issued pur;~uant to section 8 of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding ,$2,500, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both. ( c) The penalties prescribed i~i this section shall be available to the Secre- tary in addition to any other remedies afforded tb him under this Act in enfore-. ing the regulations issued under section 8 of this Act. RESEARCH Sac. 14. The Secretary is authorized to conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of research, studies, surveys, experiments, demonstratioiis, and training in carrying out the provisions of this Act. In carrying out the activities authorized by this section, the Secretary may enter into contracts with, and PAGENO="0014" 8 APPJ~OPRL~TI0NS OTHER FEDERAL LAWS make grants to, institutions, agencies, organizations, and individuals, and collect and make available information thereon. SEC. 15. (a) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. (b) All appropriations and donations n~ade pursuant to this Act, and all permit fees or other charges paid pursuant to se~ction 8 of thus Act shall be credited to a ~pedial fund in the Treasury to be known as the Mined Lands Reclamation Fund. Such su~ns Shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, for carrying out the provisions of this Act. SEC. 1G. Nothing in this Act shall affect in any way the authority of the Secretary or heads of other Federai agencies under other provisions of law to include in any lease, license, permit, contract, or other instruments such conditions as may be appropriata to regulate surface mining operations and to reclaim surface mined areas on lands under their jurisdiction : Proi~ded, That such conditions shall be at least equal to any law and regulation established under `an approved State plan or `to any regulation issued under section 8 of this Act for the State in which such lands are located. Each Federal agency shall cooperate with the Secretary and the States, to the greatest extent pra~tiicable, in carrying out the provisions of this Act. U.s. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OrncE OF THE SEOI~ETAEY, Washitvgton, D.C., March 8, 1968. flea. HUBERT II. HuMrninrx, PresideHt of the Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Pnu5IDENT : Enclosed is a draft of a proposed bill. "To provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the States with respect to the regulation of surface mining operations and the reclamation of surface mined areals, and for other purposes." Also enclosed is a brief explanation of its majo'r provisions. We ret~ommend that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, and we recommend that it be enac~ted. It will carry out the recom- mendatio'ns of President Johnson in his message on this subject. This very important proposal is based upon the findings and recommendations of the National Surface Mine Study and the Interior report entitled "Surface Mining and Our Euviremnent," which the President transmitted to the Congress on July 3, 1967. The study revealed that 3.2 million acres of land have been affected by surface mining in the past. Furthermore, at the present time approximately 20,000 active surface mining operations are disturbing our land at a rate esti- mated to exceed 150,000 acres annually. In producing the minerals needed in our economy, it is estimated that by 1980 more than 5 million acres will have been affected by these operations. While there are many mining companies with extensive current reclamation programs, data received from various sources indicate that, as recently as 1964, the amount of land being partially or completely reclaimed was approximately 30 percent of the area disturbed in that year. At the present time only 11 States have laws requiring the reclamation of surface mined lands, and unless measure's are undertaken to insure reclamation of land's subject to surface mining in the future, our Nation's inventory of derelict lands will continue to grow. The study also showed that unreclaimed mined land is responsible in many instances for degradation of the envi~onm~nt through erosion, landslides', air and water pollution, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and the creation of bariards to public health and safcty. In our report, we propos'ed that a national programs be undertaken whiCh would include both the prevention of future damage to the land from `surface mining and the repair of lands damaged by such mining in the past. It was recommended that priority be given to Federal, State, and local programs for the prevention of future `damage. PAGENO="0015" 9 We `are reeommending at this thne only the enactment of a program to regulate future surface mining. We believe it is essential tbait the States and the Federal Government move ferwa'rd now with that part of the program. While it is impertant and desirable to remedy past mistakes if po~ssible, we `believe that It is even `more important to prevent future ones now. The reclamation of previ'ou~sly mined areas is a i~ery complex snbjeet and presents many problems. We are looking into these pro'b1em~s and hope that we can propone a workable program in this area in the not too distant future. Also, at the direction of the Preside~t we will be submitting to him by A~pril 1, 1969, a report, based on studies now being conducted, on the appropriate measures to be taken to pre~vent and control advei~se effects to the eni4ronanent resulting from underground mines and underground anining operations and the washing, sizing, or concentrating of minerals. The Bureau of the Budget `has advised `that this legislative proposal is in accord with the President's program. Sincerely ycsir's, STEWART L. UDALL, secretary of' t1i~e Interior. (The draft bill referred to is' identical `to S. 3132.) TENNESSEE VALLEY AurHoarrY, Knoa~viUe, Tenn., April 5, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, UheArman, Committee on Interior and Insalair Affair$, U.s. Senate, WasMngton, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON : In Mr. Wagner's absence I am replying to your letter of March 29 in which you request TVA's views with respect to S. 3132 Which would provide for cooperation between the Secretary of the Initerior and the state's in the regulation of surface mining operation's. We `strongly endorse legislation along the lines proposed in S. 3132, and we rec- ~ommend that the Committee report the bill fai~orab'ly. We think enactment of S. 3132 will help provide the kind of encouragement and assiStance to the states that will `persuade those not now having legislation for' the regulation of surface mining promptly to enact such legislation ; and that it will encourage those states wh~k~h `already have such legislation on the books to strengthen it and administer It more effectively. For any statOs which fail to enact and enforce satisfactory measures for the control of snrface mining, S. 3132 pi~aVi'des appropriate adminis- trati've machinery wher~by the Secretary of the Interior may carry out such functions. The BurE~au of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the presentation ~of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Cordially, FRANK E. SMITH, Director. (S. 3126, 90th Cong., second sesa] .A BILL Po provide for the regulation of present and future surface and' strip mining, for the conservation, acctuisition, and reclamation of surface and strip mined ar'e'a,si, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the senate a~uZ House of Representatives of the United ,$tates of Anverica in Congre$8 a~~sembIed, That this Act may be cited as the "Mined Lands Conservation Act". SEC. 2. (`a) The Congress finds and declare's that `the mining of minerals by -the surface or strip method, both past and present, (1) destroys natural beauty, (2) damage's the terrain for an indefinite period, (3) causes erosion of the soil, (4) contributes to water pollution, (5 ) `adversely affects commercial and in'dus- trial development, (6)~ damages real property, (7) destroys forests, wild1 f~ habi- tat, and other natural resources, (8) menk'ce's the public health and saf'ty, (9) ~cannot be made subject to uniform conservation requirements because physical and chemical conditions on spoil area's and sipoi'l-bank charat~terist'ic's can differ from S1~ate to State, county to county, baiik to bank, and even from spot to spo't on a particular bank, and (10) create's, because of the diversity of State regulations, ~or the lack thereof, competitive disadvantages fo'r firms operating in a given ~narket area and thereby interferes with the orderly an'd fair marketing of mm- PAGENO="0016" 10 erals in commerce. The Congress further finds th~t these results are detrimental to the economy oi~ the Nat~on. (b) It is therefore the purpose of this Act to provide for participation by the Fedei~ai Government with State and local governments, private, individuals, and other interested partlies in a long-range, comprehensive progr'am lb reclaim lands and waters damaged by surface and ~trip-miriing, to promote an effective contin- uing conservation land-use and management program, and to prevent further' detriment to the Nation fi~om such miMng operations throug~h- ( 1 ) the e~tthllsi~m'ent of ori:teria and sitandards for the reciamati'on, eon- serv:a~ion, and pr~tedti~n of surface and strip mined areas; (2) the en~ourage~m&it of the States to enact, or revise, and enforce laws, rules, and regulatIons for the regulation of future su~face and strip mining operati'cn~s in accca~clanee with criteria and standards at least equiv'alent t~ the criteria and ~ani1'ards es~aiblished pursuant lie this Act; (3) fimanci~a1 aft! to pr~oVi'de for resear~h and development, and technical advisory assistance, and the instiallation of dem~on~ration projects; ( 4) Oo~perat'ive programs wiith S~tate and other goverumental agencies t~ pilovide F~derial assistance for the reclafliation and conservation (~f pi~bIlicly and prh~ately olwned surface and strip mined lands; ~ ( 5) `the acqui~i'tion of surface and strip mined lands where nec~sslary in the public interest to achieve their reelamattion aix! conservation; ( ~) the prolmiotion of public recreation, flood con~trol, and 510!! erosion eontrc~1, Water pollution control, fore~try, agriculture, restoration and pres- er~~ati'on of natural beauty, enhancement of fish and wildlife hiabilliat, and other nathral re~euree values, and the public health and snfeQy ; and (7) the eliminia~hn of eonipe~itive d:iIs(advar~tago~s for firms operating in a given ma.rke~ area Whidi interfere with the orderly and pair m:arkefiing of minerals in c~mmer~e. Sso. 3. For the purpo~ses of thi~ A~t: ((a) The term `~Secretarie~" means the Secretary of the Interior and the See- retiary of Agriculture; (`b) The terms "surface mining" aiM "sti~ip mining" are interehange'alde, and nm~an the mining of m'i'ner~aIs a~ter eom~1ete removal of the surface or overbui~d'en above the deposit to be mined in a series or rows or strips, and include "auger mining" when condu~ted in cknjunction With snc'h mining; I (c) The term "overburden" meai~s the earth, rock, antI other m~teriais which lie above a n~tui~ai niiner'al deposft; (d) The torm "spdil" m~ans a~Ll overburden material removed from over the mineral after it is ~ither depo~i:ted into the area fr¼m which the miner~a~ has been removed, or 4ej~osited on undi~turbed land; (e) The term "spkil bank" m~ms the material of whatever nhture rembved and deposit~d on the surface s~ that the underlying mineral may be roeovere~l; (f) The term "stripping" means any trench, cut, ho'e, or pit formed by re-~ n~ov~al of the ~ur~a~e or miin'e'rai as a r~suit of s~ui~face or strip min'i~ng; (g) The terms "perstsi" or "operator" are i'nterchang~able and m~an person, j*rtnei~ship, assoeia1~ion, c~orponation, or subsidiary of a corporation Which own~s~ leases, or otherwi~e controls the i~se of land on which surface or strip mining' ~s eon~iudted, `which is engaged in the mining of minerals as a princip~a1, and' which is or beeom~s the ~wn~r of `the minei~als recovered as a result of such mining, and inelmies any agent thereof charged With the responsibility f~r the operntion of snoh mine; (Ii) The term "mine" means (1) an area of land from wh~ch minerals are exti~acted in nonliquki form, (2) private ways and r~tds appurtenant to such ur~a, (3) land, ex~avations, an~ Workings, stru~tur~s, ~acilities, equipment, n~aehines, tools, or other pi~operty, on the surface, i~sed in the work of extracting such minerals from their na~tural depc~sfts in nonliquid form, and (4) the area of land covered by spoil; ( I) The term "reclamation" m~ans the recondiltioning or restoration, When appropriate, of the area of land aff~tod by surface or sti~ip minihg ope~a~tions and ~ueh contiguons landis as may be neceSsary for an effective continuing use ai~d management progi~am, ithder a plan approved by the Secreta:ries; (j ) The term "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication between any State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico', the Dis- trict of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States and any other place outside the respective boundaries thereof, or wholly within the Dis- trict of Columbia or any territory or possession o~ the United ~tates~ or between PAGENO="0017" 11 points in the same States, if passing through any point outside the boundaries thereof; (k) The term "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States; (1) The term "area of land affected" means the area of land from which the overburden is removed, except that in stripping pits not more than one hundred feet in depth the area shall include the area occupied by the spoil banks ; it also includes all lands affected by roads constructed to gain access and to haul minerals; and (m) The term "operation" means all of the premises, facilities, roads, and equipment used in the process of producing minerals from a designated surface or strip mine area. SEC. ~ 4. Each surface or strip mine the products of which enter commerce, or the operations of which affect commerce, shall be subject to this Act. SEC. 5. This Act shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior as hereinafter provided. The Secretaries shall cooperate to the fullest extent practicable with each other and with other departments, agencies, and independent establishments of the Federal Government, with State and local governments and agencies, with interstate agencies, and with indivith uals or organizations. The Secretaries may request from any other Federal de- partment or agency any information, data, advice, or assistance which they may need and which can reasonably be furnished, and such department or agency is authorized to expend its own funds with or without reimbursement. The Secre- taries may also request the advice of State and local agencies and persons quail- fled by experience or affiliation to present the viewpoint of persons or operators of surface or strip mines, and of persons similarly qualified to present the view- point of groups interested in soil, water, wildlife, plant, recreation, and other resources. SEC. 6. (a) The President shall establish a national advisory committee to ad- vise the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior in the develop- ment or revision of standards and reclamation requirements as required by section 101 of title I of this Act, and in such other matters as the Secretaries may request. The National Advisory Committee shall include among its membem an equal number of persons qualified by experience or affiliation to represent the viewpoint of persons or operators of surface and strip mines, and of persons similarly qualified to represent the viewpoint of other interested groups, Federal, State, and local agencies. The President shall designate the Chairman of the Committee. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, if they deem it desirable, may establish regional advisory committees to assist them and the National Advisory Committee. Each such regional committee shall consist of an equal number of persons qualified by experience or affiliation to represent the viewpoint of surface and strip mine operators and other interested groups, Federal, State, and local agencies. (c) (1) Members appointed to such National Advisory Committee or regional advisory committees from private life shall each receive compensation at the rate of $100 per day for each day they are engaged in the performance of their duties as members of any such committee. All other members of any such com- mittee shall serve without compensation. (2) All members of any such committee shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the per- formance of their duties as members of any such committee. TITLE I-STANDARDS, RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS, AND CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF STRIP AND SURFACE MINED AREAS SEC. 101. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall develop, or revise, after consultation with the National Advisory Committee appointed pursuant to section fEi(a) of this Act, (1) Federal standards and recla- mation requirements for the reclamation, conservation, protection, and manage- ment of previously surface and strip mined areas of private, State, and federally owned or controlled lands and waters, (2) Federal standards, and mining and reclamation requirements for the administration and regulation of all future sur- face and strip mining operations in the United States, and (3) criteria and 95-623-----68------2 PAGENO="0018" 12 priorities for the selection of projects and programs for affected areas of land and water in need of reclamation in those States which are eligible for assistance under the provisions of titles II, III, IV, or V of his Act. (b) In establishing Federal standards, and mining and reclamation require- ments for the administration and regulation of future strip and surface mining operations in the United States, the Secretaries shall consider requirements which will reasonably assure the attainment of the following objectives : (1) The standards shall include, but not be limited to, grading, drainage, backfihlings, plantings, revegetaition, and any other measures or practices deemed by the Secretaries, after consultation with appropriate advisory corn- mittees, to be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) No person shall be permlted to commence operations to mine by strip or surface methods without first securing a permit or license from the Secre- taries. (3) Adequate law enforcement procedures shall be provided. (4) The posting of an appropriate performance bond shall be required, forfeiture of which may automatically involve denial of future mining per- mits or licenses. (5) Surface and strip mining operations and reclamation procedures shall be required to be preplanned and approved by the Secretaries prior to issuance of a permit or license. (6) The penalties provided herein shall apply for mining by strip or sur- face methods without a license or permit, and for willful refusal or failure to comply with the law, approved regulations, or the orders of a duly authorized authority. (7) If warranted, the Secretaries may prohibit strip and surface mining in areas where reclamation is considered unfeasible because of physical con- siderations, such as ground-surface slope, but not limited thereto. (8) Reclamation work shall be required to be integrated into the mining cycle, and appropriate time limits shall be established for the completion of reclamation. (9) Periodic reports by the operator on the progress, methods, and results of reclamation efforts shall be required. (10) Provision shall be made for the reporting and evaluation by the Secretaries of environmental changes in active and dormant strip and sur- face mining areas in order to provide data upon which the effectiveness of the reclamation requirements and their enforcement may be evaluated. Szc. 102. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the national advisory committee established pursuant to section 6(a) of this Act, shall publish in the Federal Register rules, regulations, model standards, and reclamation requirements promulgated by them pursuant to section :101. (b) The provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall be ap- plicable to the rules, regulations, model standards, and reclamation requirements promulgated pursuant to this section. (c) Any person or operator whose application for a license or permit has been denied by the Secretaries, or whose bond has been ordered forfeited by the Sec~ retaries, or who has otherwise been aggrieved by an action of the Secretaries pursuant to the provisions of this Act, may appeal to the Secretaries for annul- ment or revision of such order or action, and the Secretaries shall issue regu- lations for such appeals which shall include due notice and opportunity for a hearing~ (d) Any final order made by the Secretaries on appeal shall be subject to the judicial review by the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the mine affected Is located, upon the filing in such court of a notice of appeal by the operator aggrieved by such final order within twenty days from the date of the making of such final order. (e) The applicant shall forthwith send to the Secretaries by registered mail or by certified mail a copy of such notice of appeal. Upon receipt of such copy of a notice of appeal the Secretaries shall promptly certify and file in such court a complete transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was made. The costs of such transcript shall be paid by the appellant. (f) The court shall hear such appeal on the record made before the Secretaries, and shall permit argument, oral or written, or both, by both parties. (g) Upon such conditions as may be required, and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the United States court of appeals may, after due PAGENO="0019" 13 notice to and hearing of the parties to the appeal, issue all necessary and appro~ priate process to postpone the effective date of the final order of the Secretaries, or to grant such other relief as may be appropriate pending final determination of the appeal. (h) The United States court of appeals may affirm, annul, or revise the final order of the Secretaries, or it may remand the proceedings to the Secretaries for such further action as it directs. The findings of fact by the Secretaries, if sup- ported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. (I) Following adoption of rules and regulations by the Secretaries pursuant to the provisions of this section any person or operator who willfully fails or refuses to comply with such regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000, or undergo imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. Such fine shall be payable to the Secretaries, who shall credit it to the reclamation fund established under title VI of this Act. Sac. 103. (a) Any State which, at any time, desires to secure the benefits of the financial assistance provided in titles II and III of this Act, and to develop. and enforce standards, and mining and reclamation requirements for the ad- ministration and regulation of future mining operations by strip or surface methods within such State, shall submit to the Secretaries a State plan for the ~levelopment of such standards and requirements and their enforcement. (b) The Secretaries shall approve the plan submitted by a State under subsec- tion (a) of this section, or any modification thereof, if such plan- (1) designates the State agency submitting such plan as the sole agency responsible for administering the plan throughout the State, (2) provides for the development and enforcement of standards and reclamation requirements for regulating surface and strip mining, and for the conservation and reclamation of surface and strip mining areas in mines in the State which are or will be substantially as effective for such purposes as the standards and reclamation requirements which the Secretaries have esta~blished pursuant to this Act, and which provide for inspection at least annually of all such mines, (3) contains assurances that such agency has, or will have, the legal authority and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of such standards and reclamation requirements, (4) gives assurances that such State will devote adequate funds to the administration and enforcement of such standards and reclamation require- ments, (5) provides that the State agency will make such reports to the Secre- taries in such form and containing' such information as the Secretaries shall from time to time require. (c) The Secretaries shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the State agency and his own `inspection of mines, make a continuing evaluation of the manner in which each State having a plan approved under this `section is carry- ing out such plan. Whenever the Secretaries find, after affording due notice and opportunity for a hearing, that in the administration of the State plan there is a failure to comply substantially with any provision of the State plan (or any assurance contained therein) , he shall notify the State agency of his withdrawal of approval of such plan and upon receipt of such notice such plan shall cease to be in effect. (d) (1) If any State is dissatisfied with the Secretaries' final action with respect to the approval of its State plan submitted under subsection (a) of this section, or with his final action under the second sentence of s~bsectiOn (c) of this section, such State may, within sixty days after notice of such action, file with the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which such State Is located a petition for review o~ that action. A copy of the petition shall be forth- with transmitted to the Secretaries by the clerk of the court. trhe Secretaries thereupon shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which they based their action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. (2) The findings of fact by the Secretaries, if supported by substantial evi- deuce on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive; but the court for good cause shown may remand the case to the Secretaries to take further cvi- dence, and the Secretaries may thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may modify their previous action, and shall certify to the court the record PAGENO="0020" I 14 of the further proceedings. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. (3) The court sha~l1 have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretaries or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certifica- tion as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United States Code. (e) The provisions of sections 101 and 102 pertaining to the Federal standards and mining and reclamation requirements for the administration and regulation of future mining operations by strip or surface method shall not be applicable in any State in which there is a State plan approved under subsection (b) of this section. SEC. 104. The Secretaries are authorized at any time to cause to be made in a surface or strip mine or previously surfaced or strip mined area such inspec- tions and investigations as they shall deem necessary for the purpose of deter- mining compliance with applicable rules, regulations, standards, and reclama- tion requirements. Suo. 105. For the j~urpose of making any inspection or investigation authorized by this Act, authorized representatives of the Secretaries shall be entitled to admission to, and shall have the right of entry upon or through, any strip or surface mine or previously strip or surface mined area. TITLE TI-RECLAMATION AND CONSERVATION OF SURFACE AND STRIP MINED LANDS OWNED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES SEC. 201. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate the reclamation and con- servation of lands owned by State and local governments that have been adversely affected by strip and surface mining operations and have not beenreclaimed prior to the date of enactment of this Act to a level commensurate with the criteria and standards established pursuant to the provisions of title I of this Act, by provid- lug authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with the States and local governments to provide finalicial and other assistance for their reclamation : Provided, That when the intended use of the lands to be reclaimed is for parks or fish and wildlife, the Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into agreements respecting such lands only after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. SEC. 202. (a) (1) To carry out the purpose of this title, the Secretary of Agri- culture is authorized to enter into agreements with the various States and local bodies of government for the conservation and reclamation of surface and strip mined lands'presently owlied or hereafter acquired by them. (2) Each such agreement shall describ~ (A) the actions to be taken by the Secretary of Agriculture and by the State or local body of government, (B) the estimated cost of these actions, (C) the public benefits expected to be derived, including but not limited to the benefits of the economy of the State or local area, abatement or alleviation of land and water pollution, public recreation, fish and wildlife, and public health and safety, and (D) the share of the cos~s to be borne by the Federal Government and by the State or local body oT government: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal share of the cost shall not exceed the direct identifiable benefits which the Secretary of Agriculture determines will accrue to the public, and shall not in any event exceed 75 per centum of such cost : Provided further, That the share ~ of the State or local body of government shall not consist of funds granted under any other Federal program, and (E ) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture, in his discretion, may require as a part of any agreement under this section that adequate provision be made for access to and use by the public of lands reclaimed under the provisions of this title. (c) Each agreement entered into under this section shall contain a reasonable assurance by the State or local body of government that the reclaimed lands which are devoted to public use will be adequately maintained. SEC. 203. Whenever the Secretary of Agriculture, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, determines that there is a failure to expend funds in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the agreement for approved projects, be shall notify the State that further payments will not be made to the State from appropriations under this Act until he is satisfied that there will no longer be any such failure. Until be is so satisfied the Secretary of Agriculture shall withhold any such payment to such State. PAGENO="0021" 15 * SEc. 204, The programs authorized to be assisted pursuant to this title shall be completed not later than January 1, 1988. TITLE III-GR~NT5 TO STATES AND LOCAL AGENCIES AND OTHERS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO PROGRAMS OF RESEARCH AND DE- VELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL AbVISORY ASSISTANCE * SEC. 301. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate the reclamation and con- servation of lands and waters adversely affected by surface and strip mining operations by authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to the States, local governments, and others to be utilized in programs of research and development and in rendering technical advisory assistance. SEC. 302. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make grants to States or local agencies and other public or nonprofit agencies and institutions ( including State or private universities) , for investigations, experiments, demon- strations, studies, and research projects with respect to the development of im- proved reclamation and conservation practices for the utilization and develop- ment of surface and strip mined lands, and for the development, preparation, and maintenance of a State program commensurate with the criteria and standards adopted pursuant to title I of this Act for the conservation, utilization, and devel- opment of surface and strip mined lands, and for rendering technical assistance to States and mining operators on these subjects. ( b ) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make grants to States or local agencies and other public or nonprofit agencies and institutions ( including State or * private * universities) , for investigations, experiments, demonstrations, studies, and research projects with respect to the development of improved mm- ing techniques, for preparing and maintaining a continuing inventory of surface and strip mined areas and active mining operations on these subjects. SEC. 303. (a) Any State or local agency or institution, desiring financial as- sistance under this title shall submit a proposal to the appropriate Secretary in such form and manner as he shall prescribe, and payments may be made only for those projects or programs approved by him. (b) The appropriate Secretary may make payments from time to time in keeping with the rate of progress toward satisfactory completion of individual projects or the implementation of approved programs. (c) No project or program to be assisted under the provisions of this title may be approved unless the State in which the project or program is to be under- taken has adopted State laws which meet the standards for the mining, reclama- tion, conservation, protection, and management of surface and strip mined lands established by the Secretaries pursuant to sections 101 and 102 of this Act, ex- cept in those instances where the appropriate Secretary determines that no sur- face or strip mining occurs within the State which produces a significant detri- mental effect upon the local environment. SEC. 304. Sums appropriated or otherwise available for State projects and programs under this title shall be apportioned among the eligible States by the appropriate Secretary, whose determination shall be final. In determining the apportionment among such States the appropriate Secretary shall consider, among other things, the financial and administrative resources~ available to the State to undertake projects of the type authorized by this title, and the nature and extent of problems and adverse conditions brought about by surface and stHp mining operations in the individual States most in need of solution within the individual States. SEc. 305. The programs authorized to be assisted by this title shall be completed not later than January 1, 1D88. TITLE IV-RECLAMATION AND CONSERVATION OF PREVIOUSLY MINED LANDS OWNED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS SEC. 401. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate the reclamation and con' servation of privately owned lands and water adversely affected by surface and strip mining operations and not reclaimed prior to the enactment of this Act to a level commensurate with the criteria and standards estbalished pursuant to the provisions of title I of this Act, by authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to provide assistance to States, their political subdivisions, private organizations, and others for the reclamation and rehabilitation of such areas. PAGENO="0022" 16 SEC. 402. ~ (a) To carry out the purposes of this titI~ the Secretary of Agricul- ture is authorized to: (1) provide, upon the request of States, their political subdivisions, or legally qualified local agencies, technical assistance for developing project plans for the reclamation and rehabilitation of lands which were not re- claimed prior to the date of this Act to a level commensurate with the cr1- teria and standards adopted pursuant to title I of this ~&ct, and were not at the time they were mined subject to any legal requirements for their reclama- tion to a level commensurate with such criteria and standards ; and (2) cooperate and enter into agreements with, and to furnish financial and other aid to any agency, governmental or otherwise, or any person fo~ the purpose of carrying out any project plan that has been approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and the cooperating State, soil and water conserva- tion distrtiet, `or other political snbdivision or legally qualified local agency, subject to such conditions as may be prescriled by the Secretary of Agriculture. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture may require as a condition to the fmmishing of as~istanice thereunder to any landowner that the landowner shall: ( 1) Enter into an agreement for a period of not t~ exceed ten years pro~ viding for the installation and maintenance of the needed reclamation works or measures; (2) Install, cause to be installed, or permit the installation of the needed reclamation works or measures in accordance with technical specifications as appro~ed by the Secretary ; and (3) Provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that such reclaimed and rehabilitated lands will be adequately protected against damages result- lug from future surface mining operations. SEC. 404. The financial contribution of the Federal Government toward the land treatment and construction costs for the reclamation and rehabilitation of lands in an approved ~oject under this title shall not exceed 75 per centum of the total of such costs thereof. `Sne. 405. (a) Ea~ch project plan shall (1) descrIbe the nature of the project and the actions to `be taken by each of the public and private parties. (2) describe the p'ubllc benefits expected to be derived, (3) specify the share of the costs to be borne by the Federal Government and by the other participating parties, and (4) such other terms and conditions as are deemed necessary to protect the public interests. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture, in his discretion, may pruvide in the agree- ments With landowners that the work to be done under the project plan may be contracted fee or performed by the owner of the land involved, subject to rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture. SEC. 406. The programs authorized by this title shall be completed not later than Jannary 1, 19S8. TITLE V-ACQUISITION OF LAND AND THE RECLAMATION AND CON- SERVATION OF PREVIOUSLY SURFACE OF STRIP MINED LANDS Sne. 501. In order to facilitate the reclamation, conservation, protection, and management of lands that have been affected by surface mining operations and' not reclaimed prior to enactment of this Act to' a level commensurate with the' criteria and standards adopted pursuant to title I of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire by donation, exchange, or' purchase any such surface or strip mined' lands or interests therein and such contiguous lands as may be necessary for an effective continuing conservation land use and man- agement program. Sue. 502. (`a) The authority of the Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands,. as provided in this title, may be exercised only when he determines that: (1) The land is located within or adjacent to the boundaries of an estab- li~hed Federal unit and which, because of conditions prevailing thereon, are damaging other lands and waters inside or outside such Feder9l unit: and should be reclaimed to a level commensurate With the criteria and atandards ad~pted pursuant to' title I ocf'thts Act; (2) The land is within the boundaries of an approved project provided for in title IV of this Act and that: (A) The owners of the land are unwilling or unable to join with the other landowners in the project area in an agreement to reclaim jciintly the project lands; PAGENO="0023" 17 (B) The owners otf 75 per centurn or more o~ the lands within the prejeet have entered into a joint agreement with the Secretary of Agri- culture to reclaim aurface mined lands pur~uant to some other title of this Act. (3) No State or local governmental body desires to acquire the land in furtherance of a project to be undertaken pursuant to some other title of this Act ; an~ (4) The Federal Government should acquire the land in order to accom- pUsh the purposes of this Act. (`b) With respect to lands a~quired by the Secretary of the Interior pursuaiit to this title whidh are located adjace~t to national forest lands, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to transfer jurisdiction over such lands to the Secretary of Agriculture for administration by him in the same manner and to the same extent as are other lands within the national forest system. Snc. 503. In the case of acquisition by purchase of property pursuant to this title, the property owner shall, unless he offers to sell at a lower price, be paid the fair market value as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Owners of improved property acquired under the provisions of this title may reserve for themselves and their successors or assigns a right of use and occupancy for noncommercial residential purposes, as hereinafter provided, appropriate per- tions of the property not required for reclamation measures for a definite term not to exceed twenty-five years or, in lieu thereof, for a term ending at the death of the owner, or the death of his spouse, whichever is the later. The owner shall elect the term to be reserved. In such cases the owner of the property shall be paid the fair market value of the property on the date of such acquisition less the fair market value on such date of the right retained by the owner: Provided, That such use and occupancy shall be subject to such general rules and regulations as may be established by the Secretary of the Interior. SEC. ~O4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall conserve, reclaim, protect, improve, develop, and administer any property or interest therein acquired pur- suant to this title and construct such structures thereon as may be necessary to adapt it to beneficial public use. (b) Except to the extent otherwise herein provided, lands acquired fo~ the purpose of this title within established Federal units shall become part of such unit and shall be administered in accordance with the laws and regulations ap- plicable thereto. (c) With respect to lands acquired under this title other than those within established Federal units, the Secretary of the Interior may, under such terms and conditions as he deems will best accomplish an effective continuing con- servation land use and management program, sell, exchange, lease, or otherwise dispose of such property. When, in the judgment of the Secretary, reclamation of such property has been substantially accomplished, and such property should be administered by another Federal or State agency under conditions of use and administration which will best serve the purpose of a conservation and land use program, the Secretary is authorized to transfer such property to any such agencies. (d) With respect to any land or interest therein acquired for the purposes of this title, the Secretary may make dedications or grants for any public purpose, and grant licenses and easements upon such terms as he deems reasonable. SEC. 505. Each Federal department and independent Federal agency head shall develop and carry out a program for the reclamation and conservation of federally owned lands under his jurisdiction that have been affected by surface and strip mining operations and are not reclaimed in accordance with the criteria and standards adopted pursuant to title I of this Act. Szc. 506. The programs authorized by this title shall be completed not later than January 1, 1968. TITLE VT-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SEC. 601. There are authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. SEC. 602. All appropriations for the purposes of this Act, all moneys received under this Act from the sale or lease of federally owned reclaimed land, repay- ment and interest costs by owners of nonfederally owned reclaimed land, all donations to the Federal Government for the purposes of this Act, all moneys received from fines or forfeitures, and other revenues resulting from the opera- PAGENO="0024" 18 tions of the continuing conservation land use and management program shall be credited to a special fund in the Treasury to be known as the "Mined Lands Reclamation Revolving Fund". Such moneys shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, for carrying out the provisions of this Ac1~, including purchase and reclamation of land. Sue. 603. If any provision of this Act, or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the appli- cation of such provision or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. [S. 217, 9~th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Iiiterior to designate within; the Department of the Interior an officer to establish, coord~nate, and administer programs authorized by this Act, and the reelamation, acquisition, and conservation of lands and water adversely affected by coal mining opera~tIens, and for ether purposes Be it enacted by the senate and House of' Representatives of the United States of America in Uo~gress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Mined Lands Conservation Act." Sac. 2. ( a ) The Congress finds and declares that there are coal mining opera- tions in the Nation which continue to cause erosion, landslides, the accumulation of stagnant water, river and stream pollution, the increased likelihood of floods, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, damage to natural beauty, and the destruction of the value of land for commercial, industrial, agricultural, and forestry pur- poses ; that such despoliation of the land counteracts efforts for the conservation *of soil, water, and other natural resources, destroys or impairs the property rights of citizens, adversely affects economic development, and in general creates hazards dangerous to life and property so as to constitute an imminent peril to public health and safety ; that these results are detrimental to the economy of the Nation and should be remedied ; that because of the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical, and other physical conditions in coal mining areas, uniform reclamation and conservation requirements are difficult to establish; arid that the Federal programs now authorized to provide financial assistance for the reclamation and conservation of such mined lands are not sufficiently broad in scope to provide remedies for these conditions and need to be supplemented. (b) It is therefore the purpose of this Act to provide for participation by the Federal Government with State and local governments, private individuals, and other interested parties in a long-range, comprehensive program to reclaim lands and waters damaged by coal mining, to promote an effective continuing land-use program, and to prevent further detriment to the Nation from such mining operations through- (a) The reclamation and conservation of State-owned coal mined areas; (b) financial assistance to provide for research, and technical advisory activities; ( c ) the reclamation and conservation of privately owned coal mined areas; ( d) the reclamation and conservation of federally owned coal mined areas; (e) the acquisition, reclamation, and conservation of coal mined lands; (f) the establishment of standards for the reclamation, protection, and management of surface and strip coal mined areas; I ( g) the construction by the Federal Government, when appropriate, of ~iemonstration projects in cooperation with other interested parties in fur- therance of a program of research and development ; and (h ) the promotion of water pollution control, public recreation, indus- trial and commercial development, forestry, agriculture, restoration, and preservation of natural beauty, enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural resource values, and public health and safety. Sac. 3. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall designate within the Depart- ment of the Interior one officer with primary responsibility to administer the provisions of this Act. (b) In administering this Act the Secretary shall cooperate to the fullest extent practicable with other departments, agencies, and independent establish~ ments of the Federal Government, with State governments and agencies, inter- state agencies and compacts, and all other interested agencies, goverumental and PAGENO="0025" 19 nongovernmental. He is authorized to request from any other Federal agency any information, data, advice, or assistance which he may need and which can reasonably be furnished, and such agency is authorized to expend its own funds for such purposes with or without reimbursement. SEC. 4. Each coal mine, as defined by this Act, the products of which enter commerce, or the operations of which affect commerce, shall be subject to this Act. SEC. 5. (a) The Secretary shall establish a national advisory committee to advise him in the develo'pment or revision of standardis and reeliamla:tibn require- ments as required by section 101 of this Act, and in such other matters as he may request. The national advi~ory eornmthtee shiaill include among its mern- hers a number of persons qnalified by experience or affiliation ~o present the viewpoint otf person's or operhto]is of surfa~ce and strip cobi mines, and of persons similarly qualified to present the viewpoint of other interested groups, Federal, State, and h~ca1 agencies. The Seereta~ry sha'll desigr~ate th~ chairman of the ccrn~mitt~e. (b) The Seer~I1ary, if `he deems it desiraile, may establi's1~ regional advisory committees to assist him and the n~ationIa1 a~thnlsory c~mmittee. Eath such re- gional committee shall consist o~ memhers qualified by experience o~ affiliation `to present the viewpoint of surface and strip coal mine operators and other interested git~ups, Fed'ei~al, State, and local agencies. (c) Metmbers appointed Tham prh~at'e life to eIther the nationhi advisory committee or any regional co'mm~ttee shall, while serving the buisineas of the cYmimi'tThee, be entitled to receive compensation at rates fixed by the Secretary, but not e~eeeding $100 per day, including trarvel'time, and while so serving away from their homes or regular places of buaines~ they may be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of suh'sistenee at rates authorized by 5 U.S.C. 570g. TITLE I-STANDARDS, RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS, AND CR1- TERIA FOR THE PROTECTION AND MANAGDMEN'T OF STRIP AND SURFACE COAL MINED AREA'S SEC. 101. (a) The S~cretary `shall develop, or revise, after consultation with the advisory committee appointed pursi~ant to ~~~ti~on 5(a) of this Act, (1) Federtil standards and re'eiamia)tio'n requirements for the ree1am~ti'ion, c'onaerva- tlon, protection, an~d management of previously coal mined `a'rehs of priviate, State, and fed'eiiaiiy or public-owned or co'n~ro1ied lands and waters, (2) Fed- eral standards, an~d minting and rec'hi'matio'n requirement's ftr the administra- ti'on and regulation of all future surtt~aee and strip co~tl mining oparations in the Nation, and (3) criteria anti priorities for the sel~ction of pro'j~cts and pro- grhms for affedted ar'~as of land and waiter in need of reclamation in th~o~e States whi'eh are eligible for assiistanice under `the provision's of title II, III, IV, and V. (b) In e~ta~b'1isihing Fede'rhl standards, and mining and rec,iam'atio'n require- menits ~or the adminietpaitio'n and regulation of future strti~x and surface coal mlinling `~eIr'ations in the Nation, the Seei~etary shall eo'naid'er requirements which will reasonably assure the attainment of the following ohjeci~ives: (1) The etandar'ds shall apply to the surface or stiiiip mining of coal if its recovery produ'ceis a significant detrimental effect upon the Lo~a1 environ- men~. (2) No person shall be permitted to c'omuieace operations to mine coal by `strip or surface meth'o'dis without first `securing a permit or license from the Secretary. (3) Adequate law enforcemenit pro!eedu,res shall be provi)de~d. (4) The j~osting of an appropriate performance bond shall be required,. forfeiture ~of whi'ch may autoni'a!ticially `involve denial of future raining per- m'its or iieen'ses. (5) Surface and strip mining operations and re~lh~a~i~o'n prolcedures shall be required to be prepiia'nned, and `a'ppi~oved by the Sec'retary prior to issuance of a permit or license. (6) The penalties pi~o'vi~ded herein shall apply for mining ~oh1 by strip or surface method's w'itbou't a license or permit, and for willful refusal `or failure to comply With the law, approved regulations, or the orders of a `duly authorized authority. (7) If wari~an~ted, the Se'ciret~ary may prohibit the mining of coal in area~ where r~eTan~arion is considered unfeasible b~au~se of phy~sic~al considera- tion's, sm~h a's gro'un&surfac'e slope, but not limited theretb. PAGENO="0026" 20 (8) Reclamation work shall be required to be integrated into the mining cycle, and appropriate time limits shall be established for the completion of reclamation. (9) Periodic reports by the operator on the progress, methods, and results of reclamation efforts shall be required. (10) Provision shall be made for the reporting and evaluation by the Secretary of environmental changes in active and dormant coal mining areas in order to provide data upon which the effectiveness of the recla- ~ matiori requirements and their ehforcement * may be evaluated. SEC. 102. (a) . The Secretary, after consultation with the national advisory committee established pursnant to section 5(a) of this Act, shall publish in the J~ederal Register standards, rules and regulations which he proposes to promul- gate pursuant to section 101. Interested persons shall be afforded a period of not less `than thirty days after the publication of such standards within which to submit written data, views, or arguments~ Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary may, after the expiration of such period and after consideration of all relevant matter presented, promulgate such standards. (b) On or before the last day of a period fixed for the submission of writ~ten data, views or arguments, any person who may be adversely affected by any standard, rule or regulation which the Secretary proposes to adopt may file with the Secretary written objections thereto stating the grounds therefor, and requesting a public hearing (subject to the provisions of the Administrative Pro- cedure Act) on such objections. The Secretary shall not adopt any proposed rule or regulation respecting which such objections have been filed until he has taken final action upon them as provided in subsection (c) of this section. As soon as practicable after the period of filing such objections has expired the Secretar.y shall publish in the Federal Register a notice specifying the pro- vision~s of the proposed standards, reclamation requirements, and regulations to which such objections have been filed. (c) If such objections requesting a public hearing are filed, as soon after the expiration of the period for filing such objections as practicable, the Secre- tary. after due notice, shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of receiving evid~~ce relevant and material to the issues raised by such objections. At the hearing any interested person may be heard. As soon as practicable after the completion of the bearing the Secretary shall act upon such objections and make his decision public. Such decision.s shall be based only on substantial evidence of record at the hearing and shall set forth detailed findings of fact on which the decision is based. (d) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Secretary under subsection (c) of this section may obtain a review of such decision by the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by filing in such court, within twenty days following the issuance of such decision, a petition asking that the decision of the Secretary be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served upon the Secretary, and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and file in the court the record upon which the decision complained of was issued. The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive ; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the Secretary to take further evidence, and the Secretary may thereupon make new or modi- fled findings of fact and may modify his previous action and shall certify to the court the record of the further proceedings. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be subject to review by `the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certifica- tion as provided in section 1245 of title 28, United States Code. The commence- ment of a proceeding under subsection (d) of this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by `the court, operate as a stay of the Secretary's decision. (e) Following adoption of rules and regulations by the Secretary pursuant to the provisions of this section any person or operator who willfully fails or refuses to comply with such regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000, or undergo impriso~iment not exceeding six months, or both. Such fine shall be payable to the Secretary, who shall credit it to the reclamation fund established under title VI of this Act. SEC. 103. (a) Any State which, at any time, desires to secure the benefits of the financial assistance provided in titles II and III of this Act, and to PAGENO="0027" 21 develop and enforce standards, and mining and reclamation requirements for the administration and regulation of future coal mining operations by strip or surface methods within such State, shall submit to the Secretary a State plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement. (b) The Secretary may approve the plan submitted by a State under sub- section (a ) or any modification thereof, whenever the State gives evidence satisfactory to the Secretary that under such plan- (1) the standards proposed in the State plan conform to or exceed the Federal standards adopted pursuant to sections 101 and 102 of this title; (2) appropriate provisions are included rel~i ting to (a) the control or elimination of water pollution, (b) the control of soil erosion, (c) the elimination of health and safety hazards, (d) the conservation and pres- ervation of natural resources, ( e) the return of the land to productive use after mining, and (f) the restoration of natural beauty; (3) the State will provide adequate financial resources and administra- tive personnel to provide enforcement, plan land use, render technical advisory assistance, and conduct appropriate research on mining and recla- mation methods; (4) the establishment of formal training programs for operators, super- visors, reclamation and enforcement officials in methods of effective min~ ing and reclamation practices and techniques is authorized if needed; and (5) the State shall make such reports to the Secretary, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary shall, from time to time, require. (c) The Secretary shall, on the basis c~f reports suin~itted by the State and his own inspection of coal mines, make a continuing evaluation of the m~uiner in which each State having a plan approved under this section is c~arrying out such plan. Whenever the Secretary finds, after affording due notice . and oppor- tunity for a hearing, that in the administration of the State plan there is a failure to comply substantially with any provision of the State plan he shall notify the State of his withdrawal of approval of such plan and upon receipt of such notice such plan shall cease to be in effect. (d) The provisions of sections 101 and 102 pertaining to the Federal standards an4 mining and reclamation requirements for the ad~minis~ration and regulation of future coal mining operationis by strip or surface method shall not be applicable in any State in wthich there is a State plan approved under subsection (b) of this section. Sue. 104. The Secretary is authorized at any time to cause to be made in a coal mine or previously mined area such in'spection~ and investigations as he shall deem necessary for the purpose of determining compliance with applicable rule's, regulations, standards, nnd reclamation requirements. SEC. 105. For (the purpose of making any inspection or investiigatkn authorized by this Act, authorized representatives of the Secretary shall be entitled to admission to, and shall have the right of entry upon or through, any coal mine or previously mined area. TITLE fl-REIOLAMAPION AND CONSERVATION OF SURFACE AND STRIP MINED OOAL LANDS OWNED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERN- MENTS IN THE UNITED SPATES Sac. 201. It is the purpose (Of this title to facilitate the recl:aanation and con~ servation of lands and waters owned by State and local governments that have been adversely affected by coal mining operations ~nd have not been reclaimed in accordance with modern standards priur to the enactment of this Act, by p~oviding authority to the Secretary tic enter into agreem~ents with the States and local governments to provide funds for their reclamation. Sno. 202. ((a) (1) To carry out the purpose of this title, the Secretary is an- thorized to enter into agreements with the various States and local bodies of government for the consorvaition and rcclaniation of surface and stri~i mined coal lands presently owned or hereafter acquired by them. (2) Each such agreement shaU describe (A) the actions to be taken by the Secretary an(d by the State or local body of govnrnment, (B) the estimated cost of these actions, (`C) the public benefits expected to be derived, including but not limited to the benefits to the economy of the State or local area, abatement or alleviation of land and water pollution, public recreation, fish and wildlife, and public health arid safety, and (D) the share of the costs to be borne by the Fed- PAGENO="0028" 22 eral Government and by the State or ioea~ body of government : Providel, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal share of the cost shall not exceed the direct identifiable benefits which the Secretary determines will accrue to the public, and shall not in any event exceed 7~ per centum of such cost : Pro'sYkied fiirther, That the share of the State or local body of government ~bail not cons~i'st of funds granted under any other Federal program, and ( E) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary deems desirable. (ib ) The Secretary, in his discretion, may requ~re as a part of any agreement under this section that adequate provision be made for access to and use by the public ocf lands reclaimed under the piiovilsions of thi~ title. ( c) Each agreement entered into under this' sei~'tion shall con~ain a reasonable assurance by the State or local body of government that the re'cla~med lands which are devoted to public use wili be adequately maintained. SEC. 203. Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, determines that there is a failure to expend funds in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the agreement for approved projects, he shall notify the State that further payments will not be made to the State from appropriations under this Act until he is satisfied that there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is sO satisfied the Secretary shall withhold any such payment to such State. ~ Suc. 204. The programs authorized to be assisted pursuant to this title shall be completed not later than January 1, 1~88. TITLE 111-GRANTS TO STATES AND LOCAL A~ENOIES AND OTHERS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO PROGRAMS OF RESEARCH AND DE- VELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY ASSISTANCE SEC. 301. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate the reclamation and con- servation of lands and waters adversely affected by coal mining operations by granting the Secretary authority to make grants to States, local governments,. and others to be utilized in research projects, and the rendering of technical advisory assistance to mining operators. SEC. 302. To carry out the purpose of this title, the Secretary is authorized- ( a) to make grants to States or local agencies, and other public or non- profit agencies and institutions (includIng State or private universities), ~ for investigations, experiments, demonstrations, studies, and research proj- ects with respect to the development of improved coal mining techniques and reclamation and conservation practices ; and (b) to make grants to States for the costs of administering programs to provide technical assistance to coal mine operators to assist them to comply with the requirements of State laws and regulations relating to the pre- planning of mining operations and reclamation procedures. SEC. 303. (a) Any State or local agency, or institution, desiring financial as- sistance under this title shall submit a proposal to the Secretary in such form and manner as he shall prescribe, and payments may be made only for those projects or programs approved by him. (b) The Secretary may make payments from time to time in keeping with the rate of progress toward satisfactory completion of individual projects or the implementation of approved programs. (c) No project or program to be assisted under the provisions of this title may be approved unless the State in which the project or program is to be undertaken has adopted State laws which meet the standards for the mining, reclamation, conservation, protection, and management of coal mined lands established by the Secretary pursuant to sections 101 and 102 of this Act, except in those in- stances where the Secretary determines that no surface or strip mining of coal occurs within the State which produces a significant detrimental effect upon the local environment. SEC. 304. Sums appropriated or otherwise available for State projects and programs under this title shall be apportioned among the eligible States by the Secretary, whose determination shall be final. In determining the apportion- ment among such States the Secretary shall coneider, among other things, the financial and administrative resources available to the State to undertake proj- ects of the type authorized by this title, and the nature and extent of problems and adverse conditions brought about by coal mining operations in the individual States most in need of solution within the individual States. SEC. 305. The programs authorized to be assisted by this title shall be corn- pleted not later than January 1, 1988. PAGENO="0029" 23 TITLE IV-RBC'L~MAPIQN AND CONSERVATION OF PREVIOUSLY MINED LANDS OWNED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS SEC. 401. It Is the purpese of this title to fa~iIit~ate the reclamation and con- servation of priva1~e1y owned 1ai~ds and waters adversely affected by coal m~n'ing operatioi~s in the past, and not reclaimed in accordiance with modern s~andards prior to the enacitment of this Act, by granting the Secretary authority to enter into agreements with the owners thereof to reclaim such lands. SEC. 402. To carry out the purposes of this title the Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with the owners of lands in the Nation whi~1i (a ) were adversely affected by coal mining ope~ations prior to the ef~ectFve date of th~is Act, and (`b) were xiot reclaimed in aecord'an~e with modern stand~rds, and (~) were not on the effective date of this Art dovnred by any lnw requiring their reclamation, for the coniservation and reel'am'ation of such lands in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary : Provided, That no such agreement shall be entered into until and unless the Secret;ary has first deter- mined that (1 ) Federal acquisition of such lands by purchase or eminent dbmain as provided in title V of this Act is not in the public interest, and (2) the S~tates, or any local govarmnent body therein, do x~ot intend to acquire or lease such lands as a part of any project or program authorized under this Act. SEC. 403. (a) Agreements entered into under this title shall provkte that the work to be done on the project shall be contracted for or performed by the OWflier of the private land involved, subject to rules and regu1atien~s adopted by the S~cretary ; that the financial contribution `ott the Federal Government toward the cosls of the projeet shall be limited to the contractual costs approved by the Secreary, and that the Federal coi~trthut~on Shall not exceed 75 per centuin of the costs of planning and executing the project : Provided, That whenever in the judgment of the Secretary the benefFts to the public to be derived from a proposed project Warrai~t, he is authorized t~o provide in the agreement that the Fedei~al Governiment shall undertake to execute the project in its enth~ety, and that all or part of the costs of planning and execution of the project shall be borne by the Federal Governmei~t. (h) In every ease where funds are advnnced. by the Federal Giovern~nent pur- suant to an agreement entered into under this title the amounts advanced are t'o be regarded as a lien attached to the land involved in the agreement frotm the Iate such funds are expended by the Federal Government until repa1d in full with interest by the owners of the land, or their heirs or assigns. The Secretar~ thall specify In the agreement the amount of interest, and the terms and couth. tlons of repayment oct funds. (c) Whenever the Secretary dete~m~ines that the fa~ts and eireuin~tances jus- tify such acthlon, he is author~ized to waive the obligation imposed upon prlviate parties to repay in full the amount of funds advanced by the Federal Govern- ment as provided in this section : Provided, ~hat in the event such ww[ver is perndtited the Seor~tary shall set forth in the agreement the ba~is for hilS deter- mination that the ~a~iver is granted, and shall specify that the waiver is ~on~di- tisoned upon faithful compliance by the private parties to the agreement of all obligations, terms and condItions imposed, and that in the event the agreement is breached in a substantial manner at any time by the privete parties, or when- ever the lands involved in the agreement are sold, rented, leased or c~the'rwtse di~o's~d of by the private parties to `any third person or persons who is not a party In intej~est to the agreement, the Seioretary is authorized to detennine th~at the obliglatlon to repay in full funds advan~ced shall apply and a lien shall attach to the lands involved in the agreement until such funds are repaid In full w~th interest thereon from the date a brea~h is declared by the Secretary. SEC. 404. (a) Each agreement entered into under this title shall des~ritbe (1) the actions to be taken by the Federal Government and the pHvate p~rties to the ugreeinen~t, (2) the public benefits eapeate~1 to be derived, including but not limited to the benefits ~o tiood conti~ol, soil stabilization, water pollctiiion controt, economic growth, puIbli~ health and safety, public recreation, fish and wildlife m}an'agemenlt, (3) the share of the eo~ts to be borne by the Federal Government and by the private parties, and (4) such other terms and condItions as are deemed necessary. (b) The Secretary, in his discretion, may require as a part of any such agree.. ment that adequate provision be made for access to and use by the public of lands reclaimed under the provisions of this title. SEC. 405. (a) Coal mining operations upon and beneath lands reclaimed pur- ~uant to an agreement entered into under this title shall not be permitted until PAGENO="0030" 24 such time as the lien provided in section 403(b) has been discharged in full: Provided, That the Secretary may permit further coal mining operations upon or beneath such lands under a written agreement obligating the owners of the lands, their heirs, or assigns, to restore the land to at least the conditions prevail- lug at the time reclamation was completed pursuant to this title, and such other terms and conditions as he deems necessary. (b ) Owners of lands reclaimed pursuant to an agreement entered into under this title who wish to engage in further coal mining shall file a petition with the Secretary setting forth (1) a description of the lands upon which mining operations would be conducted, (2 ) an estimate of the number of acres to be disturbed by the mining operation, (3) the type and method of mining, (4) an estimate of the duration of the mining operation in terms of years, and (5) such other information as the Secretary shall require. (c) The Secretary shiall publish in the Federal Register a notice of intention to approve the petition, together wIth a copy of such petition and a statement that he has no objection to its approval. Interested parties shall be afforded a period of hot less than thirty days after publication of such notice in which to submit written data, views, or arguments. Except as provided in subsection ( d) of this section, the Secretary may, upon the expiration of such period and after consideration of all relevant matter presented, approve the petition upon receipt of the written agreement required by subsection 405 (a) of this section. (d) If, after consideration of the written data, views, and arguments sub- mitted, the Secretary determines that a hearing on the matter is justified, he shall publish a proper notice of a public hearing to be held in the county within which the land is located. At the hearing any interested person may be heard. As soon a~ practicable after the hearing the Secretary shall consider the terilmony and evidence produced at the bearing and shall proceed to approve or deny the petition. Suc. 406. The programs authorized by this title shall be completed not later than January 1, 1988. TITLE V_-ACQUISITION OF LAND AND THE RECLAMATION AND CONSERVATION OF PREVIOUSLY MINED COAL LANDS Sac. 501 . It is the purpose of this title to facilitate the reclamation, conservation, protection, and management of lands and waters that have been adversely af- fected * by coal mining operations and have not been reclaimed in accordance with medern standards prior to the enactment of this Act, by providing authority to the Secretary to acquire title to such lands and to reclaim them. SEC. 502. (a) In furtherance of the purpose of this title, the Secretary is authorized- (1) to acquire previously mined coal lands and such contiguous lands as may be necessary for an effective continuing land use and management program, including both surface and mineral interests, and other property, or any interest therein, by purchase with funds as provided in section 60i~ as he may find in the public interest ; but any such lands or interest in lands may be acquired by eminent domain only when the Secretary determines (A) that he is unable to ~ make a satisfactory agreement to acquire such lands Or interest in lands, and (B) that such acquisition by eminent domain is~ necessary in the public interest. In the case of acquisition by negotiated purchase the property owners shall be paid the fair market value as deter- mined by the Secretary. Owners of improved property acquired by the Secre- tary may reserve for themselves and their successors or assigns a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial residential purposes, as hereinafter provided, for a term that is not more than twenty- five years. In such cases the Secretary shall pay to the owner of the property the fair market value thereof less the fair market value of the right retained by the owner : Provided, That such use and occupancy shall be subject to such general rules and regulations as may be established by the Secretary with respect to the land involved. The term "improved property" as used in this Act shall mean any family residence and such amount of land on which the building is situated as the Secretary considers reasonably necessary to the noncommercial use of such building; (2) to conserve, reclaim, protect, improve, develop, and administer any property or interest therein so acquired, and to construct such structures- thereon as may be necessary to adapt it to beneficial public use; and PAGENO="0031" 25 (3) to sell, exchange, lease, or otherwise dispose of property so acquired under such terms and conditions as he deems will best accomplish an effective continuing land use and management program. Pransfers may be made to public or nonprofit agencies, with or without a consideration, at the discretion of the Secretary. (b) When, in the judgment of the Secretary, reclamation of property acquired pursuant to this section has been substantiailly accomplished, the Secretary shall recommend to the President an appropriate Federal or State agency to administer part or all of the property not otherwise disposed of, together with conditions of use and administration which will best serve the purposes ~f a land conservation and land use program, and the President is authorized to transfer such property to `such agencies. (c) With respect to any land or interest therein acquired by the Secretary for the purposes of this Act, to make dedications or grants for any public pur- pose, and to grant licenses and easements upon `such terms as he deems reasonable. ( d ) The Secretary may make such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to prevent trespasses and otherwise regulate the use and occupancy of property acquired for the purposes of this act, in order to conserve and utilize it for the purposes of this Act, in order to conserve and utilize it for the purposes of this Act. (e) As soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year the Secre- tary shall pay to the county in which any land is held by the Secretary under this section, 25 per centum of the net revenues received by him from the use of the land during such year. In case the land is situated in more than one county, the amount to be paid shall be divided equitably among the respective counties. This subsection shall not be construed to apply to amounts received from the sale of such land. Sac. 5O~. The Secretary is authorized to develop and carry out a program for the reclamation and conservation of other federally owned lands in the United States that have been affected by coal mining operations and are not reclaimed in accordance with modern standards prior to the enactment of this Act: Pro~ vided, That such programs may be carried out on lands administered by other Federal agencies only with the approval of such agencies, and under such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the purpos( s of this Act. Sue. 504. The programs authorized by this title shall be completed not later than January 1, 1988. TIPLFJ VJ-MJSCELLANDOUS PROVISIONS Sue. 601. For the purposes of this Act: ( a ) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior. (b) The term "reclamation" means the reconditioning or restoration of an area of land o.r water that has been adversely affected by coal mining operations and waste disposal, including all surface manifestations ~ resulting from such mining and processing whether the operation was conducted on or below the surface of the ground. (c) The term "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication between any State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Dis- trict of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States and any other place outside the respective `boundaries thereof, or wholly within the Dis- trict of Columbia or any territory or possession of the United States, or between points in the same State, if passing through any point outside the boundaries thereof. (d) The term "coal mine" means (1) an area of land from which coal is extracted, (2) private ways and roads appurtenant to such area, (3) land, excavations, workings, refuse banks, dumps, spoil banks, structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other property, on the surface, used In extracting or processing of coal. (e) The term "previously mined lands" means lands and waters adversely affected by coal mining operations and which have not been reclaimed in accord- ance with modern standards prior to the enactment of this Act. (f) The terms "person" or "operator" are interchangeable and mean person, partnership, association, corporation, or subsidiary of a corporation which owns, leases, or otherwise controls' the use of land on which the surface or strip mining of coal is conducted, which is engaged in the mining of coal as a principal, and which is or becomes the owner of the coal recovered as a result of such mining, PAGENO="0032" 26 TJ.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., April 24, 1968. and includes any agent thereof charged with the responsibility for the operation of such mine. SEC 602 There are authorized to be appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act SEC 603 All appropriations for the purposes of this Act all moneys received under this Act from the sale or lease of federally owned reclaimed land repay meat and interest costs by owners of nonfederaily owned reclaimed land, all donations to the Federal Government for the purposes of this Act all moneys received from fine or forfeitures and other revenues resulting from the opera tions of the continuing land use and management program sihall be credited to a special fund iifl the Treasury to be known as the mined lands' reclamation revolv- ing fund. Such moneys shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, for carrying out the provisions of this Act, including purchase and reclamation of land Amounts accumulating in the fund in excess of the amountsi the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be transferred to miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury SEC. 604. If any provision of this Act, or the applicability thereof to any per- son or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the applica- tion of such provision or circumstances shall not be affected thereby I Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Clwí&rman Committee on Iaterwr and Insular Affairs U.S. Senate, WasMngton, D.C. DEAR MR CHAIRMAN Your Committee has requested a report on S 217 a bill To author~ize the Secr~tary of the Interior to designate within the Department of the Interior an officer to establish coordinate and administer prbgrams authorized by this Act for the reclamation acquisition and conservation of lands and water adversely affected by coal mining operations, and for other purj~oses and on a similar bill S 3126 To provide for the regulation of present and future surface and ~ttip mining,~ for the conservation, acquisition, ai~d reclamation of surface and strip mined areas, and for other purposes." These bills would ai~tho1rize a broad program of regulation of surface ~nd strip mining ~peratibr~s and the reclamation of surface and strip mined lands, although S 217 is confined to ~oa1 mining operations exclusively whereas S 3126 is general `in seope. Within the re~~ent past, Pre~i'den't Johnson proposed the "Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968." He said that under this legislation- "Criteria will be ~stab1ii~hed which the States will use in developing lh~ir own regulatory plans. The States assisted by Federal grants ~will develop the~ir own plans within ti~o years and submit them to the Secretary of the I~ter1or for review and approval. The Secretary will impose Federal standards if the State plans are made quate or if they are not submitted." Such legislation has been transmitted to the Congress and introduced as S. 3132. In our loiter of transm'm'ttal of this legislation to the Pre~mdent of the Senate we ~ta~ed the following: "We are redommending at this time only the enadtment of a program to regu- la4e future surface mining. We believe it is essential that the States and the ]~ederal Government move forward now with that part of the program. While it is important and de~mrab1e to remedy past mi~takes if possible we believe that it is even more im~ortant to prevent future on~s now. "The recian~ation of previously mined areas is a very complex subject and presents many prohlems We are looking into these problems and hope that we can propose a workable program in this area mu the not too distant future We recommend the early enactment of S. 3132 in lieu of S. 217 or S. 3126. The Bureau of the Budget `has advised that this report is in accord with the President's program. Sincerely yours, CORDELL MOORE, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. I PAGENO="0033" 27 Senator METCALF. Now before yielding to other members of the committee or calling the ~eeretary of the Interior to make his pres- entation, the Chair will state that the committee has received a number of written statements and comments on this bill which will be included in the official record of this hearing. One is from the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio, Senator Lausche, who has most certainly been a pioneer in this field and who is a cosponsor of the administration bill. Unfortunately, Senator Lausehe `cannot be with us in person today. Without ~bjection, I will direct that Senator Lausche's statement appear at the conclusion of the remarks of any of the Senators present who wish to make a statement, and that the other communications appear at the conclusion of `Ithe oral presentations. Senator Nelson, do you have some preliminary remarks? Senator NELSON. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. Senator MEPOALF. Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. No, Mr. `Chairman. In the interest of getting on with the hearing with the witnesses here I will forego any statement at this time. Senator METCALF. Senator Hansen. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any statement. I would like to ask inclusion in the record of statements by the Wyoming Mining Association and by Hon. Stanley K. Hathaway, Governor of Wyoming. Senator METCALF. They will be included at the conclusion of the oral testimony. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY HON. FRANK J. LAUSOHE, A U.S. SENATOR F~ROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. Ohairinan and members of the Interior and Insular Affa1r~ Oommittee, I am pleased to appear before your Committee today to join in firing the first salvo of the battle of the spoil banks of 1908. I am going to speak in. general terms and am not going to go into the fine points of the pending bills because basically they seek to obtain the same objectives in somewhat similar manners. I will leave the explanation and discussion of the technical points of the bills up to the excerpts from the Department of Interior. Fundamentally, S. 217, of which I am author, and S. 3132, etC which I am co-sponsor, both follow the recommendations contained in the Secretary of Interior's report to the Oongress entitled, "Surface Mining and Our Environ- ment". May I, Mr. Chairman, at this point repeat what I said on the Floor of the Senate last July after having read this report. I commended Secretary Udall and all those who participated in the study, research, documentation, and pub- lication of this extremely important report. I urgently recommended that each Senator and each Member of the House study i.t thoroughly in order that they might become familiar with past and present problems resulting from inadequate stripped-land reclamation and also the importance and the necessity for the Congress to address itself to this subject without further delay. The results of the Secretary's study, his findings and the recommendations contained in the report are most gratifying to me, especially since they are a direct result of a bill, S. 368, which I introduced in 1965. Upon three different occasions I introduced bills~-in 19G2, S. 3304 ; in W63, S. 1013 ; and, again in 19c5, S. 38. These bills provided that the Secretary of Interior make a study of surface and strip mining operations in the United States and make a report to the Congress of the results and conclusions of such study. The bills received widespread interest and support. Finally, in 1965, the contents of S. 308 were incorporated as an amendment to S. 3 and thus became section 205 (c) of the Appalachia bill, which passed the Congress and was signed into law that year and is now known as Public Law 89-4. Complying with the provisions of section 205(c) of the Appalachia bill, the Secretary of Interior on 95-623-68---3 PAGENO="0034" 28 June 30, 194~6, made an interim report to the Congress clearly proving that in the national interests the Federal Government has a responsibility to cooperate with States in enacting laws to properly require strip mined land reclamation by the industry. Mr. Chairman, in October of 1966, I introduced a bill, S. 3882, which in some respects is similar to S. 217 before your Committee today. It dealt with the mining of all minerals. Due to the lateness of the session, no hearings were held. It was based on the Department of Interior's interim report. Subsequently, on January 12, 1967, I introduced S. 217, which is before you today. Th~ principal difference between my bill of 1966, S. 3882, and S. 217, is that the former dealt with all minerals and S. 217 deals with coal only. The principal reason for the change was that I thought that since the strip mining of coal disturbed by far~the greatest number of acres, that~problem should be dealt with first and efforts for adequate reclamation should be concentrated in that area. I am not at all adverse to including the mining of all minerals as provided in the Admini~tratiofl's bill, S. 3132. This is borne out by the fact that I am a co-sponsor of that bill. Mr. Chairman, may I digress briefly from direct reference to the pending bills and say that I have had for many years and continued to have an unrelenting interest in reclamation of spoil banks. I have been called a veteran of the battle of the spoil banks. In 1944, while traveling throughout the State of Ohio in my first campaign for Governor, I was shocked upon seeing ~ thousands of acreS of once fruitful and productive land in southeastern hill counties which had been virtually destroyed and converted into row after row of unsightly spoil banks as a result of strip mining operations and little or no attempt by the operator to reclaim the land. I observed spring4ed streams that were devoid of acquatic life and shore vege- tation as a result of toxic sulfuric pollution seeping from exposed and abandoned seams of coal in the final cut. I then solemnly promised myself that if I became Governor of Ohio, I would wage an unrelentless campaign to have legislation enacted into law which would require the strip mine operators who had taken the wealth from the land to restore it to a productive capacity. Finally,. after several attemi~ts to obtain legislation, I was successful, and, as a result, thou- sands of strip mined acres in Ohio have been reclaimed. More needs to be done, however. Mr. Chairman, while both S. 217 and S. 3182 are based on the findings and recommendations contained in the report by the Secretary of Interior, there are two principal differences. S. 217 deals with coal only and provides some Federal financial assistance to states for reclamation of pre-law or inadequately reclaimed spoil banks. S. 3132 provides for regulation of all open pit or surface mining of all minerals and reclamation of lands disturbed. S. 3132 makes no provision for Federal financial assistance to states for reclamation of pre-law spoil banks. In fact, I had some reservations in attempting to provide Federal assistance in my own bill due to the possibility that such Federal aid might re- suit in a windfall to the mine operators themselves or to private land holders. ~s. 217 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate within the Department of the Interior an officer to establish, coordin~ate, and administer programs authorized by this Act, for the reclamation, acquisition, and conserva- tion of lands and water adversely affected by coal mining operations. S. 3132 would provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the In- tenor and the States with respect to the future regulation of surface mining operations. Mr. Chairman, I have battled the powerful strip mine lobbies before. I know what advocates of this type of legislation are up against. The opposition will be unmerciful and will pull every possible trick they can ~ut of the book. They will say that legislation of this type is not needed. They have said that for twenty years and look at the unreclaimed spoil banks and those inadequately reclaimed by even the most poor standards. They will tell you that it is not their respon- sibility, yet they take the wealth from the land and in the process utterly destroy and render it useless. They will say let nature take its course ; time and the dc- ments will bring the land back to life. Gentlemen, there are unreclaimeci spoil banks in Ohio created more than thirty years ago and today they are just as barren as the day they were created. And, in addition, they will say that the cost of reclamation is too great and that they cannot afford it. The information I am now about to give you, in my opinion, will refute both the claim of non-responsi- bility and financial inability. PAGENO="0035" 29 I am directing this statement in principal to the strip miner of coal. The statisrn tics and figures I am going to use are from the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Mines. The subject is depletion allowance, that multi-million dollar windfall the industry so greedily accepts from the Federal Government and so jealously guards. This lucrative 10% Federal income tax exemption in the mining of coal is well-known among the industry, but they would rather that the public not be too aware of how many millions of dollars it amounts to annually. According to the Bureau of Mines, in 1965 there were 165,240,769 tons of coat extracted through strip or surface mining operations in this country, with a value of $637,116,233. The depletion allowance on this amonut of coal and its value was $61,233,012-or 38~ per ton. Now, I am referring to Table 7 on Page 114 of the Secretary's report on "Surface Mining and Our Environment". This table reveals the approximate reclamation cost per ton of bituminous coal and lignite mined by stripping in 19~iO by state. The table shows the per ton reclamation cost calculated on the production per acre mined, the reclamation cost ranging from $300 per acre up to $800 per acre. I am going to use the table as it refers to the state of the whole strip mine operations in Ohio. . The average production per acre was 5,328 tons. Assuming that the reclamation cost per acre * would be $300, the reclamation cost per ton of coal mined would be .050ç~ Should the reclamation cçst per acre be $500, which is considerably higher than the average, then the reclamation cost per ton of coal mined would be .094~. When you compare the per ton cost of reclamation in both instances with the depletion allowance of 38~ per ton, in my opinion, no one can justify `saying that they cannot afford it. The Internal Revenue Service permits indiMries extracting minerals from the earth a percentage depletion allowance, the percentage differing dependent upon the mineral being extracted. As an example, oil and gas have the highest, which is 271/2 %. Coal is 10%. The theory behind the granting of this depletion allowance is firstly to compensate the operator on an annual' basis for the ultimate com- plete depletion or exhaustion of the mineral in the area in which he is operating, and, secondly, to provide him with an incentive for exploration of new deposits of minerals. While the operator greedily accepts this lucrative windfall in the way of depletion allowance which is supposed to compensate him for an ultimate exhaustion of the mineral, he gives little or no consideration to the fact that while be is operating, especially in the case of minerals extracted from the surface through the strip mining method, be is at the same time, comp1etel~ depleting the land for which no restitution is made. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, these bills before you today are of extreme importance, and I urge this Committee without undue delay to report out a clean bill from the comibin'ation of the hills before you inc~rporating the rec- ommendations in the Secretary of Interior's report. And, to `the powerful mine lobby, I suggest that you recognize your moral responsibility to our Nation and citizenry and work with the Congress and n~ot against it in enacting into law a program that will rectify the wrongs that have been committed. It can be done. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Senator METCALF. The first witness is our very able and distin. guished Secretary of the Interior. He has also been a pioneer in this legislation and will present testimony for the administration bill, which will probably be the bill which will be marked up before the committee. Secretary TJdaIl, we are delighted to have you here. Will you intro- duce the staff members that you have with you and proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OP HON. ST1EWART L UDALL, SECRETARY OP THE INTERIOR ; AC'OOMPANIED BY J. COIIDELL MOORE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MINERAL RESOURCES; AND L. BOYD PINCH, STAFF ASSISTANT, OFFICE OP THE SECRETARY Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have Assistant Secretary Cordell Moore with me and Boyd Finch of his staff, who will make `the presentation in just a moment. PAGENO="0036" 30 I have a prepared statement. I am going to read most of it, Mr. Oha~irman. I would like to have it all appear in the record. Senator METCALF. Without objection it is so ordered and you can go right ahead in your own way. Mr. TJDALL. In order to give the committee a very quick insight as to some of the dimensions of the problem that we are here to discuss today I should like to begin, if I may, with a slide presentation, Mr. Chairman, that would give the committee a cross section look at the good and bad things that are happening. These are pictures taken in the field. Some of them Secretary Moore himself took, and I would like Boyd Finch to make the presentation. It will take about 10 minutes. Then we will get right into the statement. Senator M1~TOALF. Go right ahead. Mr. FINCH. (Slide 1.) This is an overview of surface mining to de- fine the terms, to give some idea of the processes involved in the mm- ing, and to show the results in reclamation and in nonreclaimed areas. Senator METCALF. Where were these pictures taken? Mr. FINCH. We will identify each one of them, Mr. Chairman, as we go along, if you wish. The first process on the land in most mining operations consists of clearing to remove the natural growth. This is a photograph taken in Cam~beil County, Tenn., and it shows what is called scalping. In this case a contour mine for coal was being under- taken. (Slide 2.) This is an area strip mine. Area mining for coal is con- ducted in flat or gently rolling country. It consists of removing the overburden, the waste material above the mineral commodity, by drag- lines such as you see in the rear and then loading the coal that has been exposed, by a small shovel such as is in the foreground. This photo- graph was taken in south central Tennessee. In this particular case about 50 feet of overburden were being re- moved to get at a seam of coal about 30 inches in thickness. (Slide 3.) This is a view of surface mining in west Kentucky. This is area mining again, an aerial view that shows more clearly than on the ground the typical corduroy effect of the piling of overburden as it is renioved to expose the coal. In the foreground you can see a large shovel at work. Both the land in the foreground and the rear have been or are being area mined for coal. (Slide 4.) This is auger mining. This took place in generally more hilly terrain, in Lewis County, W. Va. The exposed seam of coal is drilled horizontally by augers. This one is about 36 inches in diam- eter. Some are as large as 6 feet in diameter. The overburden material removed to expose that outcropping seam of coal is visible in the right foreground. (Slide 5.) This picture was taken in Anderson County, Tenn. It is an aerial photo of contour milling. ( Slide 6. ) This is coal mining in the West. This is a Wyoming scene about 30 miles east of Laramie. The situation here is a deep over- burden, 40 to 80 feet in thickness, and a very thick seam of coal, some 50 feet thick. (Slide 7.) Another form of surface mining is the open pit. This one, south of Tucson, Ariz., is not one of the large copper pits, but I PAGENO="0037" 31 it is larger than you may imagine because there is a truck in that pie- ture, down in the pit, and it is barely visible in this projection. (Slide 8.) In the anthracite area of eastern Pennsylvania deep pits are quite common for recovery of anthracite and often they are associated with large population areas. This is Carbondale, Pa. rfhese particular pits are about 150 feet deep. Many anthracite pits are deeper. (Slide 9.) Another form of surface mining is the stone quarry. This happens to be a Kentucky scene, a limestone quarry. The wall there is 230 feet high, as you can realize from the shovel at the bottom. (Slide 10.) Another type of operation is the dry pit for sand and gravel extraction. This is in Los Angeles County, Calif., and the pit is about 200 feet in depth. (Slide 11.) This is a wet extraction for sand and gravel. It is dredg- ing near Indianapolis, md. (Slide 12.) The amount of land disturbed by surface mining up to January 1965 is shown in this slide which is reproduced from the Department's report. Th~ total is 3.2 million acres up to January 1965. This shows, for instance, that coal has disturbed some 41 percent of the total acreage ; sand and gravel, 26 percent ; stone, 8 percent; gold, 6 percent ; phosphate, 6 percent ; iron, clay, and all others in smaller amounts. (Slide 13.) This shows the nationwide distribution of the disturbed acres up to January 1, 1965. The columns represent the total of all minerals mined in each State. (Slide 14.) This represents one form of reclamation or rehabilita- tion of lands after they are mined. This is a scene at Duquoin, mu., southern Illinois. It was mined a number of years ago, and has been reclaimed for quite a number of years. That is the Southern Illinois State Fairgrounds. That is the scene now of the annual Hambietonian trotting race. That is reclamation to an extensive degree with quite flatland there, as you will notice. (Slide 15.) Another form of reclamation. This scene is in Ohio, Harrison County area. That golf course was the final outcome of land that was mined for coal. ( Slide 16.) Here is a scene in Alabama, Tuscaloosa County. That was an iron ore mine. The major amount of work that was done there was simply bringing in the sand for the beach and creating the reclamation facilities. The water was there, already impounded. The result was a useful recreation area. (Slide 17.) This is Polk County, Fla. That is a rehabilitated phos- phate mine, now a citrus grove. (Slide 18.) This is Ohio, reclaimed coal strip mines in Harrison County, now used for pasture. The area that was mined is in the rear of the photograph and you can determine where the mining operation occurred by those more or less horizontal lines across the hills. (Slide 19). This is an example of man's reclamation, the planting of conifers in Blair County, Pa. This was a coal mine. That is about a 6- year growth on relatively fiatland. There isn't much cover on the ground and little brush cover for wildlife use, but there is a stand of conifers. (Slide 20). This another photograph in Pennsylvania, of a coal area. This is a mixed planting. The bank at the right was exposed by the mm- PAGENO="0038" 32 I I ing and now has cover on it There is a thick brushy growth in the right center of the photograph, useful for wildlife, and grass and some grading on the left ( Slide 21 ) This is a scene in Barbour County, W Va That is a re claimed contour strip mine for coal The high walls are still visible, of course, but the coal seam has been covered and the bench has been con- verted to useful pasture land. (Slide 22) This is Long Island, N Y , a reclaimed gravel pit high wall. That high wall is about 60 feet high. There is not too much to give you the scale there, but it is a rather highbank. ~ ( Slide 23) This illustrates a process of reclamation The dragline in the rear is removing the overburden and covering the dark colored toxic material in the bottom This was preplanned prior to mining The mine was acti\ C at the time the photograph was taken The small piles on the 1 ight of the photograph are stockpiled topsoil which will later be put on top of the land after the toxic material has been covered with overburden That scene is Preston County, W Va The cost there, in cidentially, was some $300 to $500 per acre to reclaim ( Slide 24) This is reclaiming by hydraulic seeding It is in Jeffer son County, Ohio Grading has been completed and now a mixture of water, mulch, fertilizer, and seed is being applied to the mined area. This was originally a coal mine ( Slide 25 ) This is a scene in Virginia It was a manganese mine Very simple but effective drainage control has been applied there. You can see the ditches to control storm water runoff, plus the seeding ( Slide 26) This is an active sand and gravel operation near Indian apohs Reclamation is underway at the same time that the operation is proceeding The left side of the photograph where the peninsula juts out into the \~ ater is the beginning of a reclaimed area which presum ably will be developed for housing, as are other areas in the vicinity (Slide 27) . This is Polk County, Fla. Very little reclamation has been done there. This was a phosphate mine. The water is fresh. It is use- ful ; good fishing, good waterfowl country. (Slide 28) . This is Tuscaloosa County, Ala. This was an iron mine. It has not been reclaimed. The water is useful and has been of aid to the water t'~ble in the vicinity, but the banks are rather unstahie and unsightly This illustrates both some good and some bad (Slide 29) . This is a scene in south central Illinois, an aerial photo- graph of area coal stripping. You can see that growth has been re- turned but that the peaks and ridges have not been smoothed. Those are quite steep. The bodies of water are not tied into a drainage pattern. Much more could have been done here to develop something useful if the reclamation had been planned in advance of the mining. (Slide 30) . This is an example of man's reclamation that did not succeed. The toxic, acidic, soil was not sufficiently covered wi th mate- rial that would sustain plant growth. The trees that were planted did not succeed in growing This scene in Noble County, Ohio, illustrates something is still lacking. . (Slide 31) . On the other hand, this is a scene of natural reclama- tion. It is in the Juneau district of Alaska, placer mined for gold about 40 years ago. No one did anything with it but nature has reclaimed it after 40 years. PAGENO="0039" 33 (Slide 32) . On the other hand, nature cannot always reclaim. This is the Malakoff Workings gold area in Nevada County, Calif. It was mined in the 1880's, and it still looks this way today. (Slide 33) . This pie chart illustrates the extent of reclaimed and nfl- reclaimed land that existed as of January 1, 1965. The green is that that had been reclaimed. About 46 percent of that was done by natural causes. Industry voluntarily did about 40 percent. About 11 percent was done `by law requiring the industry to do it, and some 3 percent had been reclaimed by State, Federal, and local governments. The unreclaimed lands, some 2 million acres in 1965, are about two- thirds the total. ( Slide 34) . These slides illustrate some of the problems. This is contour mining. It is in eastern Kentucky. The spoil, the overburden, was bulldozed over the rim of the bench. This picture was taken in the fall of 1965, some 2 years after the mining had been done at that site. (Slide 35) . Another scene in eastern Kentucky. This is acid water seeping out of the exposed coal seam. In the right rear you can just see where the coal is still exposed. The overburden has not sufficiently covered it and the water is coming through with acid and you are getting yellow precipitate on the bench. (Slide 36) . This is another scene of acid water, with the precipitate known as yellow boy. That is the Tygart River near Elkins, W. Va. (Slide 37) . This is a scene in Butler County, Pa., showing combined acid water and sediment from coal mining. (Slide 38) . This is near Elkins, W. Va. It shows a stream choked with sediment from coal strip mine operations. (Slide 39) . This is south-central Tennessee. This in an unreclaimed area strip mine that was mined for coal some 10 years before the photo was taken. (Slide 40) . This is Jackson County, Ala. It shows the unreclaimed spoils of an active coal mine. This was mined about a year before the photograph was taken and mining was still underway in the general area. (`Slide 41) . This is an unreclaimed manganese mine in Virginia, showing the decrepit buildings. Mining ceased there about 10 years before the photograph was taken in 1965. It still had not `been cleaned up. (Slide 42) . This is an unreclaimed bauxite mine, again in Virginia, Rockbridge County. This area was mined prior to 1940. It has now be- come an informal dumping ground for the area, which is often the fate of unreclaimed strip mines, and this illustrates one of the prob- lems that can occur. (Slide 43) . Often in coal areas unreclaimed strip mines that are used for dumps catch fire and the fire spreads into the coal seam that may still be exposed, allowing the fire to creep undeground. This is a scene in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. This is an anthracite strip pit and an un- derground mine fire. (Slide 44). This illustrates the expected growth in unreclaimed acreage in the United States in the future. The portion at the left illustrates the 1965 situation. The orange or yellow column is the total amount of acreage mined, just over 3 million acres. The green is the amount reclaimed both by man and by nature. PAGENO="0040" 34 The next columns illustrate the 1980 situation if we continue with the same ratio of man's reclamation to mining and with the same amount of disturbed acreage for mining, namely 150,000 acres of land per year. It is expected that surface mining will increase, however. The third set of columns show the one possible increase. This is at the rate of 250,000 acres per year, instead of 150,000. With the same reclamation ratio, by 1980 the situation will be as illustrated by the green column. If, on the other hand, by 1980 twice as much reclamation, about 62 percent, is undertaken by man, we will have the situation shown by the right hand set of columns. (Slide 45.) This is a listing of the major provisions of `S. 3132. I am sure the Secretary will get into these in more detail. That concludes the slides. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I thought this slide presentation was very effective and I therefore felt it would be worth the time of the committee to see some of the situations. I don't say this is representa- tive or this is a cross-section of the total national picture, but we were particularly trying to show the different kinds of situations that exist, and this was the purpose of the slide presentation. I should like to make a few general comments before getting into my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. You can see both from the number of people who are here in the room and from the witness list the tremendous interest there is in this subject. I want to make it very plain at the beginning, and I can say this with all candor and honesty because of my Department's very close tie with mining and mineral activities of this Nation, that this is a very vital industry, one that has been growing, thriving, and the ques- tion posed by this legislation is whether this activity can be carried on in such a way that we achieve the benefits to the Nation that we must have. We want a flourishing mining industry and at the same time we want to minimize to the highest extent possible the damage to other resources because, as you can see from viewing these slides, anything man does has side effects. Mining has an impact on other things. For example, one of the worst forms of water pollution is the acid mine drainage which you saw here, as well as silt. We discovered in our study of the Potomac River, for example, that the worst pollution of the Potomac, the p01- lution causing the most difficult problem, is that which occurs near Washington-not from mining but from land developers who go in with a bulldozer and strip the land and then the silt pours down the first time there is a heavy rain. So this does have a tremendous impact on our management of the other resources of the Nation. We are not here today to make a case because we would like to see the land look pretty. This isn't the thrust of this legislation. I think that all of us would like to see, wherever possible, that our land be protected, but there is a soil conservation problem, there is a problem of water quality control, there is a problem really of seeing to it that as much of these lands as possible are returned to productivity so that where there was a mine there can be a forest, or where there was a mine there can be wildlife values. This is the type of approach that we are taking with this legislation. I PAGENO="0041" 35 I want to make two other main points, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this legislation. This legislation is prospective in its thrust. It is directed toward how we carry on our mining activity hereafter in the Nation at large. There has been, as was shown by the charts, over long years with mining under the old practices, a tremendous amount of destruction done to the surface of land in this country. The bulk of it, about two-thirds of it, has been unreclaimed either by nature or by man. We took a great deal of pride and still do in this report on "Surface Mining and Our Environment" that I am sure the members of the committee have seen. One of our general conclusions is that there is an enormous task that must be undertaken at some point with regard to reclaiming these lands that already have been strip mined. This, we estimate, is in terms of cost about three-quarters of a bil- lion dollars and it is a problem that is larger perhaps and different from the problem we had with the dust bowl in the 1930's. There is discussion between my Department and the Department of Agriculture as to who should have this responsibility in the long run, and whether the States should have some of it. I have always been convinced, myself, that this work will never be done unless the Fed- eral Government does it as a national project and puts up the money, but the thrust of this legislation is to see that we don't confront some future generation with the same problem that we are confronted with today-a failure of conservation, a failure of management, and a tre- mendous bill of costs that is presented to the country to restore lands. The final point~ I want to make is that in the drafting of this legis- lation, in its presentation here, we are drawing on what I think is the favorable experience we have had during the last 2 years-in terms of the type of legislation we are proposing here-with the water pollu- tion control program which the Congress enacted in 1965. With that program the approach was that of having national legislation in order to put industry on equal footing as near as one can do because-and I will get back to this-there is tremendous gain to the Nation. In this program, too, we are putting the States in a position that if they want to provide the main leadership, if they want to draft adequate surface mine control programs, they will have the main responsibility. This approach does have the great gain to the Nation of having a piece of legislation like this, in which we have the national standards that are applicable, and we put industry on equal footing all over the Nation so that the economics are balanced out in terms of competition. I think I should report to this committee, too, that at present, I have approved 30 out of the 50 State standards on the water quality control, and we haven't had occasion to take over from the States and set the standards at the national level. There may be two or three or a small handful of States where this will be necessary. It isn't clear yet, but the system is woi~king very well. The States are cooperating and this is essentially the same approach that we propose for surface mining. To move into my statement, Mr. Chairman, I am going to begin at the bottom of the first page. It is fair to say that the reclamation of mined land has not been one of the great, long-term natural resource issues of this Nation in the past, but one of tremendous neglect. It is an issue to which most of us awakened only in recent years. This is a result of striking devel- PAGENO="0042" 36 opments in mining technology, coupled with soaring demands for mineral commodlt1es We can expect a continuing great increase in surface mining activity in the years just ahead With shovels capable now of moving 185 cubic yards of earth and rock at one bite, it is not too surprising to find that, in 1965, 35 percent of our coal, 80 percent of our copper, and 90 percent of our iron ore came from surface operations. This ti~end probably will be accentuated in the future. What do we mean when we talk of surface mining? In our Department we use the term to include such mining opera tions as coal strip and auger mining , sand and gravel pits , dredging for gold, gravel, and other mineral commodities , hydraulic mining, and deep pits for extraction of copper, iron, and other ores Surface mining is an essential part of the American industrial econ only It is going to continue Overall, 80 percent of our mineral pro duction tonnage comes from surface mines. It provides the highest efficiency in mineral recovery It usually is more economically favor able than any alternative means of mining It generally is safer for the mineworkers But surface mining has costs-costs which may not appear in the market transaction of the commodity These hiddm costs arise with the diminishing of the useful availability of land-with pollution and the hazards to human life, property, and wildlife-with the impair ment of natural beauty-with the degradation of other natural values which occurs It is of interest that public attention has focused on surface mining in the last few years It appears that surface mine reclamation is a policy issue whose time for resolution has arrived Let me make the record clear about our use of the word "reclama tion " In the context of surface mining we do not consider reclamation to mean a restoration of the land to its original condition Often this would not be as desirable as some alternative land condition Rather, we use reclamation to mean that activity which avoids or corrects damage to the lands and waters of the vicinity and leaves the area in a usable condition In some instances it can be more productive than it was originally In 1965, Congress enacted the Appalachian Regional Development Act, which recognized that adverse conditions resulting from surface mining were of national sigmficance requiring a long range compre hensive program for their elimination or alleviation, and called for 9) 2 year study Our nationwide report resulting from the study was issued last summer under the title of "Surface Mining and Our Environment" and that is the report I have in my hand and that members of this committee I am sure are familiar with It is a pioneering study and I should like to compliment my people I feel it is a bilanced study and one which represents good use of resource analysis Leadership of the study was placed in the Assistant Secretary for Mineral Resources, and I should note that some of the photographs you have just seen were taken by Assistant Secretary Cordell Moore. He and his staff slogged through mud and dust to get on the spot knowledge of surface mining conditions.. The day-to-day working re- sponsibility for the study was assigned to the Bureau of Mines PAGENO="0043" 37 Our work demonstrated that this subject refuses to stay put in any one category. To some Of our field inspection team members, surface mining was chiefly a problem of the unsightly mess that may result. Others saw it as a problem of sediment and chemical pollution in streams and rivers. Still others were concerned with the resulting loss of wildlife habitat. Use of the land after mining was of prime cork- cern to all. Should it, for example, be used for recreation, agriculture, forestry, or industrial development ? We saw some examples in the pictures a moment ago. So it is that various people see surface mining as a conservation problem, as an economic problem, as an engineering problem, an environmental problem, a land use problem, or a public relations prob- lem. There is one thing in common. They all see it as a problem. A review of our study can serve to put surface mining into per- spective. For example: 1. Every State has had some surface mining activity within its boundaries. 2. Only 14 States have laws relating specifically to the conduct of surface mining operations and the reclamation of surface mined areas, and five of these direct their attention only to coal mining. I think that is a very crucial point, Mr. Chairman, that only a few of the States do regulate it at this time. I might say in passing that some of the more recent laws show real promise and have been effective. I went down to Kentucky 2 months ago to present my own Department's Conservation Service Award to former Gov. Ned Breathitt who pioneered the strong strip mining law that was passed in that State in 1966. The interesting thing that came out while I was down there is that, while some of the industry people had violently opposed this law, say- ing that it was going to put them out of business, nevertheless under the operation of that law last year as I recall it there were 12,000 new acres of land that were stripped. There were 14,000 acres that were re- stored and reclaimed under the provisions of the new law, which shows that we can pass effective laws that are workable. 3. By January 1, 1965, surface mining had affected more than 3.2 million acres of land. 4. Despite all reclamation efforts by man and nature, and after the lapse of considerable time, about 2 million acres still need additional reclamation work-this is 3,125 square miles, or an area equal to the combined land area of the States of Delaware and Rhode Island. 5. In 1964 surface mining was biting off an estimated 153,000 acres annually. Only about one-third of the land disturbed that year was adequately reclaimed by man. By 1980 it is estimated, quite conserva- tively, that more than 5 million acres will have been affected. Sothat we see this as a long-term major problem and I think the time has come to look at it, to take the nationwide view, and to establish work- able long-term policies so that the permanent benefits to the Nation at large can be achieved in terms of mining and in terms of the ultimate use of these lands. This then is today's picture. Our first task is to insure that tomor- row's inventory of damaged lands is no longer. Once we are assured that the buildup is halted, we can turn our attention to past damage. PAGENO="0044" 38 This is the primary reason that we feel at this time that S. 217 and S. 3126, which deal with the reclamation of the already damaged lands, are more appropriately subjects for later consideration. We in the Department of the Interior believe that in many situa- tions it is possible for society to benefit both from the use of the minerals of the land and from the use of the land itself after mining operations have been completed. One of the essentials in this is a recognition that proper mining practice today includes reclamation-not that reclamation merely is some follow-up treatment after the mining is done. This was not the general practice in the past. The Nation must be assured from now on that good mining practice is used and that the possibility of damage off the site of the mine itself also is taken into consideration in the mining operation. This was not, of course, the general practice in the past. The public recognizes the need for mineral commodities, and that they do not occur in economic deposits everywhere. Good land use planning can enable mining to continue while providing protection and reclamation of other natural resources. With such foresight, many areas from which minerals are extracted will lend themselves to sub- sequent uses. Ihese concepts are not really new ; what is new is (that their valid- ity has been co~firmed by our nationwide study which gave atten- tion not only to the ravage of past mining, but also to the assessment of current conditions and to the future possibilities. As is evident to even the casual reader of our reports, it is recom- mended that a Federal surface mining program include the repair of past damage. But, in a time of hard priorities it becomes most impor- taut that we assure reclamation of future mined land. As we note j(fl the report, a public dollar spent to assure the pre- vention of future damage can be many times more effective than one spent on repairing lands already damaged. I think I have already made it plain, prthably because I see no other way to get the job done, that the way we are going to repair the (damage of the past- representing the old policy of, in effect, letting future generations pay the bill-is -for the Federal Government to do that job. Essentially, however, what we are proposing, if the states will co- operate and we can have a national program now, is that industry will do its reclaiming work and pass the cost on as part of the price of the product of acquiring these minerals for the Nation, so that we won't present some future generation with a big bill for the way we carry our mining activities today. We believe that by means of the procedures proposed in S. 3132, we shall attain a method of (determining the relative benefits of various land use alternatives, prior to mining. For a given mining site at a given time these alternatives might be: (a) surface mining without reclamation; (b) surface mining with reclamation; (c) underground mining only; (d) no mining whatsoever. Based upon our national survey, we expect that instances will be found where surface mining should not be permitted at present be- cause there is no technically feasible way of avoiding undue damage PAGENO="0045" 39 to the surroundings. It also is probable that situations will be found where it is needless to require that any reclamation be undertaken. Undoubtedly, some will say that enactment of this bill will inhibit the development of the mining industry and cause severe economic losses. We all heard this in connection with our national water and air quality standards legislation. But industry has responded to those standards. I read an article in "Business Week" this week that shows the tremendous increase in investment by American industry in water pollution control facilities. Some said they wouldn't do it unless there were tax incentive. Well, they are doing it and I think they deserve credit for doing it and the figures that come in I regard as highly encouraging. As I said the other day in connection with the water quality hear- ings in the House, if industry continues to move at the tempo it has recently, I think you are going to see some very significant improve- ment in our environment. Most members of industry know that the national sentiment strongly favors effective measures for the pro- tection of our natural resources. I think this is truly encouraging. Industry is not complaining the way it did recently. I think the enlightened people in industry realize if you put all of industry on the same footing, if all are put to the same cost of carrying out reclamation measures, that then this adds to the cost of doing business, it adds to the cost of the product, and the cost is borne by the Nation as a whole. This is a sound and economical way of doing our business. ,s. 3132 proposes to step up this action by creating a State-Federal relationship through which States would develop programs promoting an appropriate balance between the extraction of minerals and the need to preserve and protect the environment. The goals sought are not punitive nor are they visionary. On the contrary, we are offering a moderate, orderly, and practical approach, tailored to meet local needs and providing for detailed con- sideration of regional conditions. I would not suggest, for example, that the Bingham Canyon pit in Utah, or the Hull-Rust pit in Mm- nesota, be filled with earth and rocks when operations cease at those great metal mines. May I say to the chairman that this also is not necessary or possible in the copper mines in Arizona or Montana, because of their size and because of the places where they occur. We believe that Federal encouragement is needed to assure that all 50 States-not merely some as at present-regulate surface mining and that `all forms of surface mining are covered. We further believe that some minimum basic requirements for such State action are required to serve the national interest and to assure some equity be- tween States, and equity within industry. Remember that surface mining is not confined to the States where some controls already exist. The thing that was fascinating to me about one of those charts just pictured was that every State in the Nation had some surface mining activity, and it was interesting to me how this was roughly balanced over the Nation as a whole. You could see the coal mining States, particularly Ohio, Pennsyl- vania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. There has been more surface mining in them than in other parts of the Nation, but there is activity in all 50 States. PAGENO="0046" 40 Sections 7 and 8 of this bill would coordinate Federal and State activities which, because of the wide diversity of climate, geology, topography, and land use throughout the United States, must rec- ognize local conditions. We tried to draft the legislation to give that flexibility. We think this is wise. We consider that a single set of national standards would be irn practical and undesirable We are aware that there has been some dis appointment that S. 3132 proposes general criteria-not precis~ mining and red amation requirements We believe quite strongly, however, that to be more specific in this legislation would be a grave mistake A number of factors bear on this problem. ~ This is not a local zoning plan nor a State law, it is a bill spanning a continent. It covers every form of surface mining, accentuated by manifold local variations. ~ ~ Mining and reclamation technology is in a constant state of flux Mining and reclamation which is impractical in som~~ areas now may be quite feasible next year, because of some new development of ~ tech- nology Public requirements for the quality of environment for land use, for water quality, for scenic beauty, also are in ceaseless change This is quite evident from the numerous revisions that have been made in State reclamation laws during the past 20 odd years We want to avoid repeated appearances before the Congress to seek revision of the Fed eral law, and I imagine you are in sympathy with this. Our national need for mineral commodities and other natural re sources also changes over time, and we cannot clearly foresee what the exact pattern of priorities for use will be in 1970, 1980, or 1990 Under S 31~2 each State would have the first opportunity-lust ~s we provide with water quality control-to control mining and reclama tion to meet the criteria of the bill, taking into account the specific conditions in that State or that region Each State would be encouraged to develop reclamation standards appropriate to its own needs, with review and approval by the Secretary Each State ~ould be expected to hold public hearings-with the general public given a real chance to participate. This is the key. * ~ * ~ ~ . I think the experience of the States has been that any mining instru ment that doesn't have enforcement provisions and binding provisions really isn't worth the paper it is written on. If we are to avoid some of the problems encountered in the past, bonds must be posted by mining oper'ttors for a sum large enough to reclaim the land to the approved mining plan, in event of forfeiture by the operator To be acceptable, a State plan would lia~ e to pi ovide adeqwde measures of enforcement, funding, .and'personnel. ~ ~ . . ~ We also provide technical and financial assistance, up to 50 percent of the cost, to the States for developing and administering regulatory plans. ~ . ~ . ~ The bill provides for Federal monitoring of the State's performance in establishing and enforcing regulations, again just as we are going to do and are doing in water pollution control. The intent is to insure consistency and equity between States, without requiring uniformity Feder'il regulations would be imposed only in States that choose not to exercise this regulatory function to meet the Federal criteria. Again PAGENO="0047" 41 I thiiik you have a sound approach here to what we have called crea- tive federalism. Once adopted and approved, the Stat.e plan, including enforcement, would aI)1)ly to Federal lands and Indian lands within the State. Federal regulations, if any, applicable to these lands wotild have to be at least equal to those established under the approved State plan. As the chairin an and committee members probably know, after our report CflfllC out last summer `~T~ did publish proposed regulations for regu- intion of Federal lands so that the Federal Government could begin to ~et the pattern that we are trying to develop nationwide. \Ve hadi comments on these Prol)osa]s that came in, terminating in December as I recall it. We are studying these comments and hope to come out witli new proposed regulations in the very near future. I am aware, Mr. Chairman of the delays built into S. 3132, but they are necessary delays which cannot be avoided if, in truth, we are to give the 50 States a fair opportunity to undertake surface mine regulation. Maiiy legislatures meet only in alteriiate years and, thus, a 2-year- wait is necessary in order to assure that every State will have had O~)pOrtllnity to pass the necessary enabliiig legislation. `~\Te shall be in contact with each of the States during that 2-year 1)eriod. hopefully, they will invite us to work with them. In aiiy event, it would be our expectation that before the 2-year l)eriod has run, we will imow whether State X or State F is likely to submit an ac,cel)table plan for Federal approval. In the event that some State does iiot appear to be moving toward that goal, we shall draft regulations for that State, consulting with Ofle or more advisory committees, so that the Federal Government will be ready for early action once the 2 years have passed. \2~7e have included in the bill provision for a 1-year extension period for the State to submit its plan. This is only for the purpose of avoid- mg duplication on the part of the Federal staff in those exceptional cases where we are certain that the State is moving effectively to formulate an accel)table State plan, but will not be able to meet the 2-year time limit. If we do find it necessary to draft Federal regulations for a State unwilling or unable to submit an acceptable p]anq we will consult with conservationists, industry ~*eople, and State officials before taking 01_il. action. This bill does not address itself directly to the environmental prôb- loins of mineral exploration or to conventional oil and gas production. In our role as the major landlord of the Nation, however, the Depart- ment of the Interior is reviewing these problems and our authority to deal with them on lands under our jurisdiction. We have reported to the President that there is no uniform Fedei.~aI policy on reclamation of surface mined Federal lands. The executive branch can and should improve its overall position with regard to mined land management and to procurement of mined commodities; and we are proposing that we set the example for the States and for the Nation in this regard. Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I would like to say that I think this has been one of the conservation problems that unfortunately has received the least attention of any in the Nation. PAGENO="0048" 42 I think we are wealthy enough now as a country, I think we know enough thout reclamation, about soil conserva~ion, thout water quality management, that we can carry out modern mining, using these mar- velous max~hines that are available, and still minimize to the greatest degree possible the damage to the land, maximize its restoration, maxi- mize its usefulness for `the future. Knowing who is in the room here today, I would hope that the industry spokesmen and industry rep- resentatives will see the constructive potential for this industry if we can have a program of this kind. I would hope that the State people who are here will see that we want them to provide leadership and initiative. This is encompassed within the concept of this bill and we hope again that they will see that the national approach is the soundest and wisest approach and that they will get busy and exert leadership at the State level. This completes my statement. It always is a pleasure to appear before the .oommi~tee. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for your very comprehen- sive and comph~te discussion of this problem, Mr. Secretary. Senator Nelson? Senator NELSON. Mr. Secretary, about 3 years ago I spent 3 days fly- ing over Tennessee, Kentucky, parts of Virginia and West Virginia, and a little bit of Ohio and also I have di~ive'n t'hrougth fairly large sections of each of these States except Ohio. I saw more reclamation in your 10 minutes of photographs than I have seen in the numbers of days I have driven through the area, whidh tells me that this repre- sents some very is~1'ated but dramatic examples of what can be done rather than any typical display of what has been done. However, I think the real tragedy here is that, in the management of all our resources-water, soil, forests, air, wilderness, scenic beauty- we never move until catastrophe has struck us. We are in that situa- tion, as you well know, respecting the waters of America, and the air and the seethe beauty, and now we are in that situation respecting mining. What troubles me about it is that, although this is certainly a good step forward, the bill, I think, is too little, too late. Maybe the Congress couldn~t pass it all in one bill. I recognize and I believe that as Secre- tary of the Interior your record ranks among the most di~tingui~hed, if not the most distinguished, in regard to concern about our resources of any Secretary in the history of the country. I am not saying this in any way critical of you, because I don't know of anybody who has dedicated as much creative energy and effort toward solving our prob- lems in the field of resources as you have, but this bill doesn't do anything about past damage. There are about 1,300,000 acres of unreolaimed damaged land east of the Mississippi. The bill that I introduced, as you are aware, under- takes to cooperate with and give aid to local communities and States whidh own property that needs reclamation, as will as to private own- ers. It seems to me that, if not in this bill, at some stage i4g~ht behind it we ought to have legislation that undei~takes to do something about the land that has already been destroyed. Now, if the reason for not making provision for the reclamation of already mined land in this bill is that it would be too expensive a pack- age to pass all at once, then that is the only way I could justify passing legislation that is exclusively prospective in its effect. PAGENO="0049" 43 My proposal is n~t exc~usive1y prospective and I would hope we would get at that question and get at it this year. ~111 looking at the statistics I think the figures on reclamation are misleading in that, of the 34 percent of land restored, the figure presented in the slide, about half of that was natural restoration, but, as we all know, if you take a look at natural restoration it is really a kind of a green lie. When you look closely it is crabgrass and quack grass and brush and there isn't much of any value in terms of human recreation and there isn't any value in terms of adequate resources for the survival of wildlife. I have seen some English sparrows and some rodents, but that is about all that can survive in that land, so the natural restoration in most cases that I have seen really doesn't amount to anything exoept that there is some green growth and from a distance it looks all right. It doesn't have any recreation value for anybody, either recreation or economic value in terms of grazing. The question I have here is, Why doesn't this bill include the Agricul- ture Department, with the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service, because, unless I am mistaken, almost all of the expertise in `the Federal Government in terms of watershed management, forestry and soil reclamation, is in the Soil Conservation Service. In the past 5 years the Soil Conservation Service has worked with some 5,000 cooperators in about 500 districts in some 31 States and reclaimed 127,000 acres of mined land. I am wondering why we don't include the Secretary of Agriculture and all of the expertise of that Department as part of a cooperative effort along with your Department in this program. Mr. UDALL. Senator, let me answer your question in this fashion. I think the legislation you proposed, as is usually the case, is highly constructive. I wish the overall budgetary picture were such that I could do battle successfully as I wanted to do downtown with regard to a program of this kind. I can't think of a better way to put the unemployed `core at work in this country today-This is exactly what we did in the depression with replanting of forests and other things-than to restore the damaged lands, because then we are building back the capital base of the country. I hope that we can move on this front fairly soon. Confronted with the situation that we have today, however, I think this legislation does represent a big step forward. With regard to the Department of Agriculture and its expertise, in soil conservation in particular, when we get to the problem of the restoration of these lands that need to be reclaimed because of the policies of the past, there is serious discussion within the administration as to where this responsibility should lie. I don't want to detract in any way from the fact that I have the very highest regard for the Soil Conservation Service, and for the Forest Service, in terms of their conservation management. We have expertise of our ~wn in Interior, and all of us are going to have to decide at some point whether to work on this together- as we did on most aspects of the report-and where that lead respon- sibility should rest. I certainly feel, because of our own knowledge of the mining industry and its problems, of our own concern for water pollution and our responsibility for pollution control, of our overall 95-623-68----4 PAGENO="0050" 44 responsibility concerning na~tura1 resources, that the administration of this act Should properly b~ in the Department of the Interior. I think Agriculture certainly has a strong case that on the reciama- tion side they should have a major responsibility. I want to be frank enough to say that. Senator NELSON. But their expertise isn't just in reclaiming the damaged land. I don't know what your Department has done in this field, but I don't think any department has come close to matching the efforts of the Soil Conservation Service in 5 years in reclaiming 127,000 acres of land in cooperation with over 5,000 private land- owners. The reason they are qualified to do reclamation is that they are experts in watershed management and work in it all the time. They are experts in soil management. The Department has the Forest Service, which `has the expertise in `forestry, and though your De- partment has people who understand mining ; mining isn't the prob- lem here. Private enterprise has showed us how to. get the coal and ore out and desecrated the landscape along the way. I am sure you have plenty of mining experts who understand how to get the ore out too, but the Soil Conservation Service has the expertise that understands water- shed management, drainage problems, ` restoration of the soil , topsoil, proper use of the topsoil, and in every single area whc~re there is a mine in America there is a soil conservation district. They have been at this for 40 years and everybody who is familiar with the work of the Soil Conservation Service, as I have been for 20 years, recog- thzes (1) that they have the expertise ; (2) that `they have the con- fidence of the local people with whom they have worked all these years, and they are there and on the spot. It seems to me a tragic omission to fail to include them in this cooperative effort. I don't know where your expertise is that matches theirs in this area. Mr. UDALL. Senator, I don't want to be too modest about my own Department and I am certainly not going to indicate that simply. because my Department regulates the development of resources we have any less concern with the quality of the environment than the Department of Agriculture does. Senator NELSON. I don't think you do. I didn't say that. Mr. UDALL. Indeed, what~ we have tried to do is to orchestrate the whole effort so that. we carry out our total natural resources activities in a balanced way. I will concede that the Sthl Conservation Service, which has a major responsibility, ~nd that Agriculture, because of the fact that the highly successful Soil Conservation Service has been in that Department, have a special expertise. But when it comes to water- shed management I won't defer at all to Agriculture. I have the Geological Survey. I have the Water Pollution Control people. I have under my jurisdiction far more land than the Forest Service has in terms of the total lands of this country. Nearly 30 percent of the land of this Nation is under the manage- ment of my Department, and so our competence runs rather large in this entire area. I want at the same time, because Ed Cliff is here, to indicate that I think the Forest Service is highly competent and that they do an excellent job and I wouldn't want to say even that we do better than they do. I have a high regard for their ability to do their PAGENO="0051" 1 45 job, but I don't want you to disqualify my Department in this field at the same time. Senator NELSON. Mr. Secretary, I wasn't suggesting disqualifica- tion. I was suggesting adding the expertise that is available through- out the Federal Government. Where, for example, in any one of these areas on the private lands do you have employees of your Department working? Soil Conservation has experts in the area right now and they have been there for years and years-40 years-working in the area. You have all kinds of experts. An awful lot of them are here, but you have nobody that I know of. in my State, save one, who is a first-rate fellow, top notch. But we have Soil Conservation men in every district in the State of Wisconsin. They are Federal employees and they are on the spot. That is my point. Why don't we use them ? You don't want such expertise to be competitive but to be used. Mr. TJDALL. Senator, you are quite right in terms that the Soil Cfln- servation Service is a national program and is in all of the States. We also have a "Soil Conservation Service," a very good one, that manages the Bureau of Land Management lands-they are mostly in the West. We have a "Soil Conservation Service" in the Indian Bureau man- `aging Indian lands, also, but the problem that we are going to face with thisbiil-I am talking now about Senator Jackson's bill, not your bill, and I differentiate between the two, as you can see-is that in terms of working out the type of standards that we are going to need, the type of national program with the States, I think Interior should use the expertise of Agriculture in drafting these as we did in carry- ing out our report. They played an important role in that report, but I think that my Department is the proper one to manage this new national program with regard to the future because we are doing something very similar to this `with the States . in the water pollution control program. It is working very well,' and I think with our intimate knowledge of the mining industry, because that gives us some insights that we would otherwise lack, we can do the job. I think part of my job, if I can do it, and I ha:ve tried to do it for 7 years, is to persuade the petroleum industry, and the mining industry, and `the other us~ industries that they have heavy duties and responsibilities in terms `of conservation, in terms of carrying out'their activities, so that they do not do damage to `the other resources of the Nation. I think we have made some real headway and I would say the coal industry, for `example, has really turned around in the last few years. It may be that many of the pictures we showed you are recent, and they are, because there wasn't much reclamation until a few years ago, but the industry is doing a lot YQiuntarily. . ` I still don't think it is enough `and I wduid like to see it done' on a national basis with equal footing for industry, but I think `we can move the mining industry in the same direction that the water using industries are moving with water pollution control, if we act now. Senator NELSON. Mr. Secretary, a couple of aspects about that. In the first place, if you hadn't been hitting them on the head at the State level and furnishing them guidelines a lot of them wouldn't have come up with `water quality standards, anyway. PAGENO="0052" 46 Secondly, most of the States that I am familiar with have a lot of expertise in water. They all have a conservation department and in any State where you have water you have people who have some expertise in this field. My State doesn't have any expertise in the problem that you are talking about at all and the miners are in Black River Falls and are going to open up a big taconite operation. They are going to open another big taconi'te operation in northern Wisconsin later and if it is not properly controlled they will spill the water all over the place and desecrate the landscape. Who do you have on the spot in my State who, at the time of develop- ing programs, understands the preservation of the watershed ? Is there anyone physically there who has the expertise to help set up these guidelines for mining at Black River Falls, for the mining in Ashland, Wis ? I don't know of anybody, but the Soil Conservation Service has men there. Mr. UDALL. Well, I don't want you to overlook the oldest and I think one of the best conservation agencies in the Federal Government, which is the Geological Survey, which is in your State and which is gathering data on not only mineral resources but on water. One of the things I learned when I became Secretary was that as far as geologists are concerned water is a mineral and their approach to the environment is a complete one. It is not as though we don't have representation there in your State, but I will be quite frank with you now that you have brought the point up. I think the responsibility at f ~ State level might very properly be placed with conservation agen- ~ies rather than letting their State mining resource agencies operate the program. I think if they don't bring the State conservation agency, the State resource agencies-whatever title they give it-if they don't give them a major role in this we may find that most of the States are unable to formulate programs and we will find ourselves imposing a national law, and if the States won't act I am in favor of Federal action. I am in favor of legislation of this kind just as I am with water because I think once we have a national goal and once we indicate that we are going to have national standards and a national approach, then everybody either has to get aboard or we will run the thing from Washington, and I think that is as it should be. Senator NELSON. Well, I think maybe, again to satisfy whatever it is, whims of the Congress, so you put the States in. I think you know and I know what that means. A few States will come up with some decent standards. Most of them won't and there will be a number of reasons for that. The influence of the miners or the mining companies, and so forth, and so on, in the States would be important. You are going to need a national standard in any event because you have the same problem you have with water. If the standards aren't fairly equal, as you well know, then the industries will say, "Well, we have competition in Mississippi," or Alabama or some other place, "and it costs us more to treat our water here and meet the water standards of this State than it does there. We will move." PAGENO="0053" 47 So you really end up by having to come up with standards at the Federal level. WThat I think this really does, to be honest about it, is simply delay effective action for 2, 3, 4, 5 more years when the fact is we are eventually going to have to set the standards: at the national level. I don't want to push this point any further. I just say I am not satisfied, Mr. Secretary, with your answer in not including the Soil Conservation Service. But at the same time I am not critical of the people you have. All I am saying is, why leave this remarkably able group of people, who have been on the spot for 40 years ~nd know this field out from participation in this bill. I am not satisfied with the answer I have gotten. Mr. TJDALL. Senator, let's bring this thing in very sharp focus be- cause if you were expressing the opinion that there should be language put in the bill giving them a responsibility and requiring that they work with the Secretary of the Interior on formulating standards and guidelines and approving State action, that would be one approach toit. However, in my judgment this would not work wefl-to have two Secretaries and kind of a joint steering arrangement. There has to be one Secretary who has the final responsibility. If you feel that the responsibility ought to be with the Secretary of Agriculture, and if you favor that approach, that is one answer. Frankly, with all due regard, I would feel that, balancing everything out, the responsibility would better lie with the Secretary of the In- tenor because of our broader responsibilities in the whole natural resources area, than with the Secretary of Agriculture. When you get to the problem posed by your bill and the other bills of what do we do, how do we reclaim these several million acres that have been mined over the past 100 years and where the miners just walked away and left them-where they are damaging our water and they are reducing the productivity of our land-I think Agriculture might make out a case that they ought to run that program and that the Secretary of Agriculture ought to play the lead role, but I want you to understand that I am not averse to working with Agriculture on all this and I could work with them extremely well. I believe that Secretary Freeman and I have worked as well together as any two Secretaries holding these two jobs. But I do feel that the basic respon- sibility should be in one Secretary, and I think as far as this program and Senator Jackson's bill are concerned it should be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior. Senator NELSON. I am not quarreling about that. What I am trying to say is that we are all taxpayers. We are paying the taxes to support the Soil Conservation Service, and the Interior Department, and Forest Service, and all the rest. One of the problems in the Federal Government and one of the things that upsets people so much is that there is just endless duplica- tion of effort and endless bureaucratic hiring of people to do things that could be done by expert employees who are in another depart- ment. But somehow or another we can never get around to doing that because they are two separate departments and somebody has to have the responsibility. PAGENO="0054" 48 I don't see any reason in the world why, when you undertake to review a mining operation that is going to start, whether it be in Black River Falls, Wis., which worries me very much, or some other place, you cannot write into the legislation that the Soil Conservation people will be called in as advisers and consultants and that as to their work on this mine their direction comes from the Secretary of the Interior. They would be working under the Secretary of the Interior's responsi- bility. I don't see any reason in the world why they cannot do that. The personnel are there. The expertise is there. They live there. They have worked in the State all these years and you have the live bodies right there without any additional expenditures. I don't see any reason why the law shouldn't be that when you ask the Secretary of Agricul- ture, he shall furnish the people he has in the Soil Conservation Serv- ice for the particular responsibility and the direction will come from the Secretary of the Interior. What is wrong with that? Mr. UDALL. Senator, I don't have any quarrel with that argument and in fact have no negative feeling at all if this is what you are talk- ing about. If you are proposing to oust me and put in another Secretary and give him the responsibility on this matter, I disagree. If you are proposing to require that we use the expertise of the Soil Conservation Service and you want to write this into the law and put it in the report on the bill I think it is most constructive. Senator NELSON. I was never proposing to oust you. . I was just proposing that we ought to use the assets that the Government has on the ground there. It bothers me to see all this bureaucratic haggling about how we can't use some of this personnel because they belong to another department. Senator METCALF. Mr. Secretary, I think you have been over modest in selling your own Department. Of course the Bureau of Reclamation has reclaimed more land than any other agency in the Government, has taken one class of land and reclaimed it to another. This is a problem of turning one land use to another, as you pointed out in the slide presentation and in your discussion. Maybe we won't return this land which was formerly agricultural to agriculture. Maybe the Fish and Wildlife Service will get in and make it a recreational area, so there are strong and persuasive reasons why the various branches that you have should administer this. I have no hesitancy. I know that the Forest Service, which has done a superb job of administering our forest resources, has infiltrated your department. Ed Crafts came over to take over the Bureau of Recreation and Boyd Rasmussen is handling the Bureau of Land Management, both of whom came out of the Forest Service. Mr. UDALL. If I may say so, one of the smartest things I have done as an administrator was to steal a few of Ed Cliff's best people. I will admit that. Senator METCALF. I think you have probably robbed the Forest Service of sonie of their best, most expert administrators. Mr. TJDALL. I am n~t through yet. Senator METCALF. Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation, Mr. Secretary, for your statement and the~ slides that PAGENO="0055" 49 did show us that conditions are deplorable throughout the country, conditions which we hope can be forestalled by a little better foresight on the part of all of us. First, let me say I am in hearty agreement with the basic purpose of the bill. I also concur that steps must be taken to stimulate and ac- celerate the efforts of responsible mining companies in developing effective programs to minimize the damage which your slides show to our land and other natural resources caused by surface mining opera- tions. These steps must be taken by the higher echelons of government. At the same time, Mr. Secretary, those responsible mining com- panies that are engaged in surface mining are concerned about any proposed legislation that impose controls at the Federal level and in the hope of clarification giving some clearer meaning to some of the sections of the bill, I have a few questions I would like to propound to you. On page 3 of your statement you say : In the context of surface mininge we do not consider reclamation to mean a restoration of the land to its original condition. That is a fair statement. You pointed out also that a lot of the pollution that occurs here in the Potomac was caused by subdivision developers who can break the surface of the land and when the rains come it washes the silt and clay into the river and we get pollution from that source. So there must be a reasonable accommodation here of proper mining of the surface or development of the surface and still be able to live with conditions that may be imposed by the Federal Government. I fail to find any section of the bill that says what you say in your statement here. Why doesn't the bill say that, in the context of surface mining, reclamation is not considered to mean a restoration of the land to its original condition. I don't find such langauge in the bill. Mr. UDALL. Well, I think certainly the language in the bill and the language in the rep~rt of the committee will want to address itself to this total problem. On the basis of what I have seen the best result if you are going to carry out a particular mining operation oftentimes doesn't require restoring land to its previous condition. Now, I have watched the National Coal Board of Britain with great interest. They usually take the topsoil off, do their mining, put it back on, and end up with more fertile fields than they had in the beginning. You see some of this in southern Illinois and in some of the fiatland areas where coal is mined. In southern Kansas I saw coal mine areas that are now excellent fish and wildlife recreation areas because for- tunately the mining companies carried out their activity in such a way that they ended up with fresh w~ter lakes. They created a series of lakes and the lakes are linked together. If we could get industry to do more of this, to not just pile the over- burden aside, and this reclamation is the end result achieved, you might wind up with a different environment. Out in the arid west- the desert country where I am from-not much grows on the land in any event, and when you scoop out a big open pit copper mine, well, unfortunately there is not much you can do when you get through. You couldn't get much to grow even if you had some topsoil, at least nothing that would be productive, and so we have all kinds of problems. PAGENO="0056" 50 I think the ~egis1ation should take cognizance of the different prob- lerns and of the fact that there are many different solutions, and that we want and we would hope that the States would want their State conservation people involved in this, to get results which are as good as possible in terms of the long-term future. Senator JORDAN. Would you think the criteria that is laid out in the bill is broad enough to take into account, for instance, the coal mining regions of the Appalachian area, where the rainfall is 40 inches or upward a year in a highly populated area, and the arid regions `of the West where we have rainfall of 10 inches or less a year ? Do you think the criteria is broad enough to encompass the use and development of all of these operations? Mr. UDALL. Senator, we tried to make it that way. You will notice it on pages 8 and 9 of the legislation, and certainly the committee will want to give this some attention. We feel it does adequately cover the different alternatives and the different potentials that might be there. We have a big diverse continent, a lot of different geography, differ- ent climates, and we have all kinds of different mining operations. Certainly this legislation has to encompass those differences. Senator JORDAN. On page 8 of your statement you use this language: B~tsed upon our national survey, we expect that instances will be foun1 where surface mining should not be permitted at present because there is no technically feasible way of avoiding undue damage to the surroundings. Under the `bill what standards are established, what criteria are set up, for determining when mining will not be permitted? Mr. UDALL. At the `bottom of page 7 I think is the pertinent provi- sion you are interested in which states Provide that an adequate mining plan be filed with, and approved by, the State agency and a permit be obtained to insure, before surface mining operations are commenced or continued, that they will be conducted in a manner consistent with said mining plan. This is the type of approach that we have included in the legislation. Senator JORDAN. Are you saying by `this language, Mr. Secretary, that before development of a surface mining property may proceed an adequate mining plan must be filed and approved by the State agency before digging commences on a surface mine? Mr. UDALL. Well, the State plan would have to be satisfactory, would have to be approved, before the State could move forward to permit a particular mining operation. A moment ago I wanted to give you an example. I was trying to think of an example of the situation where there shouldn't be mining and one just came to me. At least `Secretary Freeman and I concluded this, in the area of the Kennecott Copper property in the northern Cascades in Washington where there is an important copper deposit. We had our experts look at it and they didn't think it was very good, relatively speaking. There are a lot of other better ones, and this one is located right in a wilderness area. It was our view, considering the economics and the other values, and we tried to express this `to the Kennecott people, that they ought not to conduct a mining operation. They apparently decided not to, at least for the time being, and this is an instance where the very location would seem to make other inter- ests predominant. PAGENO="0057" 51 Senator JORDAN. Yes, that is a good example. I attended those hear- ings out in Seattle on that project and I am familiar with the circum- stances. Would there be any means of compensating the landowner for his loss if for any rea~son surface mining would be denied under the terms of this `bill ~ Mr. TJDALL. I don't think there are any provisions for this is the legislation. I think this would be a matter really of the regulatory authority of the State or of the act, much as we regulate by zoning certain types of activity, and therefore it might not be compensable. Senator JORDAN. On page 10, Mr. Secretary, the paragraph in the middle of the page, you say: We believe that federal encouragement is needed to assure that all 50 states- not merely some-regulate surface mining, and that all forms of surface mining are covered. We further `believe that some minimum basic requirements for such State action are required to serve the national interest and to assure some equity `between States. My question is, What provisions in the bill establish or govern or define these minimum basic requirements? Mr. UDALL. These provisions you find under the State plan require- ment in the bill that begins on page 7 and on to the next several pages. They would really lay down the basic criteria that we would apply. Senator JORDAN. Well, looking at these criteria on the top of page 8, "The control of erosion, flooding, and pollution of waters," you have already discussed the fact that subdivision development causes erosion and pollution of the water. Yet we don't propose in this bill to put a limitation on subdivision development, do we? Secretary TJDALL. Well, we don't consider that mining so we are not including it. I think the real solution to that problem is for coun- ties and cities to require developers to immediately vegetate and to do this very thoroughly in much the same way that the highway people do. You see the highway builders when they get their grades and pre- pare their right-of-way ; they have these effective methods of planting grass to keep the soil in place. They have a soil erosjon problem too. The public should make the developers do the same kinds of control as part of the cost of doing business. Senator JORDAN. I agree with you. When I was Governor of my State we took the step of seeding the grass so it would prevent the very erosion you are discussing here. I know the mining people would be eager to cooperate in any kind of restoration and reclamation they can do provided they understand fully what the criteria are to start with and provided they understand too that the criteria will not change the Secretaries change, with the whims and caprices of one in- dividual who may decide he has undue authority perhaps under the terms of language that is vague and capable of being interpreted in different ways. I won't take more time at this time, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the answers the Secretary has given to my questions. Senator METCALF. Senator Hansen. Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me compliment you, Mr. Secretary, on having spelled out clearly the position your Department takes and disclosing as well what I suspect is your per- PAGENO="0058" 52 1 I sonal feeiii~g of concern about a matter that I am certain is of interest to all of us in this country. I would like to first ask, Do you have any misgivings as to the constitutionality of the Federal authority which I infer this bill would convey upon an agency of Government to exercise police powers over privately owned lands which so far, insofar as I know, have been lodged at the State level, not at the Federal level ~ Mr. JTD~~J~J~. Seimtor, I think I can say quite flatly that I believe if I asked my lawyers this question, aiicl I would be glad to furnish an Ol)lniOfl if you want, that there is authority in the Constithtion with regard to this type of legislation. I am sure we wouldn't be proposing it if we thought there was a serious question. Just take one aspect, only oiie aspect. For example, there is a national responsibility for interstate waters and of course water runs off lai~cl and I think one of the main conservation reasons that we need a program of this kind iS to protect water quality and I would cite this merely as one paramount interest that I think the Fed- eral Government has. Senator hANSEN. Do I infer from your response, Mr. Secretary, that your anthority or at least one of the sources of your authority to control mining O1)eratiOfls on Privately owned laildi would be in recog- nition of the contribution that mining operations might make toward water pollution ? Mr. UDALL. Yes. Senator I-L~NsEN. Are there other sources of authority in your judg- :rnent ? Mr. IJD~~rj~. The effect on other resources, including wildlife, I Wolll(l ~think would be another. Senator hANSEN. Including wildlife. Mr. TJu~Aij~. Including wildlife, yes. Senator HANSEN. Are you saying that if it could be demonstrated that a mining operation oii privately owned land affected wildlife it woul d be your j udginent that the Federal Governmeiit would have the. right to move in? Mr. TJ1)ALL. This is a sensitive subject that I don't want to get into and I certainly think that the States in terms of their legal control of wildlife would certainly have a clear responsibility with regard to their authority to regulate. Putting the wildlife question aside for the moment, our authority certainly is very clear with regard to the water p~11iition aslect because I can say to you that the most deadly form of water 1)OllUtiOll tiuLt I kllO'W of in their areas is this acid mine l)ollutiOfl that comes out of these old mines in Appalachia and tliait has polluted most of their rivers. It is a tragedy because the Appalac1iiai~ region should l)e the great ~)iaygroui1c1 of the east. These ought to be the. fiuies~ fishing streams and iiia.iiy of them are dead streams right today-large stret(lles 0! ~OIiiC of the finest rivers in Appalacli~a. Senator 1-IANSEN. \\Tould it be fair to ask if, in your judgment, your authority to control activities on privately owned land would have to i('ltt.O to the matter of water l)OIlUt.iofl ; that if it could be demon- strateci that water pOlifltIO)~ d~d vcsiiit Veil ~,VOLlid h~r?o the authority, if it did not result you would not? is that what you are saying? PAGENO="0059" 53 Mr. TJDALL. My judgment would be that this is only one aspect. I think regulation of interstate commerce, under the commerce clause, would be another because, after all, most all of the products that are produced are moving in interstate commerce. My lawyers would probably be citing that to you if I asked them for an opinion. Senator HANSEN. I want to be sure I understand you. Your state- ment is that if the products produced from a mining operation moved in interstate commerce then it would be your feeling that you would have the right to control or to regulate the mining on privately owned land? Mr. UDALL. Yes, the analogy would be with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the other acts where you regulate labor condi- tions on private property in a local situation where the products move in interstate commerce. I think you have that aspect that is also present. Senator HANSEN. I think, if I understand you, you suggested a possible new source of authority or the right to regulate and that would be if, in the judgment of the Department, the mining operation involved fair labor standards or failed to measure up to fair labor standards. Do I understand you correctly? Mr. UDALL. No, I am saying the analogy in terms of where you would find Federal authority is that I think that you would have an analogous situation here, where regulation would be proper under the commerce clause with regard to the details of how the activity was carried out. In the case of labor you are concerned with labor conditions. In this instance you are concerned with the effect on the other resources of the Nation of an activity that is carried out on private land, and thus we are back to water and the other resources. Senator HANSEN. In some parts of the West, and with particular reference to my State of Wyoming, I happen to know as I am sure you do that private industry has been active. It has committed money to experimental work in order to find out what sort of treatment might most efficiently reclaim the largest amount of land. Would this bill, in your judgment, permit some flexibility insofar as private industry is concerned in suggesting what types of treat- ment might be accorded public land and private land as well? Mr. TJDALL. Certainly, Senator, I think this is where we get down to point really of what is best for a particular region and I would think that there should be plenty of room for discussion as to the various techniques. We saw in one of the pictures here where they were using one of these sprays, spraying seeds and fertilizer together, and I think that we would find the industries that are taking an interest are doing such things, and the soil conservation people in the Department of Agri- culture and my people probably would readily agree. There should be plenty of room for consultation and discussion on what is best. Senator HANSEN. Does this bill seek to establish some authority for the imposition of regulations or guidelines which would call upon the mining industry to propose, before their activities begin, the sort of reclamation treatment that they might bring about? PAGENO="0060" 54 Mr. UDALL. Senator, I think what I would envision, if this works out the way that I hope it would, that most of the States would pass laws similar to, let's say, the laws that Pennsylvania and Kentucky have, which are some of the more recent good laws. A few of the States may not do anything, so that we probably will have to have Federal regulations for them. The pattern of the future you might see in Pennsylvania or Kentucky right today, where the mining corn- pany wants to mine a certain area for coal and they go in, sit down with the State people, and work out a reclamation plan. The plan is approved and then they go ahead. I was really pleased to find the Kentucky Act, after all the contro- versy, working as well as it is. I was there with the former Governor and the new Governor and got word from both of them that the act seemed to be functioning properly and they were both going to support it. Senator HANSEN. Generally speaking, the approach that those States have taken is to call upon industry to submit a reclamation plan before the mining operation actually. begins? Mr. TJDALL. That is the approach. That is the approach that would be envisioned. Senator HANSEN. In some of the mining operations we have in Wyoming I have the feeling that not until extensive core drilling has been done and they have actually gotten into their operation may they be aware of the problem and of possible solutions that would suggest themselves. What lati~tude would this approach offer a mining comp'any to make an assessment after they knew better what the facts were ? I am think- ing, if you are talking thout bedding, that may be 30 degrees and you know prex~isely what the picture is or if the beds that are being mined are laid down perfectly horizontally I suspect tha~t it would be relatively easy to talk about wh~t sort of an operation would most meaningfully and efi~diently be used to accomplish a certain desir~d end result. But some of the coal beds, or bentonite and trona, we have in Wyoming don't always fit the pstterns that would lend themselves to this sort of operation. Won't there be need, if we are going to be realistic and pracJtica~ ahout it, to give industry some elbow room so tha~t it mig~ht find out what the ~itua~t~ion is, ~h~t faulting has occurred, and that sort of thing before they will be able to know precisely what can best be done? Mr. UDALL. Senaitor, I think you have a sound pdint in that you are going to have to have enough latitude that the commonsense ap- preach can fundtion. If a oomp'any files an ithtial plan and they find different conditions so tha~t a different solution is necessary, or some new development comes along, they could change things. I think this is a matter of administration and of drawing the inii~ial law broadly enough thst you have suth latitude. I found out in Kentucky-he- cause I talked to them about h~w it works-4that there is a very inter- esting interface bet~ween the State people who are the regulators, the conservationists, and the mining companies. They educate each other as they go back and forth, with regard to what is feasible and what can and can~t be done and what new conservation techthques are being developed and so on. That is as it should be. PAGENO="0061" 03 Senator HANSEN. 1 think your Departmen~t has demonstrated a lot of imaginaition over the pas~ in encouraging research and experimenta- tion. it occurs to me that there is a great deal yet that might be done because, as the earth's mantle is di~turbed when you remove the over- burden and you get down to a particular mineral deposit, you may expose a lot of different types of soil that have altogether different characteristics than those which were typical of the area before it was disturbed. Because of that it would seem to me that perhaps some exotic plants might lend themselves to a reclamation effort. There are lots of things that could come about. I would hope that your Department would look with favor upon some research grants that might be made available in this regard so as to encourage as much imagination and scientific know-how as possible. Mr. UDALL. I quite agree with you, Senator, and you will find some provisions for this type of research and grants to help the States set up good strong programs. it just occurred to me, if I may make one other point here, that I would call the attention of the committee to a very interesting article that Dr. Walter Hubbard, the outgoing Director of the Bureau of Mines, wrote. I happened to read it last week in one of the science journals. He wrote, in terms of looking far ahead with the mineral resources of the country, that the thing we are failing to do that would enor- mously enlarge our mineral base is to recycle and reuse, in a much more efficient way than we do, the minerals that we produce. He was talking about deliberately manufacturing certain things like auto bodies and other items in such a way that they can quickly be put back into a cycle. His point was, that if we would do this, we would suddenly enlarge the mineral base of the Nation. We would also clean up the countryside a little bit in the process, too. Senator HANSEN. I heard him make that statement and I share your enthusiasm. I think it is a great idea. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator METOALF. Thank you very much. Senator Fannin. Senator FANNIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary, I am sorry I was not here to hear your testimony. I have heard the an- swers you have given to these questions. I am concerned that we may adopt a program that could be very sound in one area of the coun- try but very damaging in another. Because of the low-grade ore in Arizona we must have open pit mining if we are going to be corn- petitive domestically and with the other countries of the world. I am wondering how much atomic energy research is being con- ducted in connection with mining? Mr. TJDALL. Well, the Atomic Energy Plowshare program is of course in its infancy, as are other peaceful applications, but it is interesting to me that two of the early projects under Plowshare are directed toward mining and the better use of mineral resources. The Gasbuggy project in New Mexico, which was carried out a few months ago, may be able to increase the yield of natural gas 10 times; also Project Bronco is another project, in the oil shale area in Colorado, PAGENO="0062" 56 to use nuclear energy, but it is really in its infancy We don't know yet what applications this will have Senator FANNIN. I understand the Kennecott project near Safford is one that has great hope Mr. TJDALL. This is, another that I had forgotten about. I should remember my own State first and I apc~logize to the Senator. Senator FANNIN. Yesterday I was~ talking to Mr. Shenhope of the Atomic Energy Commission in Arizona He was telling me about the program to open up caverns for water storage with atomic blasts Have you done any work in that regard ~ Mr TJDALL Yes , there are two aspects of this that are promising with regard to using nuclear devices as a tool. The one you have de- scribed is in an area that is arid, where water is absolutely vital if you are going to carry on a mining operation because w:ater is scarce, so you might be creating in ef~!ect an underground aquifer Another good example of the use of nuclear devices, and this is Project Bronco, would be where there is oil shale with a heavy over- burden, 600 to 1,000 feet of overburden. You would have to have an enormous disturbance of the earth, more so even than with some of the great copper pits, in order to get down to the oil shale if you were going to mine it by open pit With Project Bronco you could have what is called the in situ process where you would create great under ground caverns and carry on your extraction by a fire method that would liberate the shale oil so that you could extract it and not disturb the surface at aJl. So nuclear energy may be tremendously helpful to us in that regard. ~ Senator FANNIN It is also utilization of chemicals, is it not ~ I notice that they pump ~ ~hemicals down and back up again and float them down. Mr. UDALL. That is right. ~ Senator FANNIN. So in other words, they are doing it right on the spot rather than to remove the ore and then have to dispose of it in some other way. I know that near Tucson, the mines are landscaping to prevent mined areas from being an eyesore. Mr. TJDALL. Even in the desert country, as you and I know, if you try to work with nature you can make things grow and you can stabilize banks. There are some of these areas, and I think eastern Kentucky probably is one example, where the slopes are so steep and the damage that can be done to other resources is very great, that you might decided to go to a different type of mining or not to mine at all. Or you might try to develop new machinery and new techniques that would leave the surface undisturbed. I think the mining industry is challenged by all of this, as well as the industries that produce machines, and if we continue to see the sort of technological develop- ment that has come along in recent years, we may find more and more situations where mining doesn't greatly disturb the surface. We may get it out cheaper and more efficiently some other way. I would hope so. Senator FANNIN. But as I understand it is your desire to in every way possible encourage the States, and not `have the Federal Govern- ment take over any program if the States adopt a satisfactory one? Mr. TIDALL. The approa~h that we have suggested in this legislation PAGENO="0063" 57 is if the States want to move in and have a vigorous active program they would run the program and we would merely provide some review and oversight from time to time. That would be the effect of it. Senator FANNIN. Mr. Secretary, when you say vigorous active program- Mr. UDALL. An adequate program. Senator FANNIN. Yes, hut you want a balance. From the standpoint of economics just a certain amount can be spent on a program this size and still make it possible for a mining company to operate and be successful. We have an obligation to do everything `we can to permit these mining companies economic stability. Mr. UDALL. Senator, when I say vigorous adequate program, what I mean is that the States have to be honest with us, if they are going to pass enabling legislation to vest authority in some agency or create a new agency to run this program the way Kentucky is doing right now, for example. I happen to be familiar with what Kentucky is doing. The State has to have a qualified staff of people who are knowl-. edgeable and who can carry out the State function and will do so honestly and vigorously and efficiently. We have found that the essence of the national approach in water pollution or in surface mining, or anything else, is that we do put industry on equal foot- ing where industry can spend whatever money is necessary for rec- lamation and for storing and protecting these other resource values. ` This then becomes a common cost of doing business to all seg- ments of the industry and somebody doesn't say, "Well, the heck with you. We are not going to mine our coal in Wyoming. We will go on down here where there are no conditions." With our proposal you get away from runaway industry and a double standard, at it were. Senator FANNIN. Well, of course I have been concerned about the wholesale condemnation of some of the companies for their mining methods when in many instances it was necessary for them to mine on that basis. I think a further study should be made of just what can be done in the different areas because if we adopt regulations that would fairly apply to one State it coulid be very derogatory to others. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Mr. Secretary, you have made a splendid pres- entation, I believe, of the problem. When I was in the legislature of Montana in 1937 I introduced a bill for restoration of the over- burden on areas that were being dredged for gold. Now in the gold dredging business you go up a valley and had we had such legislation as this I perhaps would have been successful in restoring that because I think some of those people argue very per- suasively and probably correctly that the amount of gold in the area was such that they couldn't compete. We now have of course one of the great open pits in America which is an entirely different situation. As I read the bill I was con- cerned, as was Senator Hansen, about the constitutionality and the validity of moving in on private land under a police power which is traditionally an area of State activity `and so I hope that you will very carefully brief that for all of us who are concerned about the constitutionality of this legislation. PAGENO="0064" 58 Mr. UDALL. Senator, I know you want your legal counsel to give you his views. Why don't I agree to provide you with a letter in which we set forth the legal basis as we see it? I think we should make a good record. Senator METCALF. Please. I don't want to extend this hearing on a legal basis but I would like `to have for the record the legislative his- tory and the answer to some of the questions raised, your views about why you can go in on private land and insist that they not mine at all perhaps or that they have to do certain things that they haven't had to do heretofore, nor has any State required them to do. (The opinion referred to follows:) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S. 3132, 90th CONGRESS (M-36748), AucUsT 8, 1968 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Federal regulation of future surface mining operations would be valid exercise by the Congress of the power conferred upon it by the Commerce Clause. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SoLlorroR, Washington, D.C., August 8,1968. M-3W48. Memorandum To : Secretary of the Interior. From : Solicitor. Subject : Constitutionality of S. 3132, 90th Congress. You have asked me for an expression of my views with respect to the con- stitutionality of S. 3132, a bill to provide for the cooperation between the Secre- tary of the Interior and the States with respect to the future regulation of surface mining operations, and for other purposes. The question of constitutionality arose at hearings on S. 3132 before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on April 30, and May 1-2, 1968. In my opinion the passage of the bill would be a valid exercise by the Congress of the power conferred upon it by the Commerce Clause. S. 3132 would "provide `a nationwide program to prevent or substantially reduce the adverse effects to the environment from surface mining, to assure that ade- quate measures will be taken to reclaim surface mined areas after operations are completed, and to assist the States in carrying out such a program" ( section 3, subsection (f) ). It would apply to "each surface mine, the products of which enter commerce or the operations of which affect counmerce, and the surface mined area ~ thereof" (section 4). Section 7 of th~ bill provides for the filing by a State with the Secretary of the Interior of a "State plan" for the regulation of surface mines and the reclama- tion of surface mIned areas located within the State, and for the approval of the plan by the Secretary if he determines that the plan includes laws and regulations which meet the requirements and encompass the criterIa set forth in subsection (a) (1) and that the plan hicludes adequate provisions for effective administration and enforcement. Section 8 of the bill would authorize the Secretary (upon the expiration of two years after the passage of the bill) to issue regulations "for the opera- tion of surface mines and for the reclamation of surface mined areas" in a State for which no State plan had been approved, and sections 12 and 13 of the bill would provide for the enforcement of such regulations. A State might sub- mit a State plan after Federal regu1ation~ had been issued ; if the plan we~re approved the Federal regulations would cease to be effective ( section 9 ) . The Secretary would be authorized to withdraw approval of a State plan if, after opportunity for a hearing, he determined that the State bad failed substantially to comply with the plan or to enforce it adequately (section 7, sulbsection (b)). I assume that no one would seriously characterine section 7 of the bill as an ~vi~ta~tion to the States to take action precluded by the Federal Constitution.~ 1 Subsection (e) of section 2 of the bill provides that " `surface mined areas' means any area on which the operations of a surface mine are concluded after the effective date of a State plan or the regulations issued under section 8 of this Act, whichever is applicable." 2 Goldblatt V. Town of Henvpstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962). PAGENO="0065" 59 In the past, however, the only regulation of surface mining on private lands has been State regulation.3 Further, mining itself, has been held not to be interstate cemmeree.4 Neither the fact that the States ir~ay and do regulate surface mining nor the fact that surface mining "when viewed separately is local"5 insulates this £wtivLity from the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause. "* * * ~~ is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate inter- state commerce that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attend the exerctse of the police power of the states. * ~ "* * * The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not cGnfIned to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make the regulation of them appropriate means to the attainm~nt of a legitim~ate end, the exercise of the granted, power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce." U.E~. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 114, 118 (1941). In U.S. v. Darby, the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 ~ secs. 291-219) . This Act prescribes minimum wages and maximum hours for employees etigaged in commerce or the prodnetion (as defined) of goods for commerce. It makes unlawful the shipment in interstate commerce of goods pro- duced by employees as to whom the requirements respecting hours and wages were not observed and criminal penalties are provided for violation. The Act has been given wide application. For example, the following employees have been held to be covered by the Act: operating and maintenance employees of the owner of a loft building, space in which is rented to persons producing goods principally for interstate corn- merce (Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517 (1942) ) members of a rotary drilling crew, engaged within a State, as employees of an independent contractor, in partially drilling oil wells, a portion of the products from which later moved in interstate commerce ( Warren~.Br~ishaw Co. v. Hall, 317 U.S. 88 (1942) ) a night watchman employed in a plant in which veneer was manufactured from logs and from which a substantial portion of the manufactured product was `shipped in Interstate commerce (Wa'ton v. Southern Package Corp., 320 U.S. 540 (1944)); employees putting in stand-by time in the auxiliary fire-fighting service of an employer engaged in interstate commerce (Armot~r & Co. V. Wantook, 328 U.S. 12~El (1944)); maintenance employees of an office building which was owned and operated by a manufacturing corporation and in which 58 percent of the rental space was used for its central offices, where its production of goods for interstate commerce was administered, managed and controlled, although the goods were actually produced at plants located elsewhero (Borden Company v. BoreUa, 325 U.S. 679 (1945)): the empoyees of an electrical contractor, locally engaged in commercial and industrial wiring and dealing in electrical motors and generators for corn- mercial and industrial uses, whose customers ara engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce (Roland Co. v. Walling, 329 U.S. 657 (1946)); employees producing road surfacing materials in Pennsy1vanl~ for use in Pennsylvania on interstate roads or by Pennsylvania customers producing goods for interstate commerce (Allstate Construction Co. v. Darkin, 345 U.S. 13 (1953) ; Tko~imas v. Hempt Bros., 345 U.S. 19 (1953) ) .~ Moreover, the extension by the Congress of the Act in 1961 to include State employees and to cover employees of certain "enterprises" engaged in commerce 3 West Virginia i~i 1939 enacted the first statute regulating sur~aee mining. In addition to West Virginia, thirteen States now have such laws : Qeorgia,. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsy~vania, Tennessee, Vir- ginia. In n~ instance bare the courts of ~ State held theM the legislature is powerless to regulate surface mining. See Pu/our v. Maire, 358 Pa. 309, 56 4,. ,2~1 675 (1948). `Compare, Northern IZ~inois Coal Corp. v. Medifl, 397 Iii. 98, 72 N.E. 2d 844 (1947) and Marylana Coal ~ Realty C~. v. Bureau of Mines, 193 Md. 527, 69 A. 2d 471 (1949) , setting aside the statute initially passed iii each State. , ` . ` ` 4 United Mine Workers v. CorOnato Coal Co.~ 259 U.S. 844, 407, 408 (1~922) ,; Oliver Irots Co. v~ Lord, 262'U.S. 172, 178 (1923). However, inCorosusdo Coal Co~npany v United Mine Workers, 268 U.S. 295, 310 (1925), the Federal Anti-Trust Act was held applicable to workers in coal mines. 5National Labor Relations Board v. Jones ~ Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 38 (1937). ~ also, Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirin, 383 U.S. 190 (1966). 95-623-68-------5 PAGENO="0066" 60 or production for eommerce (including enterprises operating hospitals and similar institutions and schools) was recently upheld in Maryland v. Wirtz, 390 U.S. 917 (1908) . In upholding the "enterprise concept" the Court said: "* * * [Wibile Congress has in some instances left to the courts or to administrative agencies the task of determining whether commerce is affected in a particular instance, Darby itself recognized the power of Oongress instead to declare that an entire class of activities affects commerce. The only question for the courts is `then whether the class is `within the reach of the federal power.' The contention that in `Commerce Clause cases the courts have power to excise, a's trivial, individual instance's falling within a ratio~a11y defined class of activities has heen put entirely to rest. Wickard V. Filb'urn, 317 U.S. 111, 127-128, G3 S. Ct. 82, 90-91, 87 L. Ed. 122 ; PoU81~, :L\Tat. Alliance of United $tc&tes of North America v. National Labor Relations Board, 322 U.S. 643, 648, 64 5. Ct. 119~, 1190, 88 L. Ed. 1509 ; Katzenbaclv v. MeClung, *supra, 379 U.S., at 301, 85 S Ot., `at 382. * * The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. sees. `151-167) furnishes another example of the far reaching effect which an exercise of the power conferred by the Commerce Clause may have. That Act empowers the National Labor Rela- tions Board "to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice [listed in the Act} affecting commerce." The Act was sustained by `the Supreme Court in National Lobor Relations Board v. Jones ~ Langhlin f~teel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) , `and that Act applies, beyond question to unfair labor practices in activities which might be regarded as intrastate or local when viewed separately.7 A more recent but equally persuasive exercise of the commerce power wa.s the enactment of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. sees. 2000a-2000a-. 6) prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin at places of public accommodation the operations of which affect corn- merce. Title II of the Act was upheld in Heart of' Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) and (a's to a restaurant) in Katzenbach v. McUlurtg, 379 UJS. ~94. In the light of `this constitutional background, jt seems to me that surface mining operations dealt with by the bill are as much within the power of the Congress as are substandard working conditions or labor disputes or discrimina- tion in places `of public accommodation. In my opinion, the Commerce Clause clearly permits the Congress to `protect Commerce from surface mining opera- tions `that burden and adversely affect it- "by `destroying or di'minis'hing the `availability of land for commercial, indus- trial, recreational, agricultural, and forestry purposes, by causing erosion and landslides, by contributing `to floods and `the pollution of waters, by destroying fish and wildlife habitat and impairing natural beauty, by coun- teracting efforts to conserve soil, water, `and other natural resources, by destroying or impairing the property of citizens, and by creating hazards dangerous to life and property." To `that end, 5. `3132 would provide for Federal regulation in the absence of `adequate regulation `by the States, and as I have said, its passage would, in my judgment, be a valid exercise of the power conferred `by the Commerce `Clause. EDWARD WEINBERG, Solicitor. Senator METCALF. Again I congratulate you, Mr. Secretary, on the presentation of a very important and far-reaching subject and thank you for coming. Mr. UDALL. Thank you. (`The prepared statement referred to follows:) `7 See, e.g.~ N~t1ona~ Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks U~otMng Co., 301 U.S. 58 (1937), manu5acturer of men's clothing ; Nationai Lo~bor Rela~tio~s floa~r4 v. Fa~vbZatt, 306 U.S. 601 (1939) , processor of women's sportswear ; Howell Chevrolet Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 346 U.S. 482 (1953), retaIl automobile dealer ; Plumbers Union v. Door County, 359 U.S. 354 (1959), alteration of a county courthouse ; Nationai Labor Rek~tions Board v. ReUance Fuel Oil Corp. 371 U.S. 224 (1965) dIstributor of fuel oil. See also, ~5anta Cru~J Fruit Packing Co. v. Nati'onal Labor Relations I~oar~f, 303 U.S. 453 (1935)) in which the Court said at page 405. "With re~p~ct to the federal power to prntect interstate commerce In the commodities produced, there is obviousiy no difference between coal mined, or stone quarried, and fruit and vegetables grown. The same prin~ciple must apply, and has been applied, to injurious restraints of interstate trade which are caused by the practices of manufacturers and processors." PAGENO="0067" 61 STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to appear before this COmmittee to discuss S. 3132, the Administration's recommended bill to regulate all surface mining, which has been introduced by Chairman Jackson and Senators Anderson, Nel- son, and Lausche. Also I want to pay particular tribute to Senators Lausche and Nelson, who have introduced separate bills as well. Their bills are S. 217 and S. 3126. . In discussing these measures may I emphasize the dual role of natural re- sources conservation and of natural resources development which we perceive in the Department of the Interior. We are concerned with preservation or enhance- ment of our lands and waters for a multiplicity of essential uses, and this inter- est of ours includes the wise use of land during and after mining. We also are concerned that the nation have an abundant supply of minerals, and that such minerals be produced efficiently and at the lowest possible cost. The bills before your Committee pertain to both of these facets of our responsibility. It is fair to say that the reclamation of mined land has not been one of the great, long-term natural resource issues of this nation. Rather it is an issue to which most of us awakened only in reeent years. This is a result of striking developments in mining technology, coupled with soaring demands for mineral commodities. We can expect a continuing great increase in surface mining activity in the years just ahead. With shovels capable now of moving 185 cubic yards of earth and rock at one bite, it is not too surprising to find that, in 1965, 3~ percent of our coal, 80 percent of our copper, and 90 percent of our iron. ore came from surface operations. What do we mean when we talkof surface mining? In our Department we use the term to include such mining operations as coal strip and auger mining ; sand and gravel pits ; dredging for gold, gravel, and other mineral commodities ; hydraulic mining ; and deep pits for extraction of copper, iron, and other ores. Surface mining is an essential part of the American industrial economy. It is going to continue. Overall, eighty percent of our mineral production tonnage comes from surface mines. It provides the highest efficiency in mineral recovery. It usually is more economically favorable than any alternative means of mining. It generally is safer for the mine workers. But surface mining has Costs-costs which may not appear in the market transaction of the commodity. These hidden costs arise with the diminishing of the useful availability of land-with pollution and the hazards to human life, property and wildlife-with the impairment of natural beauty-with the degradation of other natural values which oceur~. It is of interest that puhile attention has focu~seij on surface mining in the last few years. It appears that surface mine reclamation is a policy Issue whose time for resolution has arrived. Let me make the record clear ~ibout our use of the word "reclamation." In the context of surface mining we do not consider reclamation to mean a restoration of the land to its original condition. Often this would not be as destrable as some alternative land condition. Rather, we use reclamation to mean that activity which avoids or corrects damage to the lands and waters of the vicinity and leaves the area in a usable condition. In 19ti5 Congress enacted the Appalachian Regional Development Act, which recognized that adverse conditions resulting from surface mining were of na- tional significance requiring a long~range comprehensive program for their ellniiination or alleviation, and called for a two-year study. Our natlowicle report resulting from the study was issued last summer under the title of Surface Mining aad Our Enviroanseat, and it had an initial printing of more than 13,000 copies. As ofone month ago the GPO stock was down to only 402 copies ; consequently a second printing of 10,000 copies was ordered. . W~had excellent eOoperfltion Lu tIIe~se efforis~-.fron~ the States, from industry and from several other Federal agencies. Each State Gov~rnor appointed a liaison officer with whom we worked. Leadership of the study was placed in the Assistant Secretary for Mineral Resources, and I should note that some of the photographs you have just seen were taken by Assistant Secretary Oordell Moore. Re and his staff slogged through mud and dust to get on-the-spot knowledge o~ surfa~e mining condi- tions. The day-to.clay working responsibility for the study `was assigned to the Bureau of Mines. I I PAGENO="0068" 62 Oiii~ wGrk demon&trwbed that this suhj~ct recfuses to stay put in any one oatie' gory. To some of our held inspection team meambers, surface m~ining was chiefly a prc~b1eni of the unsightly mess that may result. Others saw it as a problem of sediment and chemical pollution in streams and rivers. Still others were con- cern~d with the re~ulting loss o~f wildlife halMtat. Use of the land after mining was of prime concern to alL Should it, for example, be used for recreation, agri- culture, ~otrestry, or &ndustrial development? All of the men also were aware of the possible danger to public safety that may result from certain surface mining practices. So it is that various people ~ee surface mining as a conservation problem- as an economic problem-as an engineering problem, an environmental problem, a land use problem, or a jyu'blie relations problem. There is one thing in common: It is a problem. A review of a few of the findings of our study can serve to put surface mining into perspective. For example: 1. Every State has had some surface mining activity within its boundaries. 2. Only 14 States have laws relating specifically to the conduct of surface mining opeilations and the reclamation of surface mined areas, and five of these direct their attention only to coal mining. 3. By January 1, 1965, surface mining had affected more than 3.2 million acres of land. 4. Despite all reclamation efforts by man and nature, and after the lapse of considerable time, about two million acres still need additional reclamation work-this Is 3,125 square miles, or an area equal to the combined land area of the States of Delaware and Rhode Island. 5, In 1964 surface mining was biting off an estimated 153,000 acres annually. Only about one-third of the land disturbed that year was adequately reclaimed by man. By 1980 it is estimated, quite conservatively, that more than five million acres will have been affected. 0. Despite the existence of State regulatory laws of some sort in the opinion of the experts 73 percent of the mined areas reclaimed under existing State regulations in Appalachia required further attention. 7. The adverse effects of surface mining are not confined to the site of the operation. Off-site effects also must be considered. These on-site and off-site ef- fects include : (a) nearly 1.7 million acres of wildlife habitat damaged; ( b) erosion from some spoil banks at rates up to 27,000 tons per square mile per year, compared with only 25 tons per square mile from similar areas of forest; (c) approximately 13,000 miles of streams and orer 145,000 surface acres of natural lakes, reservoirs and impoundments adversely ~ffected by sedi- ment and acid ; ~ (d) more than 20,000 miles of highways remaining-hazardous to public safety, hindering wildlife movement, damaging otherwise attractive land- scapes. ~ This is today's pictrn~e. Our first task is to insure that tomorrow's inventory of &tmaged lands is no larger. Once we are assured that the buildup is halt&l, we can turn our attention to past damage. This is the primary reason that we feel at this time that S. 217 and S. 3126, which deal with the reclamation of the already damaged lands, are more appropriately subjects for later consideration. We in the Department of the Interior believe that in many situations it is pos~ sible fot society to benefit both from the use of the minerals of the land and from the use of the land itself after mining operations have been completed. One of the essentials in this is a recog~ttion that proper imi~aing practice today includes reclamation-not that reclaiMtion merely is some follow-up treatment after the mining is done. This ~ra~s not the geueral `practice in the past. The na~ tion must be assured from now on that good mining practice is used-and that the po~sibillty of damage off the site of the mine itself also is taken into considera- thin iii the mining operation. ~ ~ . The public recognizes the need for mineral commoditi'es~ and that they do not occur in ~c~nomk~ deposih~eVerywhere. Good laud u~e planning ~an enable miii- mg to continue while proydi~g~~rotectIon and reclamation o1~ other natural re- sbilrces. With su& or~si~ht~mány areas from which minerals a~e e~tracted will l~ndth~m~el~s th subse~$e~tuses. ` I `![~heseconèepts are not r~aIlly new; wh~t'1~'~iew is that their validity has been confirmed by our nationwide study which gave attention not only to the ravages PAGENO="0069" I 63 of past mining, `but also. to the assessment of currant conditions and to the future possibilities. As is evident to even the casual reader of our report, it is recommended that a Federal surface mining program include the repa&r of past damage. But, in a time of hard priorities it becomes most important that we assure reclamation of future mined land. As we note in the report, a public dollar spent to assure the prevention of future damage can be many times more effective than one spent on repairing lands already damaged. With the prompt support of the Congress in passing S. 3132, we ~an assure that the inventory of derelict acres soon will cease to grow larger. Surface mine regulation is a national need, and it must have continuity beyond the changes that periodically occur in State and Federal adaninistrations, and beyond the rise and fall of short-tenm agencies created for special purposes. We believe that by means of the procedures proposed in S. 3132, we shall attain a method of determining the relative benefits of various land use alternatives, prior to mining. For a given mining site at a given time these alternatives might be: (a) surface minit~g without reclamation; (b) surface mining with reclamation; (c) underground mining only ; (d) no mining whatsoever. Based upon our national survey, we expect that instances will be found where surface mining should not be permitied at present because there is no technically feasible way of avoiding undue damage to the surroundinga It also is probable that situations will be found where it is needless to require that any reclamation be undertaken. Undoubtedly, some will say that enactment of this bill will inhibit the development of the mining industry and cause severe economic losses. We all heard this in connection with our national water and air quality standards legislation. But industry has responded to those standards. They are reading the signs of the times. As I said the other day, in connection with water quality control hearings in the House, if industry continues to move at the tempo it has recently I think you are going to see some very significant improvement in our environment. Most members of industry know that the n~tional sentiment strongly favors effective measures for the protection of our natural resonrces. I think this is truly encouraging. Industry is not complaining as much as some say. Industry wants to be partners in this effort-it's only good business. It is gratifying to see the action that severat States have begun in the past months to regulate some types of surface mining, or to strengthen existing regulations ; but more needs to be done. Also, nearly three-quarters of the States have not yet moved. S. 8132 proposes to step up this State action by creating a State~Federal relationship through which States would develop programsi promoting an appro- priate balance between the extraction of minerals and the need to preserve and protect the environment. The goals sought are not punitive nor are they visionary. On the contrary, we are offering a moderate, orderly, and practical approach, tailored to meet local needs and providing for detailed consideration of regional conditions. I would not suggest, for è~ample, that the Bingham Canyon pit in Utah, or the Hull-Rust pit in Minnesota, be filled with earth and rocks when operations cease at those great metal mines. We believe that Federal encouragement is needed to assure that all 50 States- not merely some-regulate surface mining, and that all forms of surface mining are covered. We further believe that some minimum basic requirements for such State action are required to serve the national~ Interest and to assure some equity between States. Remember that surface mining is not confined to' the States where some controls already exist. Furthermore, both the physical effects of surface mining and the economic effect of such mining and its regulation pay no heed to State boundaries. Although some surface mining activity appears at first glance to influence only a small area of lead, this may not be the case. Entire watersheds may be damaged if mining Is undertaken without adequate recognition of the regional effects. Sections 7 and 8 of this bill would ~oord1nate Federal and State activities which, because of the wide diversity of climate, geology, topography, and land use throughout the United States, must recognize lecal conditions. PAGENO="0070" 61 We consider that a single set of national standards would be impractical and undesirable. We are aware that there has been some disappointment that S. 3132 proposes general criteria-not precise mining and reclamation requirements. We believe quite strongly, however, that to be mom specific in this legislation would be a grave mistake. A number of factors bear on this problem: This is not a local zoning plan nor a State law-it is a bill spanning a continent. It covers every form of surface mining, accentuated by many-fold lc~cal variations. Mining and reclamation technology is in a constant state of flux. Mining and reclamation which is impractical in some areas now may be quite feasible next year. Public requirements for the quality of environment-for land use-for water quality-for scenic beauty-also are in ceaseless change. This is quite evident from the numerous revisions that have been made in State reclamation laws dur- ing the past 20-odd years. We want to avoid repeated appearances before the Con- gress to seek revision of the Federal law, and I imagine you are in sympathy with this. Our national need for mineral commodities and other natural resources also changes over time, and we cannOt clearly foresee what the exact pattern of priorities for use will be in 1970, 1980, or 1990. Under S. 3132 each State would have the first opportunity to control mining and reclamation to meet the criteria of the bill, taking into account its specific conditions. Each State would be encouraged to develop reclamation standards appropriate to its own needs, with review and approval by the Secretary. Each State would be expected to hold public hearings-with the general public given a real chance to participate. Among the essentials which must be met in every State is the requirement for adequate bonding and enforcement. If we are to avoid some of the problems en- countered in the past, bonds must beposted by mining operators for a sum large enough to reclaim the Jand to the approved mining plan, in event of forfeiture by the operator. To be acceptable, a State plan would have to provide adequate measures of enforcement, funding, and personnel. We also provide technical and financial assistance, up to 50 percent of the cost, to the States for developing and administering regulatory plans. The bill provides for Federal monitoring of the State's performance in estab- lishing and enforcing regulations. The intent is to insure consistency and equity between States, without requiring uniformity. Federal regulations would be Imposed only in States that choose not to exer- cise this regulatory function to meet the Federal criteria. Once adopted and approved the State plan, including enforcement would apply to Federal lands and Indian lands within the State, and Federal regulations, if any, applicable to these lands would have to be at least equal to those established under the approved State plan. I am aware, Mr. Ohairman, of the delays built into S. 3132, but they are necessary delays which cannot be avoided if, in truth, we are to give the ~50 States a fair opportunity to undertake surface mine regulation. Many legislatures meet only in alternate years and, thus, a two-year-wait is necessary in order to assure that every State will have had opportunity to pass enabling legislation We shall be in contact with each of the States during that two-year period. Hopefully, they will invite us to work with them. In any event, it would be our expectation that before the two-year period has run, we will know whether State x or State Y is likely to submit an acceptable plan for Federal approval. In the event that some State does not appear to be moving toward that goal, we shall draft regulations for that State, consulting with one or more advisory committees, so that the Federal Government will be ready for early action once the two years have passed. We have included in the bill provision for a one-year extension period for the State to submit its plan. This is only for the purpose of avoiding duplication on the part of the Federal staff in those exceptional cases where we are certain that the State is moving effectively to formulate an acceptable State plan, but will not be able to meet thetwo-year time limit. If we do find it necessary to draft Federal regulations for a State unwilling or unable to submit an acceptable plan, we will consult with conservationists, industry people and State officials. However, an advisory committee should not be permitted to become a device for delay. Accordingly, I emphasize that S. 3132 would not obligate the Department to await agreement by such an advisory group before the Department could take action. I PAGENO="0071" 65 We are not at this time requesting regulatory ai~thority to deal with the surface problems caused by underground mines and by the various processing steps-~ washing, sizing, and concentrating-~which minerals undergo. However, we shall submit to the President by April 1, 1969, a report on these matters and recoin- mèndations for appropriate measures to prevent or control their adverse effects. This bill also does not address itself directly to the environmental problems of mineral exploration or to conventional oil and gas production. In our role as the major landlord of the nation, however, the Department of the Interior is reviewing these problems and our authority to deal with them on lands under our jurisdiction. We have reported to the President that there is no uniform Federal policy on reclamation of surface mined Federal lands. The Executive Branch can and should improve its overall position with regard to mined land management and to procurement of mined commodities ; and we in Interior are moving to do this. We have been at work since last summer on new Departmental regulations. We are following the President's directive to put our house in order. Much of this can be done under our present authority. Within a few days we expect to publish a revision of the proposed Depart- mental regulations which first were published for public comment last July 20. These cover exploration and surface mining under the various mineral leasing and sales statutes. They need not await the passage of new legislation. S. 3132 includes provisions for criminal penalties, and we have been asked why this is necessary. We believe these provisions will not be needed in dealing with the many responsible mining firms that already are making efforts toward reclamation. But some mining operations, notably in coal, sand, and gravel, can be undertaken by fly-by-night operators. In such cases, `injunctions alone might not `suffice to prevent a quick in-and-out operation. I should note that criminal penalties are not unusual-they are a feature of some existing State laws. They are just another tool in the effort to protect our natural surroundings. There is one other comment which should be made. When it becomes national policy that land reclamation must be accomplished, the costs of this work will have to be met. There is no such thing as "a free ride" in mistreatment of our natural resources. Past failures to recognize reclamation as an integral part of mining and to include its costs in the price of the commodity should not be r& peated. S. 3132 offers the means to take up this commitment to the future of the American land and the American people. Senator METCALF. Our next witness is another old friend of this committee, the Honorable John A. Baker, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. We are delighted to have you here, Mr. Secretary, and will you go right ahead in your own way. Would you introduce the men with you ~ STATEMENT OP IOHN A. BAKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPART- MENT OP AGRICULTURE; ACCOiVEPANIED BY K. B. GRANT, ASSO- CIATE ADMINISTRATOR, B. M. WHITT, DIRECTOR, PLANT 501- ENCES, ~SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE ; E. P. CLIFF, CHIEP, R. G. PLORANCE, LEGISLATIVE REPORTING, AND BYRON BEATTIE, DIRECTOR, WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, FOREST SERVICE Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I have with me `Chief Ed Cliff of the Forest Service and Byron Beattie, the Associate Administrator of SOS, Ken Grant, Mr. Darnell Whitt `and Mr. R. G. Fiorance, whom this committee knows extremely well. I would `ask if I might, Mr. Chairman, `that they appear at the table with me to respond to questions. Senator METCALF. We are delighted to have them `and to have their help, their counsel, and their guidance. As I understand it, we have not had a report from the Department of Agriculture on this legisia- PAGENO="0072" 66 tion. I want to, as a preliminary question, ask you, is this presentatiou to be considered as a report from the Department? Mr BAKER My statement should be regarded as our legislative re~ port on all three bills Senator METCALF. Fine. Go right ahead. Mr. BAKER. Thank you very much. We are glad to have the oppor- tunity to appear before you on the matter of restoring to productive condition the lands and related resources affected by surface minmg~ It is especially pleasing for me to see my old time friend aiid one' whose work I have long admired, the distinguished gentleman from Montana, in the chair I have a brief prepared statement, Mr Chairman I am going to read all of this `and then my colleagues and I will respond to any ques- tions that members of the committee may have. Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, we don't have slides I was going to suggest that the committee make it a part of their business to visit some of these areas that have been `strip mined and the slides I hope~ will have `stirred your interest sufficiently that you will still make that part of your business of your committee Senator METCALF. I want to say to my old friend that I think that every member of this committee is familiar with strip mining opera tions. We come from `areas where we `have observed strip mining and many of us have observed it in other States We have been concerned about this as a former Governor to my left and a former Governor to my right in their States and as Senators from all the Western States. Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I know that is true and it seemed to me that your revisiting these as a body might have some usefulnesa is bringing national attention to the undertaking in whichyour corn- mittee now is engaged. Senator METCALF. I think that is a spendid suggestion. Mr. BAKER. Both S. ~17 and S. 3126 would provide a FederaJ- State program for the regulation of future operations. They would provide a grant in aid program for the restoration of previously n'Line)d lands-both privately and puhl'icJy owned-and would estab- hsh a grant in aid program for research and teohrncal assistance Both have provisions for Federal acquisthon of previously mined lands under certain conditions. Two basic differences, in addition to oth~rs, between these tw& bills are (1) S. 217 would apply only to coal mined lands, whereas S. 3126 would apply to all surface or `strip mined lands, and (2) S.' 21'T would be administered. entirely by the Secretary of the Interior, whereas S. 3126 would be administered in part by the Secretary of the Interior and~ in part by the Secretary of Agriculture. S 3132 was introduced by Senator Jackson It was cosponsored by Members who also introduced S 217 and S 3126 It is the bill sub miitted by the Secretary of the Interior to carry out part of the pro gram outlmed in President Johnson's message of March 8, "To Renew a Nation." The program which would be authorized by S. 3132 would be di- reoted toward future surface mine operations only It would be a Federal State cooperative program find would be administered by `the Secretary of the Interior. PAGENO="0073" 67 A recent survey and study of surface mining operations which Secreta~ry TJdall described and in which the Department of Agricul- ture participa~ted, found that in excess of 150,000 acres annually aro being disturbed in the Nation by surface mining operations. Only about one-third of this is presently being reclaimed. It is not possible to eliminate or avoid all damage from surface mining. But the needs to be supplied from surface mining opera- tions can be met and the benefits from surface mining activities can be gained in ways to minimize the damages and restore the mined lands to productive condition. If action is taken now we can avoid the constant increase in acreage in our derelict land. We can avoid further off-site damage, including contamination of the streams, from surface mining operations. We can hold down further blotches from this cause on the beauty of our countryside. Mr. Chairman, we in the Department of Agriculture applaud and endorse the program proposed in S. 3132 and join in recommending its enactment. We are pleased that S. 3132 recognizes in section 16 and in the final clause of section 5 (a) and in section 7 (a) and the second sen- tence in section 14 that Congress has already enacted certain pro- grams such as those of the Secretary of Agriculture for activities related to the restoration of surface mined areas and we read sec- tion 5 (a) and the other sections I mentioned to authorize, require, and direct that there be consultation and cooperation among the Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, and the States in carrying out the provisions of this bill. The Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service of the De- partment of Agriculture have had long and successful cooperative experience with State and district soil and water conservation offi- *cials as Senator Nelson has already pointed out, State foresters, and farm and forest hindowners and operators in land management and soil and water conservation work. We would plan to cooperate fully with the Secretary of the Interior in making available to him and the States and State agencies the expertise and professional competence existing in the Department of Agriculture. The on-going program of the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service include technical asssistance to private landowners in the restoration of surface mined lands. These will be continued. This is part of the Department of Agriculture's vital concern for the beauty and the prosperity of the rural countryside of America. For example, the Soil Conservation Service provided onsite tech- nical assistance as Senator Nelson has already pointed out to 5,255 cooperators in 500 soil and water conservation districts in 31 States to reclaim 127~747 acres of surface mined land in the period 1960-64. In the same period, State forestry agencies with cooperation from the Forest Service provided onsite technical assistance or supervision for the reclamation of 36,710 acres of surface mined land in 1,431 locations. We recognize that these are only small bites at the 2 million acres of previously surface mined land needing varying degrees of treat. ment. These 2 million acres of substantially derelict, unrestored, and PAGENO="0074" 68 unproductive lands have in certain cases advørsely affected the en- vironment, the people, and in many instances the whole economy of the areas concerned. Within the limits of available appropriations and where there is demonstrated value in reclamation, we will continue our work to provide through cooperative arrangements the best technical assist- ance we can to reclaim lands previously damaged by surface mining. We will also continue our efforts in restoring more and more acres of public lands under our administration. In every case where we have taken action toward the restoration of these kinds of land the results of putting them to beneficial use have been most happy. We presently are working with others in the execu- tive branch to develop the best possible program proposals for the more rapid restoration of previously surface mined land. We look forward to the time when these proposals are ready and budgetary considerations will permit the recommendation of a broader and more extensive program. Another part of the ongoing programs of the Department of Agri- culture relating to the reclamation of surface mined land is that of re- search. Information developed through years of research by the Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service on vegetative cover is be- ing widely applied. We will continue to increase our knowledge in these fields and help to apply that knowledge wherever it is useful. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this brief statement will illustrate the deep interest that we in the Department of Agriculture have in im- proving environmental and other conditions in the rural countryside. We urge enactment of S. 3132. We stand ready to work with the committee to move the bill forward and to consider any amendments that you may wish to bring to our attention. We will be glad to respond now, Mr. Chairman, to any questions that the committee may have. Senator METCALF. We are delighted to have you here and to have that very fine statement, Mr. Secretary, and of course we are pleased to have the chief forester and the other members of the group here to testify. Senator Nelson. Senator NELSON. No questions. Senator METCALF. Senator Hansen. Senator HANSEN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator METCALF. Senator Fannin. . Senator FANNIN. How much of the reclaimed land is in coal mining areas ? Isn't most of it in the coal mining area? Mr. BAKER. Practically all, sir. Senator FANNIN. That is the only question I have. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Mr. Secretary, Senator Nelson raised some search- ing questions as to the advisability of including the Soil Conservation Service in this bill. Are you satisfied that we do require and guarantee that there will be consultation with the Soil Conservation Service if this bill is passed, which gives the Secretary of the Interior the jurisdiction over the whole problem? Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, may I express, first, our deep apprecia- tion for the complimentary remarks that I think are accurate that the Senator from Wisconsin made about the work of the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service. PAGENO="0075" 69 Senator METCALF. May I say I completely concur. Mr. BAKER. I think all the members of your committee do. You have supported us all these many years in the activities that we have undertaken, the research and operating, technical assistance work that has developed the expertise that Senator Nelson spoke of. The bill as we read it says, and I made specially clear the specific places where it could be read to say, that the Secretary of Agriculture. will participate in this undertaking. We agree fnlly~ with Senator Nelson in the point he made that expertise does exist in public land management in the Forest Service. Technical assistance, financial assistance, and educational activity with respect to private land man- ag~ment in this regard is now available in the agencies of the Depart- ment of Agriculture. The two that are represented here with me now, and Agricultural Research Service and Economic Research Service, certainly should be in the S. 3132 operation. I agree with Secretary Udall who said that the Secertary of Agriculture would have a case for the predominant part in the restoration of previously mined areas whenever the opportunity permits us to undertake that. Senator METCALF. Senator Nelson. Senator NELSON. As I understand the bill, it states in various places, including section 5(a) that: The Secretary is authorized, whenever he determines that it would effectuate the purposes of this Act, to cooperate with other Federal aguncies. The point I want to make is that between the present two Secretaries that may work very well. I don't know. But in my judgment it ought to be in the bill that the Soil Con- servation Service expertise shall be used. I call Senator Fannin's attention to this. We are talking about the question, Senator, that they may use other Federal agencies. In a hearing before the labor committee just a week or 10 days ago Senator Fannin raised this exact point as to duplication of effort between the Defense Department and the Civil Rights Commission in enforcing the law on discrimination in defense contracts. I believe it was he who raised it. Senator FANNIN. Yes. Senator NELSON. The Civil Rights Commission comes in and says, "You must do this," and then the Defense contracting departrne~nt comes in and says, "This is the policy," and they are in conflict. It is total nonsense that such conflicts arise and it infuriates every sensible person in America. It seems to go on endlessly in the Federal Govern~ ment. I am satisfied that if you pass this law the way it is that within the next 5 years expertise would build up in the Interior Department that is totally unnecsssary because it presently exists on the spot in our States. It is just inevitable. That is what is going to happen. It has happened in every agency I have ever looked at that got any authority. Even though you have authority elsewhere within the Government they don't communicate with each other. They are jealous of exercising the au- thority they have and when they have the authority they have to have somebody to exercise it. So they have a lawyer interpret their authority. Then they have some enforcement people go out and see that the authority they have is en- I PAGENO="0076" 70 forced. It seems we have such a senseless bunch of nonsense in the Federal Government, with the duplicating bureaucracies, that you could fire a good percentage of the personnel and get a better job done. That is just a hard cold fact of the matter. I don't know what experience Senator Fannin had as Governor, but know in my State I have watched that Soil Conservation Service and it has been working for many years. All the local people have confidence in it. Theyare there on the spot, available for advice and consultation with our farmers and others. They do a very good job and not to require that the expertise that is there be used in the areas in which they have knowledge is just a lot of nonsense because we will have another layer of bureaucracy on top of it. It may not be less two Secretaries but it will happen to some of them because it always does. I don't know of any exception in my ~O years of government ex- perience and that is why I think this committee ought to be saying, "You shall use it and you shall not duplicate where you have the re- source there." Now, if it is necessary, I don't see any reason why you cannot do this. If it is the type of project, and the authority rests with the Secretary of the Interior, he should be directed to notify the Secretary of Agri- culture that, "We are now exploring a proposed mining operation and out there in the field you have people who understand soil restoration, watershed management, and all the rest of this," and use the necessary personnel. They are there. It should not be necessary to hire other people to go out and do the job that these Federal people on the job can do. That is my only point about this. Senator FANNIN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the Senator from Wisconsin that we often pass legislation here that duplicates ex- isting programs. I give as a good example what happened with our mine safety bill. Originally the mine inspector was to be responsible for barrow pits and supposedly it was just going to pertain to these loading areas and for gravel and sand areas, but the legislation now covers even pits along the highways. That legislation creates an impossible enforcement problem. Too often we see a need that exists and, instead of trying to get some co- operation from the States and working with the States. we enact overlapping legislation which only creates a duplication of effort and cost. Such legislation is not beneficial to the industry or to the people of this country. Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the gentleman- Senator METCALI~. Please do. Mr. BAKER (continuing) . If I remember correctly, Secretary Udall testified very strongly to the considerable capabilities of the various agencies in the Department of Agriculture with regard to conser- vation. He testified that it was his intention to utilize these services in the administration of S. 3132. I have testified that we propose to make this expertise and these services `available. The `bill is less than as explicit as `the Senator from Wisconsin has suggested it should be, that they will be used. It is our purpose that they be so used. PAGENO="0077" 71 `Senator METCALF. My colleagues have made a very eiçquent argu.. ment for a Department of Natural Resources. I hope when the hear- ings on Senator Moss' and my bill come up they would be as forceful. Do you have any statement? Mr. BAKER. I come nearer agreeing I think with part of Senator Nelson's comments than I do with your bill. Senator METCALF. I wouldn't be surprised. Do you have any state- ment, Mr. Cliff? Mr. CLIFF. I would like to just say a few words. The Forest Service has been involved in restoration of surface mined areas for quite a few years on the lands that we administer. Our public domain lands are subject to mineral leasing under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act. The acquired lands are subject to mineral leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act for acquired lands. There has been considerable mining under the mineral leasing acts. We have the authority to require res- toration of these surface mined lands under these acts. We have had experience. in restoration of thousands of acres of lands that have been mined on the national forests under the Mineral Leasing Act. In the West under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act as it applies to the national forests derived from the public domain we don't have the final authority, but we have authority to recommend to the Department of the Interior the stipulations on surface mining under the Mineral Leasing Act applying to the western lands. We `do have experience in restoration work. We have some notable examples in Idaho on phosphate mines where we are r~ally pioneering on resthration under semiarid conditions. We have had 30 years of experience in research directed `at surface mine restoration in our research organization. Our research starte'd in 1937. For the first half of this period we have devoted about 6 scientist years to research in surface mining and restoration. We ~re now spending `about 12 scientist years on this kind of research. Most of it has been done in cooperation with the mining industry and most of it in the Central States, in Ohio, Kentucky, and the surrounding States. So we do have a backlog of expertise through our research and our experience in working in this area. We are primarily responsible for the work that i's done on the national forest land. We are fairly current in keeping up with restoration in the Eastern United States. We have some 1O8~OOO acres of disturbed lands that are not restored. Eighty percent of this is in the West where the mining i~s done under the general mining law's where we `didn't have the kind of authority that we would need to require restoration. So there i's some backlog of work to be done on the national forests in restoration. I just wanted to add that to round. out the picture as to where we fit. We have the State cooperative forestry programs and we have cooperated with the State foresters in restoring privately owned forest ]ands that have been strip mined. Mr. BAKER. It might be useful now, Mr. Chairman, if we may, to ask Mr. Grant to explain a little bit about what these 500 soil and water conservation districts have done on surface mine restoration and how that works. Mr. GRANT. Thank you, Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, it certainly has been gratifying to listen to the statements regarding the expertise PAGENO="0078" I 72 in the U.S. Departmea~t of Agriculture and the Soil Conservation Service, the agency which I represent. We are, of course, deeply ooncerned, as are all of the soil conserva~ ti~on districts, with oritioaJ areas, whether they be roadbanks, str~aan- banks, strip mine areas, that are contributing sources of pollution and sediment to our strean~s and also añversely affecting ongoing farming operations. The soil conservation districts within their present capabilities and authorities have, as has been pointed out, made a very substantial effort to get on top of this problem by working with their own individ- ual cooperators to restore lands wherever possible to a productive use. In many cases these lands have been put back to cropland, pasture- land, or planted with trees. In some cases they have been devoted to other uses such as reclamation for industrial development. We treat this problem as we do all problems on individual land- owners' properties. That is, in attempting to decide with the land- owner, recognizing his final decision and recognizing that he has to put the major share of the financial input into the project, those uses which will contribute the most to not only his particular operation, but in many cases to the improvement of the entire community and State. District supervisors in those 500 districts previously mentioned, and in fact all districts, are very much concerned about the rate at which this is accomplished. In my own knowledge they have devoted a great deal of time to attempt to find ways of speeding up how they can actually restore some of these lands to a more productive use. There is no doubt but what we would be extremely happy to make this expertise available, not only in terms of problems that relate to the future, but we also are, of course, concerned about the restoration of lands which have been previously strip mined. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Senator Nelson? Senator NELsoN. No questions. Senator METCALF. Thank you for an excellent presentation. You are already aware of the high regard that your agency has with all of us here. Do you have aiiy further statements, Mr. Secretary? Mr. BAKER. No, sir ; I believe not, thank you. We appreciate very much the fine statements that have been made here by members of the committee. I only hope that we have deserved them and our future work will deserve them. We appreciate it deeply. Senator METcALF. I suspect some of the slides that Mr. Finch showed were the results of the activity of the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service in restoring and reclaiming some of this land. So you don't need a photographer. You have people who recognize your capacity already. Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. (The text of Publication No. 1082 of the Department of Agriculture follows:) PAGENO="0079" 73 RI~8TORIN~ SURFACE-MINED LAND By the U.S. Department of Agriculture INTRODUCTION A power shovel as big as an office building bites into the earth, piling up row on row of rock and soil to get a vein of coal. . .. An auger with 7-foot ~it bores into a hillside, and coal work~ its way out like wood shavings. . . A floating barge dips its big chain-lucket into a streambed for a load of sand and gravel. . . An ore-laden train snakes its way out of a giant open pit. . . Through these and other operations man carries on the big activity of surface mining. He gets many minerals, fuels, and building materials that help our Nation grow and that provide jobs in rural America. In the process, the land is changed-laid bare, rearranged into parallel ridges, or scooped out like a souphowl. Properly treated and mar~aged, it can be returned to safe and productive use, even become a greater asset to the community than it was before mining. Left alone, it may produce only stream-fouling sediment and acid and ug1lne~s. F~or many years the tLS. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been helping private-land owners restore their surface-mined land as part of their regular programs of wise land use and conservation treatment. USDA also has done restoration work and research studies on the public land it administers. Its ox- perience and skills range all the way from preplanning mining to prevent offsite damage to development of a mined area for highly intensive uses. Through ~tudies and experience and through participation in the 2-year National Surface Mine Study under Public Law 89-4, USDA has gathered a great deal of information about surface-mined land conservation progre~s and needs. In this report highlights of the data are given as well as ideas for future action, suggested by research and experience, that can speed restoration of the surface-mined land `that is intermingled with farm, ranch, forest, s~nd other land in rural and suburban America. ~rface-in4ned land,-by ~tate8.-An estimated 8.2 million acres of land-some in every State-had been disturbed by surface mining `by January 1, 1065 (ta~bles 1, 2). TABLE 1.-LAND DISTURBED BY STRIP AND SURFACE MINING IN THE UNITED STATES, BY COMMODITY, JAN. 1, 19651 [In thousands of acresj Mineral Strip mining Contour Area Total Into hillside Quarry- Dredge, open pit hydraulic, below Total and other ground methods level Grand totala Coal3 665 637 1,302 1,302 Sand and gravel 38 258 296 82 371 453 74 823 Stone 6 8 14 100 127 227 241 Gold 8 8 1 3 4 191 203 Clay 10 26 36 22 44 66 7 109 Phosphate 28 49 77 13 93 106 183 Iron 7 31 38 30 96 126 164 All other 11 12 23 59 81 140 163 Total 765 1,029 1,794 307 815 1,122 272 3,188 1 Acreage by method of mining estimated from random sampling survey. 2 Compiled from data supplied by US, Department of the Interior; from Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and from estimates prepared by the field study group. I Includes anthracite, bituminous, and lignite. PAGENO="0080" I 74 TABLE 2.-CONDITION OF SURFACE-MINED LAND, BY STATE, JAN. 1, 1965 (In thousands of acres( State Land Land not needing needing Total land treat- treat- disturbed2 ment1 ment1 State Land needing treat- ment 1 Land not needing Total Ianf treat- disturbed2 ment I Alabama 83.O 50.9 133.9 Alaska 6.9 4.2 11.1 Arizona 4. 7 27. 7 32. 4 Arkansas 16. 6 5. 8 22. 4 California 107. 9 66. 1 174. 0 Colorado 40.2 14.8 55.0 Connecticut 10. 1 6. 2 16. 3 Delaware ~ 2.2 5.7 Florida 143.5 45.3 188.8 Georgia 13.5 8.2 21.7 Hawaii ~ Idaho 30.7 10.3 41.0 Illinois 88. 7 54. 4 143. 1 Indiana 27. 6 97. 7 125. 3 Iowa 35. 5 8.9 44. 4 Kansas 50.0 9.5 ~ Kentucky 79.2 48.5 127.7 Louisiana 17.2 13.6 30.8 Maine 21. 6 13. 2 34. 8 Maryland 18. 1 7. 1 25. 2 Massachusetts 25. 0 15. 3 40. 3 Michigan 26. 6 10. 3 36. 9 Minnesota 71.5 43.9 115.4 Mississippi 23.7 5.9 29.6 Missouri 43. 7 15. 4 59. 1 Montana 19. 6 7. 3 26.9 Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Newiersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode lsland South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 16.8 12.1 28.9 20.4 12.5 32.9 5.1 3.2 8.3 21.0 12.8 33.8 2.0 4.5 6.5 50.2 7.5 57.7 22.8 14.0 36.8 22.9 14.0 36.9 171.6 105.1 276.7 22.2 5.2 27.4 5.8 3.6 9.4 229.5 140.7 370.2 2.2 1.4 3.6 19.3 13.4 32.7 25.3 8.9 34.2 62. 5 38. 4 100.9 136.4 29.9 166.3 3.4 2.1 5.5 4.2 2.5 6.7 37.7 23.1 60.8 5.5 3.3 8.8 111.4 84.1 195.5 27.4 8.2 35..6 6.4 4.0 10.4 Total 42,040.6 I Compiled from data supplied by Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2 Compiled from data supplied by U.S. Department of the Interior; from Soil Conservation Service; and from study-group estimates. Less than 100 acres. 4 Does not include 108,000 acres of national forest land needing treatment. 1,147.2 3,187.8 D i.ctance from popt4lO~tiofl centers.-Surface-mined-land conservation is a rura~ opportunitY. More than four-fifths of the mined land surveyed is at least a mile from communities with a population of more than 200. More than half are more than 4 miles from town. And 40 percent of the mined land cannot now be seen from any U.S. highway or passenger railroad. Most areas were close enough to communities, though, for a family to reach for an afternoon recreation outing. No urban growth was evident around two-thirds of them, which suggests that these areas are likely to continue in agricultural and related uses. Owner$hip.-OWflershiP of the land and its minerals hold the key to use and conservation of these resources. Since most surface-mined land is privately owned, opportunity for improvement lies largely in local assistance programs of mutual interest and value to landowners and their neighbors-the kind of pro- gram already being carried on by the Nation's 3,000 soil and water conservation districts arid by State forestry agencies with USDA help. Increased assistance through these going programs could do the job. And since the mining industry owns more than half of the surface-mined lalKi. it has a challenge to restore its property to a useful state and to prevent offsite damages. A survey of 693 surface-mine sites' in 1966 showed that many were scattered small acreages best treated as part of the total conservation management of the farm afl(l other areas with which they are intermingled. Nearly 80 percent of the sites were in forest, farm, or grassland or reverting to forest at the time of survey. These same uses were being made of land adjacent to 86 percent of the sites. Less than 2 percent o~f the acreage had been set aside solely as outdoor recreation or wildlife areas usually these are compatible w'ith other uses of the 11usd. Hu'i-face-niineã lUfld-b31 oontni.o*ditics.-More th~us 50 minerals a re prO(lUCed by surface mining in the United States. M)OUIt 9~ ~)erces~t of the acreage db.iturbed by 19G5 Wils for seven coullm;odities : Coal, about 40 1)erceslt ; sand and gra vel 25 percent ; stone, gold, (lay, l)hosl)Isate, asid iron 30 perceist. Ois two-thirds of the I Sites \\`Pr*~ 2('l(Cte.fl at randoni Ijolis iniii~i1 ]nuil thrnugliout the Nation to repr~senit the surl'ace-ininhisg situation. Of tho total, 180 sites were rnine1 for coal ; 149 for sand and gravPl : 100 stoiic ; 49 clay ; 49 iron ; 48 gold ; 40 Pl1OSI)Ilate ; and 78 for eight other corn- rnodit1es~ PAGENO="0081" 75 areas surveyed, the m~neraI de~c~s~tt being mined was over 9 feet thick. Tiils mean~ great ~a1ue frotm an acre but dilflculity in resi~aping the iand to its original con-~ tours. Grading enongh ~o sa1~i'stfy inteEcled land use is mere practical. Siome thin deposiits niig1~t better have been left unmined where resterati!on costs w~ou1d be pro~ortionate1y hi~h. Age of surface mines.~Of the (393 siltes sampled in 1966, 10 were mined more than a century ago. But most spoil banks and other disturbances are less th~ 10 years old, indicating a rapid rise in surfaee~mining activity. The a~reage mined has more than doubled in the last 20 years. Dv~ration of ~surf ace mini~g.-&o're than half of the sites sampled were quarries or pits that had been operated for more than 10 years. Only a third of the sites had been operated for less than 5 years. Most were active long enough to have a significant eConomic impact on the community, and usunily other surface-mining ~perati~nis b~gan later ~ithin the same wnatershed or drainage area. CHAnACTERISTIC5 AND PHYSICAL CONDITION Of the 3.2 million aeres disturbed by surface mining, about a third needs no further treatment to prevent sediment or other damage to adjacent land and water. About 46 percent of these 1.1 million acres that need `no treatment was stabilized by nature over a period of years ; 51 percent was treated through e~orts Ott the mining industry and individual landowners; and the rest Was treated by government at some level. On the other two-~thirds, newness of the disturbed area, distance fi~om n~atura1 seed sources, or other problems make establishment of protective plants sicw or difficult. Steep or unstable slopes, acidity, or stoninCss are probletuTs in some areas. These are su'see~tible-in varying degrees-~to erbsion and may contribute sediment and other pollutants to strOam's that drain them. ~poii banki In surface-nilning operations the layers of soil and rock above the mineral deposit are shoveled out and piled up in "s~oil" banks. These banks are a mixture of soil, subsoil, and unweathered rock that is far from resembling a soil formed in nature. Their characteristicis vary greatly among mines, and even Within the same mine. Prediction of site suitability thus is best done with the help of profes- sional soil scientists, agronomists, foresters, and other specialists. Tect~re~-~Spojl texture influences the amount of moisture av~ail'able for plant growth. In general, s~oi'l composed largely of sand has good aeraiton but is apt tie be `droughty. Ol'ay banks c'o'm~aci easily and crust over during dry periods. Learns and silty sha'les usually have enough fine m~aterial to' hold. moisture. On ~bout 80 percent of the surface-mined land, spoil texture is adequate for growing `adapted `grasses and legumes for quick erosion control a~d to supplement tree or shrub plantings. Rock content on abcou,t three4ourths of the banks, however, re- stricits the type of equipment that can be used in revegetati'on. On about one- fourth of the banks the spoil is suitable for farm crops. Acidity.-Aicid problems are assOciated largely with coal mining. They are caused when minerals left exposed to air and water react to form toxic or ctor- rosive substances. By Itself, acidity does not directly influence plant growth. But it affects the `availability of `soil nutrien~ts-~di,ssolved minerals-~and the number of soil micro- organisms. Strongly acid soils may, however, dissolve enough elements to injure or destroy plants that absorb them. More than half of the sites have acid soils; 20 percent `are `acid enough to be a limiting f'acto'r in establishing plant cover; only 1 percent is so acid that plants will not grow. Acidity usually is reduc~d through weathering `and `leaching of the acid-forming materials. ~Zopes.-4\iore than 2 million acres (`about 75 percent) have been mined on areas with original slopes of less than 20 percent-in the small watershed proj- ects with which USDA has been working most of the mined ~ areas have slopes of les~ than 10 percent. Only about 8 percent of the mined areas were on bill- sides with slopes of more than 40 percent. Four-ñtfths `of the affected areas were o~ `side slopes, ridge'tops, or isolated knobs from which storm-water flows need to be gitided into defi~ied stream chan- nel's-with grass waterways or chutes, for example.. The other one-fifth were on valley floors close to rivers and subject to local flooding. 95-623-68-----6 PAGENO="0082" 76 curnate About four-fifths of the surface-mined land is in areas where rainfall and temperatures are adequate for pliant growth. With adequate spoil conditions and proper preparation, plant establishment and growth should be possible. On the other one-fifth, plants grow slowly because of too little or too much moisture, high temperatures, er unfavorable evapotranspiration ratio. Here ape- dial treatments and plants are needed to offset poor ecological conditions. Eroaion About 2 million acres have evidence of sheet erosion. Some erosion is inevitable on fresh spoil banks, as it is on any bare soil. How severe it is depends on steep- ness and length of slope, extent of freezing and thawing, amount and intensity of precipitation, and bow water is eon~entrated on the spoil. Thus, the quicker a pliant cover is estabilisitid to protect against erosion the better. Forty percent or 1.2 million acres have eroded enough to form rills and small gullies. On 12 percent or 400,000 acres, gullies moire than a foot deep have formed: these seem to be associated with long slopes created by gra~ing. Sheet erosion is not a serious problem in either area stripping or dredging since most of the *~oi1 movement is between spoil banks and little leaves the mine area. Sheet erosion is more serious in contour stripping. Erosion danger is greatly increased at the point where storm water drains from a surface mine because of the concentrated force of water. ,S~Iidea.-On about 3,600 miles of slopes left by contonr and area stripping (called outsiopes) , massive slides are a problem-especially where the subsoil is unstable. Slides may enter streams and even block channels. Their stahiliza- tion or removal would be costly and would involve geology, soils, engineering, hydrology, and forestry skills. Slides of this size occur on about 10 percent of the total mileage of outslopes. Access roads.-Mining haul roads are responsible for much erosion, especially in mountain areas. About 1,650 miles of these roads have eroded so badly they need major repairs. Another 3,300 miles are moderately eroded. Access roads for most mines surveyed were under 7 miles in length, and many were of half a mile or less. Many would best be revegetated rather than kept as roads. The rest need careful management after hauling stops. Plant cover For newly mined land, the great need is to establish. plant cover as quickly as possible. Adequate plant cover reduces erosion and siltation in almost nil cases, but it takes time. There is no "instant cover." Examination of sites capable of supporting vegetation showed that 32 percent had plant cover of 40 percent or more. About 28 percent of the sites had less than 40 percent cover at the time but, in the judgment of the survey team, would develop adequate protective cover naturally in time. The other 30 percent of the sites will require seeding, planting, fertilizing, and other attention to develop adequate protective cover. It was estimated that three-fourths o~ the vegetation had occurred naturally on ground with more than 10 percent plant cover, and one-fourth through the efforts of man. Variations in vegetation appear to be associated with climatic conditions, spoil characteristics, nearness to natural seed sources, and age of the spoil banks. Half of the banks are less than 10 years old. Water qi4~ality and streainfiov, Surface mining in seine areas is a source of water ~oilution, mainly sediment and to ~ less extent acid; Of the sites surveyed, 56 percent showed no pollution; 23 percent showed `some intermittent pollution ; and 21 percent produced con- siderable pollution. The survey team estimated that about a third of the surface- mined land needing conservation treatment, or shout 665,000 acres, needs some action to redtme offslte water pollution. Of the strean~s receiving direct runoff from surface-mined sites, 31 povcent of those examined contained notic~abie amounts of rntinera;l precipitates. Water discoloration, suggesting chemical or physical pollution, w:as noted in 37 percent of the streams. Natural seepo.ge from m~worked coal and other pyritic material- from both surface and deep mines-eanses limited local pollution. Aeceas roads built of p~ritie waste material `also may be sources of acid water. Sediment is a problem where inadequate plant cover permits erosion and water Is allowed to run off the site from roads, terrace outlets, outslopes, or slides. It Is part1~uIariy severe in areas of high-intensity storms and steep slopes. I PAGENO="0083" 77 Sediment generally was i~t present in sn~a11 strean~s more than 2 mi1e~ from the nñne `area. But of 14,000 mi1es~ of strea~n ehanne1~ affected by surface mm- ing, half have had thetr water~earrying ea~a~eity rethieed ; along 4,500 mIles capacity was moderately reduced, and along 2,500 miles ea]saeity had teen affected only slightly. Self~contained minii~g sites~-quarries, dredged areas, ahd some ar~a-~strip~ed sites~-1do hot have enough runoff to warrant costly storm-water controls. Con- tour-stripped areas can be ~ u~e~ to mai~age runoff in much the ~ame way as broad-based terraces. But on 98 percent of the surface-mined land stu~ied in Appala~ia~where most contour stripping is done-storm-water runoff control was not adequate to prevent erosion, sediment, or flooding. On these areas, vegetative and mechanical measures ~r a comlinaition are needed. An example is the need for grading within some surface-mine pits to control storm runoff. About 75 percent of the sites need some grading, and only 45 percent have received any. Grading tdo much or on the wrong ~oii material, though, may make matters worse ; special care and tecLlanidal assistance are needed. In some area's of the West, minor resl~aping of some banks is adding to the beauty of the landscape. POfl4~Z8 Many surface~mined areas have ponds or depressions, especially where area stripping has been done. Forty-two percent of the ponds are smaller than an acre, 40 percent or 1 to 10 acres, and 18 percent are larger than 10 acres. Two- thirds are more than 5 feet deep. Acidity is a problem in some ponds-one-fifth of those studied had a pH rating of less than 4.5. The other four-fifths are less acid and include the larger and deeper ponds that have greater potential use. Some are being used even for municipal water supplies. Animal life was present in four-fifths of the ponds, but scarce in the acid ponds. Effect on wildlife Disturbing land and water for mining naturally disrupts wildlife habitat. State fish and game commissions reported to U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife that nearly 2 million acres of wildlife habitat had `been damaged by surface mining-68 percent of it east of the Mississippi River. Most damage resulted from: Stream widening, affecting water temperature and depth of spawning beds. Lake draining. Burying or removing spawning gravels. Diverting surface flow. ~ Sediment. Ohemical changes in soil and water quality. Removing food, nesting, and escape cover plants. Forming high walls that llmit animal access or movement (a problem on about one-fourth of the high wall mileage studied). Where proper restoration measures have been taken, fish and wildlife habitat has improved and often is better than before mining. Since the same kinds of wildlife use the mined site and adjacent lands, there is opportunity for manag- ing both areas together for wildlife habitat on private and public property. Safety One-third of the mined areas studied had some safety hazard, usually water. On 22 percent of the inactive areas there was evidence of abandoned buildings, equipment, debris, or rubble-some hazardous and nearly all unsightly. Ten percent had one or more deep~mine openings-without shaft sealing. Restoration measures, well planned and carried out, reduce the danger to public safety. ACCOMPLISHMENTS USDA's participation in surface-mined-land conservation began In the 1930's. The Forest Service then began research on revegetating mined land and keeping acid and sediment out of streams. The Soil Conservation Service at the same time began helping landowners improve their soil and water resources and solve many land use and land treatment problems, among them surface mining. During one 5-year period, 1960-64~ more than 5,000 land owners and operators in 500 local soil and water conservation districts in 31 States applied conservation measures to nearly 12~O00 acres of surface-mined land with USDA help (table PAGENO="0084" 78 3) . The survey team noted that the conservation districts considered restoration of mined areas as part of the total conservation job on individual properties or whole watersheds and not a separate or special activity. TABLE 3.-SURFACE-MINED-LAND TREATMENT BY COOPERATORS WITH SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, 1960-64 State 931 1,000 809 3,246 557 6, 326 970 268 6, 367 848 122 1,515 13,784 1,038 403 88 3 66 116 38 89 252 22 94 68 18 73 1,139 127 16 Missouri Montana Nebraska NewYork Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia WestVirginia Wisconsin 2,546 33 ~ 1 1,896 194 824 93 23,613 433 5, 866 232 13, 043 306 8,441 140 2, 945 77 1,830 42 1,110 26 10,102 11,890 887 725 165 -~--------- ~5,255 1,378 3,350 130 229 Total 127,747 Area Landowners (acres) participating Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Mississippi State Area Landowners (acres) participating During the ~anie 5-yeiar pertksi State fore~ters, through Federa1-St'a~e coopera- tive programs, provided technical help to more than 1,2~O ownerships in re- planting about 37,000 acres to trees. Industry M7any mining firms are giring increased attention to the challenge of surface- mineid-land conservation. Ree1am~atio'n asl~ocia1tion~ formed in a number of States have their own pro'feissi~n'al sitaff to ~ositer re~tor1ation work. Indivtdual firms and tbetr association's have restored m!any mined acres, conducted demon~str~- ti'cnis ptojects and experimental plantings, carried on substantial reewarch work. and tn genei~al promoted effective consers~a'tion treia:tment of surtfa~e-mined land. For e~1amp1e, recian~ation as~ocLattons in the ~&ppalachian region have done reiI~ores~atton ~nid seeding on 74,000 suilace-mined a~cres. The Nati~nal S~tnd and Gravel AJsuociatJi!on~.s inen~bers re~habiUtated 52 percent o~f th e acreage they mined in l9~5, coan~sared with only 25 percent just 2 y~ars earlier. Plidsph)ate mining firms in Florida, between 1961 and 1966, voluntarily restored 75 percent of the acreage mined during thait period. Where rnines are near urban ar~as, many phc~phaJte uviners have inaide planis before m4~iing for later `development otf the ~ite a~s residentail, commericlial, or recr~aition areals. And surfa~e-mine operators in 22 Stateis have formed the Mined Land Oonsers~atlon Comference to promote res~oration ~Yf min~d land for us&ful purposes. 1\?tany other firms and ecvmn~eidi(ty groups have y~t to follow these exa~p1es and respond !to the challenge otf surc1~ace-mined-land conservation. Government Fourteen States have laws requiring restoration work, most enacted fairly recently. Their provisions are compared in table 4, with three exceptions. Georg-ia and Kan~aJs ei~adted laws th(ait cail for estaidishment of State boards to license rand regulate aurface mining and, enforce ves~ioration. Mon~an(a's law ~suthorizes ite Bureau of Minds land Geology to ei~ter into contracts with coal stripmine operators. Amounts spent.for restoration. work can be credited against the coal license tax. No bond is required. A re~toration-p]!an map is called for that includ~s covering exposed s~ams, grading ridges th~tt are near highways, con- strueting earthen dams, and planting recommended species for later forest or grazing use of the mined area. Work usually must be completed within 3 years after mining. In adtcj~tio~i, Iowa, North O~ro~ina~, and North Dakota have ~sta'bli~hed advis~ry b~ai~ds or .~omrnittees to suggest re~tor~tlon program. In C~lorado, coal-mining firms and the State's. Department. of N'atu'ta~ . R~ources have a voluntary ~ tra~toal .agreement,dealing With rest~ñtt~on, This arrangement will be watched ~iith interest. PAGENO="0085" 79 A few other States have some control over surface mining through water- pollution-control statutes. State funds have been made available to universities and foundbljirons for research awl demonstration actiVities. Some local governments have used zoning regulations to control mining and re- quire restoration of the land. Beyond assistance to prtv.ate4and owners, the Federal Governmeflt also has made some headway in restoring surface-mined areas on public land and is en- gaged in `researdh work. Resoarok USDA is the recognized leader in basic research on surface-mined-laud con- servation. Most research now underway in government and industry is in six ~eategortes: (1) Revegetation-deveioplng plant species that will provide quick dover or permanent growth and comparing various conibinaftions of seedings. PAGENO="0086" TABLE 4-STATE SURFACE-MINING LICENSURE, BOND, AND RECLAMATION REQUiREMENTS State Minerals covered License or permit Bonding requirement illinois All Required. $50 for 1st acre, plus $550 to $11.50 per addi- $200 per acre with a minimum of $1,000. $600 peracre with ~ tional acre depending upon quantity. a minimum of $3,000 for gob which cannot be vegetated. Indiana (new law effective Jan. 1, Coal, clay, and shale $50 plus $15 per acre Minimum $2,000 at the rate of $300 per acre. $225 per acre 1968). Administered under p01- is released on completion of grading requirements. cies of natural resources commis- sion. - Iowa Coal, gypsum, clay, stone, sand, gravel, Original license, $50. Renewals annually, $10 per year Equal to the estimated cost of rehabilitating the site as or other ores of mineral solids for sale or required in sec. 17 of the act. processing. Kentucky Coal, clay (except ball clay) Required. $50 per year, plus $25 per acre. Approved $100 to $500 per acre, with a minimum of $2,000. reclamation plan before issuance of permit. Map accom- panying request for permit must be certified by a regis- tered professional engineer. - Maryland Coal Required to register with Bureau of Mines, and $100 1st $200 per acre for land affected with a minimum of $1,600. year and $10 renewal each year. Cash deposit is acceptable. Ohio do Required. $75 per year, plus $15 per acre $300 per acre, with a minimum of $2,000. Cash deposit is acceptable. Oklahoma All Permit. $50 per year flat fee $50 per acre or assessed value of the land the preceding year, whichever is lesser. Cash or government securities acceptable. Pennsylvania Anthracite and bituminous coal License or permit. $300 per year flat fee. Mining and back- In any case not less than $500 per acre, but regulating agency filling plans required before permit issued. may bond to $1,000 per acre if conditions warrant. Mini- mum bond $5,000. Tennessee All solid materials in natural deposits ex- Required. Fee of $250 per year plus $25 per acre, not to Not less than $100 nor more than $200 per acre, as de- cept limestone, marble, or dimension exceed $750. termined by State commissioner of conservation. stone. Virginia Coal only Required $150 initial fee Permit approval based on ap Within 30 days following anniversary date of issuance of proved reclamation plan and initial bonding of $75 per permit, operator shall post additional bond in amount of acre, based upon number of acres of land the operator $50 per acre for each additional acre of land estimated by estimated will be distributed by strip mining during next him to be disturbed during the next year following anni- ensuing year, with minimum of $2,500, before issuance of versary date of permit. permit. In approving plans of reclamation and issuing rules and regulations, soil and water conservation district supervisors may be asked to advise, assist, and provide local facilities. West Virginia Coal, clay, manganese, iron ore Prospecting permit: $150 per acre for area disturbed during Minimum $3,000. $100 to $500 per acre disturbed. Director prospecting . of department of natural resources will set rate per acre. Permit to surface mine: $100 intital fee, $50 annual renewal. Special reclamation fee: $30 per acre for land disturbed. PAGENO="0087" Maryland _ Rules and regulations of Bureau of Mines. Spoil graded to minimize erosion, depressions, and steep slopes. Overburden graded to cover final pit. All openings from underground mining sealed off. Impound- ments approved by department of water resources. Ohio Grade to rolling topography to reduce erosion and permit logging or grazing. Grading of isolated peaks. Access roads and fire lanes. Con- struction of earth dams in final cut. Reclamation complete 2 years from completion of stripping. Substitution. Oklahoma Grading to rolling topography. Cover acid material with at least 2 feet of soil. Fire lanes will be built in forested areas. Pennsylvania Bituminous-Original slopes 12 degrees or less, backfill to original con- tour. Original slopes more than 12 degrees, terrace, high wall back- filled to 45 degrees angle. Stream pollution from acid drainage not permitted. Anthracite.-Pits near roads and buildings must be completely back- filled. Peaks and ricfges must be rounded off. Backfilling to be com- pleted within 6 months after end of operation. Disturbed areas to be planted to trees, shrubs, or grass within 1 year after completion of mining operation, or forfeit $100 per acre. Subject to approval of department of conser- vation. Subject to approval of regulating agency. Substitute site must be an equal area previously mined by the operator requesting such substitute. Loose coal, mine refuse, and other debris to be Subject to aprpoval of division of reclamation. graded so as to reduce the piles of such Affected area to be substituted must be material and make possible its submergence equal acreage to the original area affected. in water. If not covered by water, material shall be covered with overburden. No provisions Subject to approval of department of mines and mining. No specific provisions No statutory provisions; however, the operator may option not to plant and to pay $100 per acre to State instead. State Reclamation required Refuse Substitution of sites Illinois Conditioning to make suitable for productive use including forestry, Slurry to be confined in depressions or by grazing, cropping, wildlife, recreation, and building sites, according levees and screened with border plantings. to a plait. Ridges to be struck off a minimum of 10 feet for forestry, Infertile gob to be covered by a minimum of 18 feet for pasture,and graded to allow use of farm machinery for 4 feet of productive material. To be re- cropland. Plant species to be used must be approved by the depart- claimed within 1 year after active use. ment of conservation. Acid-forming material to be covered by 4 feet of water or other material capable of supporting plant life. To be completed within 3 years following the permit year except planting will be delayed where weathering is needed to establish plants. Indiana (new law effective Jan. 1, Grade to a rolling topography to reduce erosion and permit best land Remove or bury all metal, lumber, and other 1968). Administered under use. Acid materials in final cut to be covered with water or earth. refuse resulting from operation. policies of natural resources Establish satisfactory vegetative cover prior to bond release. Submit commission. plan of reclamation prior to mining. Roads constructed to minimize erosIon. Damming of final cut to form lakes. Iowa Spoil bank when feasible. Avoid acid-forming materials on surfaces of spoil. Grade spoil banks to regular slope of not over vertical rise of 1 foot for 3 feet horizontal except when original slope was greater. Control drainage. Cover acid-forming materials with 2 feet of earth. Kentucky Spoil grading concurrent with operation and reclamation completed Remove or bury all metal, lumber, and other within 12 months of permit expiration. Stand percentage complete refuse resulting from operation. No de- prior to bond release. Coverage of acid-producing material, positing refuse or spoil material into public roads, streams, lakes, subterranean waters, or other public property. No provisions No specific provisions No specific provisions. Allowed with respect to planting only, subject to approval of division if investigation shows that revegetatiori of original site may not be successful. No provisions. PAGENO="0088" TABLE 4.-STATE SURFACE-Mi NING LICENSURE, BOND, AND RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS-Continued State Reclamation required Refuse Substitution of sites No provisions for substitution. Act appears ambiguous: One section states operators obligation not discharged until revegetation meets commissioner's standards; another that maximum planning expenses of $25 per acre shall be required. Tennessee Coal-Covering of exposed coal, drainage, and water control. Grade to preserve existent roads and provide favorable conditions for revegeta- tion. Minimum crest of spoils 20 feet wide. (If restored for normal cultivation, operator relieved of further rehabilitation.) Other materials-Minimum crest of spoils 15 feet wide. Plant trees, shrubs, grasses, and so forth up to $25 per acre, one time. Operator may pay full estimated cost of revegetation and be relieved of further responsibility. (If restored to permit normal cultivation, operator relieved of further rehabilitation.) Virginia Regrade the area in a mannerto be established by rules and regulations which provide the following: 1. All surface deposits of removal overburden will assure a surface of gently rolling topography. 2. Preservation of existing access truck roads and needed roads for recreation or forest fire protection. 3. Plant vegetation upon parts of areas where revegetation is practicable 4. No water impoundments can be built by operator for wildlife, recreation, or water supplies without prior approval. West Virginia Cover the face of coal. Bury all toxic material, roof coal, pyritic shale, and material determined to be acid producing. Seal off any break- through of acid water caused by the operator. Impound, drain, or treat all runoff water. Plant species adopted to site as prescribed in a planting plan, within 1 year after mining is finished unless the plant- ing is deferred by the director of the department of natural resources. Operator may satisfy the requirement for reclamation by contracting with local soil conservation district or a private contractor. Remove or cover all metal, lumber, and other refuse except vegetation. Remove metal lumber, and other debris re- suiting from mining operations. Grade loose coal, refuse, and other debris on bottom of last cut so as to reduce the piles of such material in accordance with good conserva- tion practices. Subject to approval of department of servation and economic development. con~ Remove or bury all metal, lumber, equipment, None~ and other refuse resultingfrom the operation. PAGENO="0089" 83 (2) UheinAstry of overburden and $poits'-ideintifying SOll and roek mixtures,. soil and water e1~araeteristics, ai~d effects of fertillzatioca and weathering. (3) Hy.IroZogy~sftdyjng water ax~d drainage effects, sedimentation, ai~L groum1.-w~ter ~n~vement and storage. (4) Ea'rth n~ove,nen~t and pk~cernent-finding new or adapted equipment and methods for mining and m'c~re economical restoration. (5) ff0421 roads-designing better and safer access roads as well as better hauflng equipment. (6) La~ut use Potentia~ls-making guidelines for finding the best use for a mined area consistent with the community land use pattern and needs, thar.- acteristics of the mined land, and cost-return factors. There a~ many areas of study in which more research is needed to improve both surface mining and the reuse of the mined areas: Comprehensive knowledge of physical `and chemical characteristics of spoil. materials is needed, as well as interpretations or rating of surface-mined-areas land use potentials or limitations. Better methods are needed for lifting, moving, piling, and rniocating over- burden, especiafly On sloping land. More knowledge is needed about the responses of many different plants an& about their usefulness for ian'dscaping, screening, protective cover, wildlife haihi- tat, and soil building. Improved methods of preparing surface and subsurface water storage are~ needed to make effective onsite water use and prevent pollution and excess runoff. Potentia,I and cha2lenge Properly pianned, treated, and developed to blend with adjacent land use patterns, most `surface-mined areas have great potential (taMe 5) . Thirty-two percent of the areas surveyed provide an outstanding view of mountains, valleys, or `lake's. Haul roads can open up many areas to visitors for the first time. Ponds can give an area greater economic value than it had before mining. And most areas can be kept in private ownership. With to~iay's growing land use demands, particularly farm and forest reere~ ation, these opportunities deserve attention. The challenge to U~DA is to assist in developing resource uses in surface-mined areas that will be compatible with one another and `with uses of adjacent land. A similar challenge is to make sure that the optimum `benefit-both to the landowner and the community-is derived from each dollar spent in mining and! land restoration. Some shallow deposits would better be left unmined where res- toration costs would be prohibitive. Some mined `sites would best `be treated to prevent offsite damage but not developed. In some areas, mined land can be treated and managed for intensive use. PAGENO="0090" 84 C0CNQ~F~~ C, -~ 00 00~ 00 0000~- C'~-~) ~0) a,- 0? 00 C- C-) C~4 0, (0 00 - - 000 ~ ~ ,-~LC) (000C4 C'J 0~u~ ~0 00 N-(D~ ~ ~ C~4 C~ C- 00~ (C -~ - ~(CLC) (0 00C-4 ~00 000)00(00)00 ~ 00~ 000)C-4 0) C--00 N. O0N-U) ~ 0)~ C~4 (C) (C) 00(0) L0)(~j~g)~ CC)00N. N.000 (0) 00-~ LC) 0(000(00) N. ~ 00000) ((5 C0)L() 00N1 ~ (C)C.0 (C5(C4 00~ 0)00 CI) I- I- C,, -J > C,, CO 0) C-, CO 0 CO CI) > I- -J 0) C- -J 0 C- -J 00 0) -J E -o 00 CO 00 ((C CO 00 ~E ~ ~ PAGENO="0091" 85 I~RINOIPLES FOR A NATIONAL SURFACE-MINED-LAND CONSE1WATE~N EFFORT The mining industry, couservation distrtcts, and all levels of government should work together to put practical prineiples into surftce-mining operation~ at every s~tte : Preplanning.-Make good mine housekeeping and practical reetoration mea& ures an integral part of plans for the site-be1~o:re any mining activity begins. Include a plan for both interIm and final land use where praetiealle. Stabilization-While mining is going on, take steps to contr~ erosion on the site and on haul roads, including estabjishing quick-growing plants. Plant i~erma- nent cover to protect the area after mining, acad reseed or replant where previous revegetation has failed. Storm-water co,vtrol.-Plan control of snr~ace runoff on a watershed basis to fit stream ~apaciUes and prevent harmful sediment deposits. Water quality.-Plaee highly toxic spoil material only where it can be covered with other overburden or a permanent body of water. Se~1 off auger holes and any breakthrough to former undergronnd mines. Control drainage from sItes and haul roads to keep toxic substances and sediment out of adjacent streams. Water storage.-Oreate as many lakes as practicable, to aid water control and increase potential use of the mined site. Dame and ponds should be designed properly to guard against failure. Air q~ality.-He1p prevent offensive noises and air contamination by con- trolling use of explosives, fire, and motorized eqi~ment. Natural bea~ty.-Plan operations so they have a minimnm impact on the landscape. Make treatment work practical and pleasing to the eye. Health and safety.-Take steps before, during, and after mining to minimize hazards from equipment, structures, and water areas. Mined land should be devoted to the highest and best possible uses compatible with the use patterns of adjoining land and with the geographic location, topog- raphy, and other site charaeteristic~. Itvformc&tion Those involved in surface mining and restoration of the areas-and those who use the prodi~ots-nuiat be kept alreast of soeial, solentifte, and ebonomie developments that affebt their efforts. Eduk~ation in both the program resp~nsibiIities and seien4~iftc aspects shouid be fostered by the Fedei~a1 Government. TJnFs~eaisities and colleges provide formal knowledge in this fleid ; the less forinai is su~p~1Ied by ti4tde school's, correspon- den'ce courses, field days and work~hop~, and o'n~the-joh training. Ledtiures, field demonsfiratiions, aad onsite guidan~ce in solving mined-land p)r1oh1ems-4~he h'ow-to-clo4t-would aid in extending new ideas, new miethods, and new tebhniques. Field trials or t~sts si'iould be expanded to follow through on ha~sie ruse~aFeh in plants, techniques, and methods and to demonstrate their effeetivanes's. USDA offices localed in noarly every county in the Nation ~an fill many of these in!formation needis in their everydky de~a]Angs with local citizens and groups. Leadership and cis$istance Federal and State agencies should make use oc~ experience gained in aebivitie's closely related to surta~ce mIning as guides to asscistande in surtace-mining opera- tions and Conservation. For eziample, USDA has leader~hip in `de~eloping and interpreting soils in- ~ormatIon and in helping land operatOrs make effebtive use of it. This informa- tion with interprel~aItio'ns specifically 1~o'r surfaice-min~d land would have great value both `in finding potential ~ourcos of surfa'ee~nilne deposits and in restoring surtace~inined land to safe, productive use. *Sii~ee the problems and opportunities con~erning surfiste-mined land are largely on private rural property, USDA has a n~ajor responsibility to prorvtde Federal le'a~iership and assic~tance in its restoration. The 186 million acres of National F~rest uuder USDA jurisdicition are man- aged for mineral resources a's part of overall r~ource management. Sin~e niuich National Forest land is in'tetiimiingled with prts~ateiy owned land, the ulse and management of one is coordinated with the other to provide maximum private and puhlic benefits. USDA works closely with priviate landowners and with S~a~e and l~cal gov- eruments. Its `as~istanee on private land is ~hanneled through s~tl and water eon- serv~a'tion clisbriets, State foresters, and Stat~e and `county extension progra~ns. PAGENO="0092" 86 Eaidh eonservait~icni di~tr~t 1~as a pr~gmm th~t fits its i~ai pi~o1iemts and is a ceni~al source of help ~n ~c~Fs4ng these prthlems. Most surtfaoe-rn~ned land is in a ~ofl Sand water ~on~erval~ion diistriot. USDA en&~rses the type o~C i~tionai milned-land consera~tion efi~ort out- 1in~d in these t~$aJges. it i.s a use of the same prtnc~pies USDA han followed for y~airs in ills coopei~aitJive w~rk with private landowners. Ac~omplishrnentS already made by soil and water conservation district cooperators, the mining industry, and Government show that such a program can ~o the j01. OONOLUSIONS Proper treatment of surfaceinined land is an integral part of the total resource coi~seri~ation effort oi~ prIvate and public land. To this end, USDA recommends as a four-poInt course of action: 1. That FederaZ agencies demonstrate Zeadersh~p by restoring their svrftwe- minded ia4I~cZ. Each agency managing public land should develop a plan for completing the job within 10 years. ]~lach agency should establish adequate safeguards to prevent harmful effects from surface mining on its land in the future. 2. That treatment of old mined areas be accelerated. The Federal Government shou~d pai~ticipate w~ith States, counties, nnmicipalities, the m~n4ng industry, aseooiations, conservation `dintrticts, private individuals, and others in devolping long-range, comprehensive restoration programs-designed on a watershed or drainage-area basis. Federal tecirnical and financial aid should be on a long- term contract basis. 3. That to deal with~ the problem of future rehabilitation of surface-mined Land, Federal agencies ecstend their knowledge and assistance to states and producers of the 50-odd commodities involved. TechnIcal fnformation should be d~ssemtnated an it is developed. Federal agencies should study existing State statute~s on mined-land restoration (talile 4) and develop model statutes. The goal should be the blending of knowledge `and trust between all levels of industry and governmer~t in the Interest of mining wtth a minimum of adverse effects.. 4. That Federal research prograjins, studies, and field demonstrations be cu- panded. Man'!) problems of treating mine spoils have not been solved and many opportunities remain unrealized. Present research efforts are inadequate The problernis examined in this report need specific attention. Senator METCALF. I am going to recess the hearing at this time until 2 o'clock. At 2 o'clock, out of order, the first witness will be Mr. Harry Oaudill who has a problem of having to g~t out of town and then we will start in the regular order on the witness list with Mr. Abdnor and so forth right on down the list. ( Whereupon, at 12 :43 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Senator METCALF. The committee will come to order. Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Harry M. Caudill, chairman of the `Congress for Appalachian Development. We are glad to have you here. You are accompanied by another great friend of mine, Mr. Gordon K. Ebersole from Montana. I know from personal experience he has a great deal of knowledge about the needs for the development of these areas with which we are concerned. Mr. Caudill, you have a prepared statement and you may go ahead in your own way. PAGENO="0093" 87 STATEMENT OP HARRY H. OAUDILL, CHAIRMAN, OONGRESS FOR APPALACHIAN DEV~L'OPMENT, GROUP TO SAVE THE LAND AND PEOPLE, AND THE SIERRA CLUE; ACCOMPANIED BY GORDON K. EBERSOLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAD Mr. OAUDILL. I would like to say Mr. Ebersole is the executive direc- tor for the Congress of Appalachian Development and my appearance here today, in addition to being on behalf of the Congress for Appa- 1achiai~ Development, is also for the Sierra Club and the Appalachian ~Group to `Save the Land and People. The latter is made up of groups from Appalachia and other parts of the coal fields who have banded together in this organization to resist the destruction of their land by strip mining. For a dozen years I have earnestly hoped to see the day when a corn- mittee of the U.S. Congress would inquire into the ravages inflicted on the American earth by surface mining. During those years we have seen industrial devastation spread like a gargantuan cancer across hundreds of thousands of acres and marveled that a democratic society could care so little about its future as to calmly destroy the land its descendants will inherit and inhabit. During those years we have seen once-sparkling streams turn yellow and their channels choke with silt. We have seen valuable stands of second growth timber plowed under `by bulldozers and broad and fer- tile fields reduced to desolate wastes. We have seen hundreds of f am- ilies routed from their homes by mining corporations which blast and tear coal from under woodlots and orchards and, in at least one in- credible instance, from beneath the resting places of the dead. And we have seen deepening despair etched in the minds and hearts and faces of a multitude of once sturdy people-a people who even today sink with a dying land. And like many others, I have won- dered-as I do now-whether the Nation is slipping into a self-devour- ing madness which visits the same ruin upon its own land that it once reserved for that ruled by its arch-enemy, Adolph Hitler. Please accept my gratitude for this opportunity to testify in behalf of all my fellow mountaineers who are voiceless here, but are saddened by those vast forces which are wrecking so much of America the Beauti- ful. Let me express also, the alarm of the Sierra Club, whose 60,000 members are the organized conscience of the Nation in the conserva- tion field and who, increasingly, are militantly determined that this Na- tion shall survive in beauty as well as in strength. The Sierra Club has a long and honorable tradition of defending the land from those gro- :~esque assaults modern industrial man seems impelled to make upon it. It is my pleasure and privilege to declare the club's resolve to see. our needs for raw materials and our need for a decent environment. brought into harmony. . . . . There are.two great crises' in America today. One is a crisis of people, white and black, who are impoverished and eirnbittered and who, in their frustration and hatred threaten to burn down our cities, ruin our ancient political institutions, and.king dow~i upqn our necks the yoke of totalitarianism. The. crisis could have been dealt with, success-, fully a century ago when the siave~ were n~~ly freed and. when great areas of new lands and huge economic expansien. of~ered;opportunity :for the skilled and energetic. But for decades now the National Gov- PAGENO="0094" 88 ernment has dallied and delayed and many opportunities have slipped away unused. Today we face a dilemma that baffles our best minds and intentions, and may prove insoluble short of catastrophe. The other great crisis deals with the American land-a land clut- tered with tumbledown structures any self-respecting European coun- try would have razed decades ago ; a land sown with junk and trash and drained by filthy streams ; a land from which multitudes of people flee ; and saddest of all, a land torn and racked by industrial processes which treat it with a contempt unworthy of civilized men. This crisis, too, is far advanced. Neglect in dealing with it has already caused irreparable injury but if we act boldly and imagina- tively now we can assure that our inventory of man-made desolation does not grow and that many old scars will heal. Let us frankly rec- ognize that the earth is just as important as the people who inhabit it and that the right to be free is matched by a responsibility to pre- serve freedom's land. Liberty in a wasteland is meaningless. There is reason to believe that the American farmer has learned the essential lesson that unless the soil survives he and his country will perish. There was a time 30 years ago when misuse of our crop and grasslands had brought the Nation up short on the yawning brink of disaster. Since then Government programs have worked long and patiently to teach farmers in all the States that the land must be neither overcropped or overgrazed, that cover crops must be sown, and that many areas should be returned to timber. But despite this progress our priceless land base is still in mortal danger. While our farmers have learned much there is reason to doubt that our industrial managers have learned in proportion, if anything. If the blue-overalled farmer is often the guardian of the earth, the blue- suited executive is often its destroyer. Today it is the businessman who threatens the land we hold in trust for our descendants, buying short-term corporate profits at the cost of long-term national interests. Nearly a year has passed since the Congress received the Interior Department's report on surface mining. Its figures were out of date and erred on the cautious side, but the document leaves no doubt that the problem is vast, the damage severe and the need for remedial action urgent. To the beginning of 1965 more than 3,187,000 acres of American land had been turned upside down by miners digging coal, copper, iron ore, phosphate rock, clay, gravel, gold, silver, sand and other minerals. One would suppose that as a matter of commonsense and simple grat- itude people who profit from the mineral riches of our mother earth would willingly and eagerly heal what they had scarred-bringing to restoration the same zeal and technological genius they devote to ex- traction. But with a few notable exceptions they have treated their mineral lands with unparalleled greed, resisting even those gentle measuressuggested by Seeretã~ry Udall. Expressing industry's lament- able attitude, Clyde E. Weed, chairman of the executive committee of the Anaconda Co. and president of the American Mining Congress, has called Secretary Udall's proposals "Emotional, hasty, and ill-con- *ceived." In a letter to the Secretary he acknowledged that strip mining "in certain areas may involve undesirable side effects" but asserted that strip-mining companies are reclaiming ravaged land wherever they deem it "feasible and practical." PAGENO="0095" 89 This Nation cannot afford to leave reclamation to industry's dis- cretion. It is doubtful that there is any land in America that we can afford to sacrifice for its minerals. If reclamation cannot be assured stripping should not be permitted. The Nation's lust for minerals is both insatiable and interminable. As long as civilized men inhabit America they will quarry stone and dig for ores and fuels. The ever-growing need for electricity is vir- tually certain to assure the extraction of fossil fuels on a colossal scale for many decades. Since our descendants must inhabit, cultivate, and rest upon the same land we now mine, a decent regard for their well- being makes effective reclamation of each damaged acre an absolute imperative. The English, Ozechs, and Germans have demonstrated that total reclamation of strip-mined lands can be. achieved. For gen- erations they have stripped away overlying soil and stone to remove the mi~ierals their economic well-being requires, but their restoration has been so prompt and effective that today it is often impossible to tell where mined lands begin and undisturbed areas end. And anything the English, Czechs, and Germans can do, Americans can do also. In fact, I believe we can do it better. . Scarcely a State in the Union today is without its prthlem in this vital respect. As William Greider reported in April 14, 1968, issue of the Louisville Courier-Journal, strip mining is spreading westward and soon the world's biggest pits will operate far beyond the Missis- sippi. Streams cross State lines and carry with them mud from spoil heaps. The mud settles in the beds of rivers or, overflowing, is deposited on croplands. This choking sediment must `be endlessly dug away by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, or some other Federal agency. Failing this, the rivers must be leveed to restrain the growing threat of floods. A strip mine on the headwaters of a stream adversely affects the entire watershed, which may lie within parts of several States. Too, `loosened soil becomes a victim of the wind which may cross State lines. And the products move in interstate commerce. It follows that since the industries and their problems are national in scope they require Federal solutions. While all surface mining procedures esthetic damage disrupts ecolo- gies, and necessitates eventual reclamation, it is the coal industry that presents the most urgent challenge. At present most of our coal is mined in areas of heavy rainfall and near population centers. The terrible `blight produced by `the surface mining of this fuel is swelling by the thousands of acres annually. A flight across the mountains of southern Appalachia, western Kentucky, and broad areas in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio reveals a `land churned into ruin by bulldozers, power shovels, and highlifts. The Governors and legislators of these ravaged States have talked for years about the ills that flow so omi- nously from the strip pits and have passed numerous little laws to curb the abuses. These laws have been `amended and modified and tightened in many of the States. But during all the orgy of legislating-and we have been through it to the full in Kentucky-the orgy of mining continues while precious little reclamation occurs. Simply put, the States have failed woefully in their efforts to restrain the industrial juggernaut that is devouring your la~id a~nd mine. Large parts of southern Appalachia are threatened with extinction in West Virginia, western Maryland, western Virgitha, western Penn- PAGENO="0096" 90 sylvania, eastern Kentucky, northeastern Tennessee and northern A1a~' bama more than 700,000 acres to date have been practically obliterated. Here stripping generally follows the contours of `steep and rugged zmountains. Either the hill is decapitated and turned into a mesa or it is flayed along the outside contour of the coal. In any event, the rub- Ne, the dirt, the rock, the broken timber are shoved down the moun- tainside. Natural drainageways are choked. Boulders crash onto lower slopes and level `bottoms. When the mining has passed a silence falls as even `the birds forsake the bleak and desolate acres. In Italy during World War II, I saw the mountains of that unhappy ccountry pounded mercilessly by bombing `aircraft and shellfire. Those ranges were battered by every deadly device the `technology of the ~time could produce. Since then, in the hills of my own native State, I have seen American land attacked by great corporations digging coal for other great corporations and for the Tennessee Valley Au- `thority, ironically an agency established to heal land. And I can tell you that the mountains ofeastern Kentucky have suffered more in cold blood and `in a time of peace than did the mountains of Italy in history's most savage war. Strange to say, the United States spent sizable sums `to help Italy heal its blasted land, but has spent not a single penny to heal ea'steim Kentucky or to `abate its affliction. As a nation are we slip- ping into madness ? Is it not insanity to ruin our own land more thor- oughly in peace than we do that of any enemy in war, then to leave our land dead and forsaken while healing `that `of our foe ? It is serious- ly questionable `whether a nation that fosters `such policies deserves to ~survive. . . I am grateful to each Senator who has sponsored strip mining ~Eegis1ation. However, candor requires me to respectfully declare that none of the pending bills come near to meeting the challenge. Please `permit me to suggest that `this committee report to the Senate legisla- tion that will undertake as a matter of national policy to do three things. Years of study, observation, and experience have convinced me that unless these three goals are achieved our land troubles will grow to unmanageable proportions. In our lifetime they may threaten our nationhoxl as the race crisis does now. (1) The' legislation should forthrightly outlaw strip mining in such areas as southern Appalachia where the slopes are so steep and the rainfall so great that reclamation and restoration of the land to its former utility is impractical or impossible. Unless this is done, and done speedily, there will be no southern Appalachia. It will have been reduced to a ruined jumble. The people will have to move to the already overgrown and mutinous cities and the desolate moun- tains will plague the Nation with gigantic flows of mud to congest the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Cumberland for generations to come. ` I might add at this point that a very careful study of two water- shed's in the Kentucky mountains which was reported in 1962, the study was made by a. number of `State and `Federal agencies, and care- fully measured the `siltation escaping from the two watersheds. They put dams across the stream and `caught' it and' found that the un- stripped valley yielded about 28 tons of silt a year and the stripped portion yielded, about 38,OOO~ a ye.ø~ ,That is how the `amount was de- termined. PAGENO="0097" 91 The stake of the taxpayers in this proposal is tremendous. And since natural beauty is beyond price and stripping and beauty are incompatible, such mining ought to be banned in areas of significant scenic loveliness and in important wildlife habitats. Nor should it be authorized in heavily populated territories where important human values will be disrupted. (2) It should authorize strip mining for minerals only where total reclamation of the land can be carried out promptly and effectively. It should require that the topsoil be scraped off and saved with the subsoil and the rock strata being similarly lifted out of the pits and segregated. When the minerals have been removed the rock should be restored to the pit first with the subsoil following its natural order. The subsoil should be compacted and coated with the original top- soil and, where there is enough rainfall to sustain vegetation, the sur- face should be treated with fertilizer and limestone, planted with trees and sowed to suitable grass or leguminous cover. All these things are done now routinely in Germany, England, and Czechoslovakia. ( 3 ) The Federal Government should commence a massive program to purchase, reclaim, and revegetate lands already stripped. The in- ventory of ravaged earth is growing daily. It already exceeds, I be- lieve, the whole land area of the State of Connecticut. It is enough to make a swath a mile wide extending from Times Square to the Gold- en Gate and back again almost to the border of Nevada. In 10 years an area the size of West Virginia will have been ruined. In the name of all that is just and sensible let us use some of the money we are now devoting to the destruction of Vietnam to reconstruct stricken portions of our own country. The task of repairing our mutilated lands will prove to be `difficult and frustrating as well as expensive. The reassembling of dismem- bored mountains should be assigned to engineers and conservationists rather than farmers. In many areas, if acceptable results are `to be achieved, enormous quantities of dirt will have to be dragged back up the hillsides by machines which have yet to be invented. Vast tonnages of stone may have to be crushed to release their nutrient,s for new crops of timber. Other stone will have to be buried. Lavish quantities of fertilizer and limestone will have to be applied, perhaps by giant helicopters designed and built for the purpose. His- toric experience has indicated that the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior is best suited to accomplish this gigantic undertaking. As an Appalachian mountaineer, I hope the task of reclaiming my shattered homeland will be assigned to the Bureau. I know that an objection will be raised that the Bureau does not operate in eastern America, that its mission has traditionally been restricted to the West. But this is no argument at all. Its experience and whole orientation has been in reclamation, i*n bringing life to barren land. It has sue- cessfully handled giant projects over broad regions, as countless ver- dant acres now attest. In the millions of acres in our orphan banks the Bureau of Recla- mation can find a new challenge worthy of its best men and greatest traditions. It is the logical organization in the Federal Government to combine the expertise of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau oi Outdoor Recreation, the National Park Service, Bureau of Mines, 95-023---68----7 PAGENO="0098" 92 Southeastern Power Administration, and the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration, all within the Department of the In- tenor, as well as other Federal agencies whose skills and talents; wOuld be needed for this historic undertaking. Some day the taxpayers of the Republic will have to assume the cost of restoring, insofar as possible, the lands we have already plun- dered. We cannot undo history, but we can undo some of the harm history has done. It will cost billions of dollars. The $750 million in- dicated by Secretary Udall's report is likely to fall woefuly short of the mark. No true patriot could object to the financing of this essen- tial undertaking and I hope Congress will not hesitate to appropriate the funds to get the work started. But the general taxpayer should not be called upon to bear the whole burden of rehabilitating our industrially mamed land. The in- dustries that rip up our soil and their customers who share directly in the benefits of such mining should carry most of the load. Other- wise, we will have capitalized the profits while socializing the losses- an increasingly popular arrangement with a very large part of the Nation's industry. Let me suggest that the Congress finance such reclamation out of a trust fund supported by a special levy on extractive industries. Sen- ator Lee Metcalf has introduced a bill to impose a Federal severance tax on all minerals taken from the American earth. It is sensible legis- lation and the States would benefit enormously from its enactment. Each State in which large-scale extraction occurs suffers from a lack of funds caused in part by the importation of people to work in the extractive industries which simultaneously lowers the tax base by damaging the land. Senator Metcalf's bill would compel huge and thriving corporations to leave behind for schools, libraries, and hos pitals some of the money they now take out in such astonishing amounts. In my opinion the levy proposed by Senator Metcalf is too small insofar as it pertains to surface miners as distinguished from subter- ranean miners. Five percent is not enough. It should be 10 percent and half of that amount should go into a reclamation trust fund. The trust fund should pay for the fitting together of shattered mountains, the smoothing and seeding of ravaged prairies and plains, the cleaning of polluted air and silted streams, and for research on how best to accomplish these desirable ends. I urge that you view with caution and skepticism industry claims that present State laws are working well and that voluntary efforts are handling the problems satisfactorily. It is probable that more money has been spent advertising "Operation Green Earth" than Peabody Coal has spent on the project itself. The land is its own best spokesman. Finally and most important, I urge the Senators to hold field hear- ings in eastern Kentucky and in other parts of the Nation where strip mining has taken place ; hear the opinions of local people who have seen mountains come tumbling down and whole counties subjected to the threat of dissolution. Then go look for yourselves and there amid the whirling dust and the roaring machines, by the dead streams, jumbled plains, and murdered mountains, make up your minds as to the dimensions and urgency of the problem, and whether we can afford to waste another day in coming to grips with it. Senator METCALF. Thank you for your statement, sir. PAGENO="0099" 93 Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. Mr. Caudill, you speak with some knowledge and authority on conditions in Appalachia. With some of your conclusions I have no quarrel, but I wonder if you are familiar with the open pit mining in some of the lands of the West, the great copper mines of Arizona and Utah, for instance ? have you visited them and do you know the situation there ~ Mr. CAUDILL. I have seen some of the pits ; yes. Senator METCALF. Would you yield a minute? Senator JORDAN. Yes, sir. Senator METCALF. Mr. Ebersole, who is accompanying Mr. Caudill, is a former neighbor of mine in Helena, Mont,, and I know he is thor- oughly familiar with our open pit mines in Montana, such as Ruby Gulch and some other areas with which you are concerned. Senator JORDAN. My question is whether criteria that are applicable to the Appalachian region can be applied across-the-board to every other region in the United States with equal authority. Let me quote what the Secretary of the Interior said this morning. He said, "Let me make the record clear about our use of the word `reclamation.' In the context of surface mining we do not consider reclamation to mean a restoration of the land to its original condition. Often this would not be as desirable as some alternative land condition. Rather, we use reclamation to mean that activity which avoids or corrects damage to the lands and waters of the vicinity and leaves the area in a useable condition." IDo you disagree with what the Secretary said in his statement this morning? Mr. CAuiILL. I would agree generally. I used words saying, "Re- stored to its former utility." I might have added "to a comparable usefulness." Senator JORDAN. You admit a comparability rather than restoration to its original state? Mr. CAUDILL. Yes, to something approaching its original utility. If land was originally forestland I think it should go back in the main to forest. If it was farmland in Kansas or Iowa it should be restored to such condition as to grow corn again, I think we can do that. Senator JORDAN. If it was grazing land it might be satisfactory to restore it to a status to where it was grazing land again? Mr. CAUDILL. Yes, sir. And if it is desert land, that of course has to be considered. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Mr. Caudill, you made a very eloquent and force- ful presentation. I am grateful to you for mentioning my proposal for an incentive tax, which is based on the same theory and principle as this bill is based, that we should try to equalize the impact of these things on the various people in the States. My tax bill would provide that 100 percent of the 5-percent tax for mining would go back to the States. This bill would provide for a Federal program and, if the State puts in a qualified State program, they would take it over. We have done some of that in the mine safety bill, both the coal mine safety bill and safety bills for other hard rock mines. PAGENO="0100" 94 It would seem to me as if this is the way to get State activity and equalize the burden and at the same time give the flexibility that Sen- ator Jordan, Senator Hansen, Senator Fannin and others have sug- gested we need as comparable from the Montana coal mines or the copper mines of western Montana, and the coal mines of Kentucky or West Virginia. I am aware of your concern and I have the same concern for the ravaged areas that have already been mined and stripped and left desolate and destroyed. I wish we could do something about it. I have long advocated doing something. I had hoped the Appalachia bill we passed a few years ago would do something more than just build roads into areas. The streams are polluted, the coal refuse from strip mining has been left on the ground. Any tourist going there would be ap- palled and refuse to come back. As President Kennedy said on that memorable day on the steps of the Capitol when he was inaugurated, "These things take time. Maybe they won't be done in our generation but let us begin." It would seem to me that this bill might be the first step. Mr. CATJDILL. We are delighted to see this committee holding these hearings and, on behalf of these three organizations I represent here to- day, I would like to reiterate a request or suggestion I made in my prepared remarks, and one I heard earlier this morning, that is, that the committee come and look at some of these lands. Each member may be familiar with the kind of stripping that has occurred in his own State or area of the country but it is different in other areas. I think the greatest damage is being done in the steep mountains of the Appalachian coal fields. In Kansas or Iowa we may be able to undo the damage because we have relatively gentle rainfall in these areas. In central Appalachia we have probably the highest rainfall in the Nation with the exception of the Pacific Northwest. This means dam- age is much greater there than anywhere else and that vegetation is destroyed from the mountains and they are left unvegetated. In a short period of time we have rapidly come to a situation such as we have in the Mediterranean areas where timber has been gone for centuries. I think it would be extremely beneficial if the members of the committee could come and visit various areas and perhaps hold field hearings which would focus attention on the situation. Senator METCALF. I have sent for my tax bill, which is before the finance committee. It is a severance tax program but, since Mr. Caudill has mentioned it, I will, without objection, have it inserted at the end of your remarks. Senator JORDAN. No objection. Senator METCALF. I know of many of your outstanding achievements but you are also Director of the Conservation Serviee. You were in the room this morning and heard the discussion with Senator Nelson. Do you have any comments about inclusion of the Soil Conservation Service or the failure to put the Department of Agriculture in this bill at greater length? Mr. CAUDILL. I am sure we should use all the expertise available on the subject regardless of the Bureau or Department in which it may be found. In areas such as the west, where the Soil Conservation Dis- tricts are genuinely strong and effective, I would think in Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, or Iowa, for example, reclamation efforts would be PAGENO="0101" 95 very effective. Due to the very unu~ua1 circumstances we have in our own region, I think the Bureau of Reclamation, with its skill and back- ground, is simply better prepared to cope with the very terrible problems we have. I don't think that the problems of reclaiming our ruined mountains is one with which the Soil Conservation Districts can effectively cope. I presume they could do a fine job in Iowa, for example, and certainly their knowledge of how to handle these problems ought to be utilized in every possible way. Senator METCALF. I don't think that you have to make a case to most of the members of this committee, who are largely westerners, as to the expertise and superb accomplishments of the Bureau of Reclamation. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Ebersole? Mr. EBERSOLE, You may remember, when the Congress for Appa- lacliian I)evelopment was testifying previously, Luce Smith was retir- ing from the organization and had a prepared statement. If it please the committee, perhaps this can be made a part of the hearing. Senator METCALF. Without objection that will be incorporated in the record. (The document to be supplied had not been received at the time of going to pre~ss.) Mr. EBERSOLE. The Courier Journal in 1964 ran a Sunday Supple- ment entitled "Kentucky's Ravaged Land, Its People and Its Hope". For this publication they won the Pulitzer prize. In 1967 they ran a second article, "Kentucky's Still Ravaged Lands." These are two im- portant documents that deal with this subject that might be made a part of the record. Senator METCALF. They will be incorporated in the file of the com- mittee for its uSe. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cauclill, for your splendid testimony. Mr. CALTDILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The bill previously referred to follows:) [S. 2934, 90th Cong., second sess.} A BILL To assist the States in raising revenues by making more unifor~in the incidence and rate oq tax imposed hy\ States on the severance of minerals Be it enacted by the $enate and House of Representatives of the United ~States of America in Congress assembled, That subtitle P of the Internal Revenue Code of l9~S4 (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) is amended by adding at the end of thereof the following new chapter: "CHAPTER 42-.---SEVERANCE TAX "SEC. 4941. IMPOSITION OF SEVERANCE TAX ON MINERALS. " ( a ) IMPOsITIoN-There IS hereby imposed on the severance of minerals from a mineral property located within the United States an excise tax equal to 5 per- cent of the gross income from the pro~perty during the taxable period. `(b) LIABILITY TOR TAx.-The tax imposed by this `section shall be paid by the person who holds the working interest in the mineral property. "SEC. 4942. DEFINITION AND RULES. "For purposes of this chapter- " (a) MINERAL PROPERTY.-The term `mineral property' has the same meaning as the term `property' has for the purposes of section ~13 (relating to the allow- ance for percentage depletion), and any election made under section 614 to treat PAGENO="0102" 96 several mineral properties as a single property, or to divide one mineçal property into separate properties shall be effective for purposes of this chapter (b) Guoss INCOME FRoM THE PROPERTY -The term gross income from the ~ property' means the gross income from the prcsperty derived by the holder of the working interest during his taxnble period, computed in accordance with the provisions of section 613 subject to the following modifications " ( 1 ) There shall not be excluded any amount on account of rent or royalties or bonuses paid in respect of the property " (2) There shall be included in computing such gross income from the property an amount equal to any amount paid to the bolder of a production payment in satisfaction or reduction of the production payment. " (3) There shall be excluded in computing such gross income from the property any amount received from the sale of a production payment. The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply with respect to any amount paid to the United States or to any State or political subdivision thereof (c) WORKING INTEREST -The term woiking interest in a mineral property includes only an interest which is an operating mineral interest as defined ft section 614(d). " (d) TAXABLE PERI0D.-The term `taxable period' means, with respect to any mineral property., the taxable year (as defined in section 7701(a) (23) ) of the person who holds the working interest in such property. " (e) PER5ON.-ThO term `person' includes a trust, an estate, and a partnership (including a joint venture whose members have made the election provided for in section 761(a)). " (f) STATE.-Phe term `State' includes the District of Columbia. "SEC 4943. CREDIT AGAINST TAX. " (a) SEVERANCE TAxES PAIn TO A STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIvIsION.- ( 1 ) The taxpayer may to the extent pi ovided in this section credit against th.e tax imposed by section 4941 with respect to any mineral property the amount of severance taxes paid by him to any State or political subdivi- sion as severance taxes with respect to such mineral property. (2) The credit shall be permitted against the tax for the taxable period only for the amount of severance taxes paid with respect to such period. The tax imposed by section 4941 , on the gross income from one mineral property shall in no case be credited with severance taxes paid with respect to an- other mineral property. " (3) The credit against the tax for any taxable period shall be permitted only for severance taxes paid on or before the last day upon which the tax- payer is required under section 6071 to file a return for such period ; except that credits shall be permitted for severance taxes paid after such last day, but such credit shall not exceed 90 percent of the amount which would have been allowable as a credit on account of such severance taxes had they been paid on or before such last day. (4) For purposOs of this section the term severance tax includes a tax based on the gross income from the property ( as defined in section 4942 (b)) derived by the holder of the working interest in such property, but snch term does not include- (A) any tax based on the severance of minerals from a mineral property located outside the territorial boundaries of the State or political subdivision imposing the tax, " (B ) any tax imposed on the severence of timber, or of any crop grown on the surface of the mineral property or of any mineral with respect to which an allowance for percentage depletion is not allowable under section 613, " ( C) any tax imposed generally on gross sales or gross receipts, or " (D ) an income tax applied generally to income from all or moat sources " (P5) Any severance tax paid by the holder of a royalty or other non- operating mineral interest With respect to production from a mineral prop- erty shall be treated, for the purposes of paragraph (1), as having been paid by the holder of the working interest. PAGENO="0103" 97 "SEC. 4944. INFORMATION TO STATES. "The Secretary or his delegate shall, upon the request o1~ any official of a State or political subdivision thereof lawfully charged with the administration of a severance tax imposed by such State or political subdivision, furnish to such official a copy of any schedule or statement filed by any taxpayer, with respect to the taxes impo~sed by chapter 1, which disciosea the amount claimed by the taxpayer under section 613 as his gross income from a mineral property located within such State. The information so obtained may be used only for the administration of the severance tax imposed by such State or political subdivision." Sno. 2. The amendment made by this Act shall apply only to the severance of minerals after December 31, 1968. Senator METCALF. The next witness is Mr. Joseph S. Abdnor, assist- ant to the president of Pickands Mather & Co., representing the Amer- ican Mining Congress. We are pleased to have you. STATEMENT OP JOSEPH S. ABD1~1OR, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESID~NT, PICKANDS MATHER & CO., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS Mr. ABDNOR. I am sure the Mining Congress reciprocates your expression. Having in mind the admonitions of the the chairman, I think it is safe to say there will probably be no repetition between my statement and the last one presented. Senator METCALF. I doubt it. Mr. ABDNOR. I will proceed with my statement, then. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Joseph S. Abdnor, assistant to the president of Pickands Mather & Co., a corpo- ration extensively engaged in iron ore production with its main offices in Cleveland, Ohio. I appear before you today on behalf of the Amer- ican Mining Congress, a national trade association composed of T~J.S. companies that produce most of the Nation's metals, coal, and indus-. trial and agricultural minerals. Its membership also includes more than 200 companies that manufacture mining and mineral processing equipment and supplies as well as financial institutions interested in the relationship between the mining industry and the financial corn- munity. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and present our views regarding the surface mining reclamation legisla- tion before you. The American mining industry fully appreciates the problem of mined-land reclamation. This industry has been actively engaged for years, on its own initiative and in cooperation with State and local governments, to minimize to every practicable extent the undesirable side effects of mining operations. Where land reclama- tion is desirable and feasible, the concerted efforts of our industry are increasingly directed to programs designed to bring about land recla- mation for such uses as may be appropriate. Based on the mining industry's awareness of the economic factors involved, its experience in the diversity of the problem and the engi- neering techniques of land restoration and its analysis of the problem on a national basis, the American Mining Congress is opposed to the legislation before you today. I want to make very clear that by oppos- ing this legislation we are not denying our industry's obligations to its neighbors. PAGENO="0104" 98 As our country fills with more and more people, the natura' buffer zones between their various activities diminish at an increasing rate and must be replaced with manmade efforts to insure that conflicts between the rights-personal and property-of all citizens are mini- mized. Mining reclamation is one aspect of that picture, and we all recognize that. But the legislation before you is an exceedingly heavyhanded ap- proach with grave potential for restricting the healthy development of our industry wholly out of proportion to the size of the probkm. We do not believe Federal legislation is called for ; we oppose it as unnecessary, undesirable, and impractical. It is unnecessary because no plausible ease exists for global Federal regulation producing a conflict of jurisdiction over the myriad local conditions which apply to the reclamation of surface-mined lands. It is undesirable, in that-despite disclaimers to the contrary-this legislation would effectively take over the field of oversight of surface mining for the Federal Government. It would depress and could kill off any incentive or opportunity for the widely diversified courses of action which State and local governing bodies may deem appropriate to their own balanced set of State and local requirements. It would unnecessarily subject mining operations, vital not only to the Nation's prosperity but also to local economies, to control by a distant department in Washingt~on, with resulting unwarranted costs imposed both on industry and on the Federal Government as well. It is impractical because it would attempt to apply Federal regula- tion to an infinite variety of special circumstances which exist through- out the mining industry in the United States. In discussing this subject, it is important to consider the nature of mining and the economic factors involved. We are gratified to note that subsection 3(a) of the administration bill, S. 3132, proposes as a congressional finding that "extraction of minerals by surface mining is a significant and essential industrial activity and contributes to the economic potential of the Nation." Indeed, this fact cannot be over- emphasized. As pointed out in the Department of the Interior's report on "Surface Mining and Our Environment," surface mining in 1965 accounted for approximately four-fifths of the total ore and solid fuels produced in this country. Open pit mining is often the most practical and generally the only economic way to mine the low-grade deposits which now comprise a major portion of our resource base. The mining industry now relies on mechanization, handling large tonnages of overburden and ores, and large surface plants in order to keep costs down so that these low- grade deposits may be mined, treated, and sold at realistic prices corn- petitive with foreign enterprise. The average grade of ore for many of our vital mineral products gradually is decreasing over the years, making it necessary for pro- ducers to find increasing cost economies to permit the mining of even lower grades. Much of our gold reserves even now cannot be mined because of the unfavorable balance between costs and price. The mining industry serves the public interest by making available from domestic sources the raw materials basic to our economy and our national welfare. We cannot choose the locations for our produc- tion facilities. We must locate our facilities where the minerals are found. Thus, the contribution by the mining industry to the economy PAGENO="0105" 99 is limited by the fact that it is necessary to produce all raw materials from their natural deposits. If we are to maintain and increase the supply of minerals required by our national economy, these minerals must be found and developed. In an appearance before this committee on March 21, Dr. Walter ilibbard, then Director of the Bureau of Mines, stated: Today the United States is the largest consumer of metals and fuels in the free world. It maiiitains this position by being the largest producer of minerals and fuels in the free world. Over the years it has maintained this production leader- ship, even in the face of the necessity for using lower and lower grade resources and rising labor costs, by an aggressive program of exploration and new dis- coveries and in advancing technology which has reduced the overall costs of extracting and processing these lower-grade ores. Dr. hubbard also drew attention to a situation that is emerging which appears to threaten both the adequacy and dependability of our supply of minerals and mineral fuels. He pointed out that if the present trends continue "our capability to produce minerals from do- mestic sources may not only remain static, but in some cases disappear because they cannot be maintained in competition costwise with for- eign production." He went on to emphasize that technology has the inherent power to improve the competitive position of domestic mineral resources. What has this to do with mined land reclamation ? Certainly such reclamation is a cost factor and, if reasonable, a legitimate and fully accepted one by the mining industry. The mining industry should not, nor should any other segment of our society ruthlessly destroy bene- ficial environmental conditions. But the economic impact of the le~is- lation before you must be recognized. The problems `of maintaining appropriate environmental quality are such as to require the most delicate balancing of interests-interests that include the public's vital need for mineral resources. One of the major objections to the legislation is that, in its approach, it does not make clear the necessity for reasonableness. It fails to re- fleet a proper regard for practicability and economic feasibility. It exposes mining operations to the imposition of arbitrary requirements by Government officials responsible for issuing permits under the law. In our judgment, the placing of Federal controls over surface mining will not only prove to be a large and unnecessary drain on the Federal Treasury, but could easily become such an economic burden to the domestic mining industry as to seriously weaken it as it faces a dan- gerous competitive situation in relation to foreign mineral resources. As I stated earlier, the American Mining Congress has analyzed the problem on a national basis. At least one of the bills before you, S. 3132, was inspired by the Department of Interior's special report on "Surface Mining and Our Environment." Having worked on the problem of mined land reclamation for years and having examined this publication, we are convinced that the information and the various data presented in the report do not lead to the conclusions drawn either as to the scope of the problem or the remedial actions recommended. There are serious problems referred to in the report. But these problems have been recognized and are being dealt with by the States in which they exist. There is no indication that additional controls are needed. The most serious problems are old ones. Such problems are not being caused by presently PAGENO="0106" I 100 operating mines utilizing current mining practices. Our position was so expressed at a meeting with Department of Interior officials at the American Mining Congress Convention in Denver last September. The Interior Department report states that an estimated 3.2 million acres of land in the Nation have been disturbed by surface mining. One would assume from a casual glance at table 1 on page 110 of the report that this was "as of January 1, 1965," or in other words, of recent origin. In actual fact, this tabulation goes back perhaps to the beginning of our Nation. It is doubtful that any observer could see, today, where gold was mined in Virginia or where iron ore was mined in Ohio. Yet such acreages are included in the report. Leaving aside for the moment the validity of the statistics, the re- port states that, of this 3.~ million acres, 95 percent is attributable to but seven commodities : coal, 41 percent ; sand and gravel, 26 percent; stone, gold, phosphate, iron, clay, together, 28 percent ; "all others" combined, 5 percent. Although other witnesses representing specific commodities may scrutinize these percentages in more detail, it is helpful, in narrowing and defining the problem, to place these figures in proper perspective. Coal, the report says, is responsible for 41 percent of the land dis- turbed by surface mining, 1.3 million acres of the total of 3.2 million acres. Fifteen States have statutes regulating surface mining. An additional State, Colorado, has a Government-industry con- tractual program for mined land reclamation. Coal is surface-mined in 14 of tsese States. Based on 1964 production figures, these 14 States cover 93.6 percent of all the coal production by surface mining in the United States. The Interior report indicates satisfactory compliance with the enforcement of surface mining laws in these States. What then is the urgent need for additional regulatory controls ? This is not to say that the total problem is eliminated, but it is to say that the States in which it exists have assumed the responsibility for adequate control. Sand and gravel, according to Interior, account for 26 percent of the total acreage disturbed, and stone for 8 percent. It should be noted that the sand and gravel industry takes issue with these statis- tics, reporting them to be overstated by at least 100 percent. Sand and gravel, in common with crushed stone, are "local" products, used primarily in all types of construction. Most of these materials are produced within 30 miles of the point of consumption. Literally thousands of these operations are located throughout the country. They are located in or adjoining nearly every community in the Nation Most are tightly controlled by local zoning ordinances which prescribe in detail how the operation must be con- ducted and how reclamation must be performed As the Interior report admits, much of this land is reclaimed already and sold at premium prices. Because it is already controlled locally and because, in large measure, this land is already being reclaimed or put to some other use needed in the community, it is both unnecessary and unwise to superimpose Federal control on this extremely scattered segment of the mining industry. Indeed, except by creating a large new force of Federal employees, such Federal control is, as a practical matter, impossible. We now find that coal, sand and gravel, and stone, representing 1 PAGENO="0107" 101 almost 75 percent of the problem, as characterized by Interior, are under stringent State and local control. What of the other 25 percent? In the case of phosphate and clay, 20 percent of clay production and 13 percent of phosphate production are under State control. According to the report, the largest land disturbance from phosphate mining is in Florida, which accounts for 72 percent of the national production. Yet the report also states that "a large portion of the land mined for phosphate is being developed for citrus groves, build- ing sites, parks, and other uses. Thus, except for possible loss of wet- lands for wildlife use, the mining operations apparently are not seri- ously detrimental to the environment." Hard mineral mining represents, we assume, 5 percent of the re- ported disturbance, gold an additional 6 percent. But the largest domestic gold mine is underground and, with the exception of the open-pit Carlin mine in Nevada, the balance of gold production is mostly byproduct, and again we must conclude that the statistics for gold are primarily of historic interest only. Hard mineral mining includ~s the great open-pit copper mines of Utah, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Montana ; the uranium mines of New Mexico, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Colorado, and Texas ; a molybdenum property in New Mexico, and small open-pit Zinc mines in Washington and New Mexico. These properties typically have a long life-the Bingham Canyon copper mine in Utah has been in continuous operation for some 60 years already and has produced a pit which is one of the engineering wonders of the world. These properties, as well as others, are distinc- tive in that essentially the entire mining operation is continuously in use throughout the life of the property. Thus, reclamation work can- not be done while the mine is in active operation. To depart from my prepared statement for a moment, it appears that the land claimed to require rehabilitation or reclamation in the Department of the Interior's report includes the present mining opera- tions of this Nation. That is a vast amount of land, a vast proportion of the land claimed to be in need of reclamation. You cannot reclaim the Bingham pit mine. I should like to comment on statements I heard that this law would be prospective only. It is clear in this law that it applies to any present mining operation. My company has a part of the world's largest iron ore pit that you heard about today. Operations began at that pit 72 years ago. Assume there are 5 years left of mining in that pit, if this law goes into effect, we can expect there will be demands imposed upon us with enactment of the law for certain reclamation plans for that world's largest pit, representing some 77 years of mining by that time. We must determine whether the cost of mining that pit for the next 5 years will justify imposition of reclamation demands on us. Under the provisions of the bill, S. 3132, as it is presently written, we could be required to restore the results of the mining operation back before the turn of the last century. This certainly, in a sense, denies the fact this is entirely prospective in its application. A number of these open pit hard mineral mines are prime tourist attractions in the areas in which they operate. They cannot be called "natural" beauty, but are awesome and attractive. No one has seriously PAGENO="0108" 102 suggested thatthese pits be "restored" to the natural condition of the land before their development and they do not cause the hazards to their surroundings that this legislation contemplates. What reason, then, to subject them to Federal legislation? Noting that the hard mineral operations were included within the scope of the Interior report, the mining congress asked for information as to the identity of hard mineral surface mining operations which were deemed not to meet the standards of surface mining which the officials of the Department might have in mind. What should be done at these properties that is not now being done? To date, the Department has not identified any current problem situations at any of these properties--another circumstance that in- dicates that the request for comprehensive Federal legislation apply- ing to all surface~mining~is unnecessary. The Interior report indicates that only 5 percent of the land claimed to be disturbed can be attributed to iron mining. What has been said about the hard minerals is essentially true of the iron ore mines. For the most part, these are large open pit mines which have their own unique grandeur of form and color so much so that they are prime at- tractions in their area. The governments of the States in which they are located are well informed on iron mining problems. In Minnesota, for example, the State is by far the lar~est single owner of mineral lands, and the State has received many millions of dollars in royalties. All of these States are developing a growing vigilance to the problems of mined land disturbance. In this review~ of the various mineral commodities involved, we have attempted to place the problem in its proper perspective. Of the 3.2 million acres reported by Interior as disturbed land, the interior report states that 1 million acres have already been reclaimed. Of the balance of the so-called disturbed lands, a substantial portion of such lands is being actively mined today. In many cases little, if any, reclamation can be accomplished while mining operations are underway. Objectively, we should look at the extent to which mining is respou- sible for land disturbance and realize that only 0.14 percent of the total land of the TJnited States is even claimed to have ever been dis- turbed by surface mining. We hope that the emotionalism sometimes attached to mining will not let us overlook the disturbance of land essential to our society. Vast proportions of the total land of this Na- tion are in a real sense disturbed by highway construction, farming, new housing projects, industrial developments, and many other pro- grams essential to our Nation. `\~Tjth this review of the problem, it can readily be seen that two things are happening-and both are persuasive arguments against the legislation now before you. First, reclamation has become an important and expanding part of rnimng industry operations. Second, reclamation does not present a uniform problem across the Nation. It varies by State and local area, as indeed it varies by seg- men~ s of the mining industry. Where the problem is more pronounced, the States have acted and are continuing to act energetically to meet and correct that problem. In addition to those States with laws already on the books, others are considering regulatory programs where the need is justified. PAGENO="0109" 103 Therefore, the American Mining Congress believes that global Fed- eral control is unnecessary, undesirable, and impractical. This is so because where the problem exists, the States, local communities, and industry are moving to correct it. Also, because State, local, and private effort should be encouraged~~not discouraged-in meeting a problem which, by its very diversity, simply does not lend itself to any practical or sensible attempt at Federal regulation from Washington. Let us look at the specific legislation before you. Mr. Chairman, I speak as a mining man and not as a constitutional lawyer. However, I sincerely believe that this legislation raises serious constitutional questions. The Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, in a recent appearance before the Public Land Law Review Commission, stated that "under the Constitution, control of the uses of land is rather clearly one of the residual powers that was left to the States ~ ~ The damage to privately owned or State lands and any impairment of their natural beauty by surface mining does not produce interstate effects as does the flow of water and the shifting of air. The enforce- ment of Federal controls over such land use would be a remarkable extension of Federal power. Section `7 of S. 3132 requires all States, if their State plans are to be approved, to issue State permits before any surface mining operation may be conunenced, or if now operating, may be continued. Such a permit system would be imposed by the Federal G-overnnient under section 8 if a State failed to adopt a plan or if a State plan was not approved. No such vast power is contained in other Federal environmental quality statutes, such as the Air and Water Pollution Control Acts. Permit systems require the establishment of an administrative bureauc- racy and place the power of absolute control in the hands of Govern- ment officials. A Federal permit system for private land use is an ex- traordinar-y assertion of Federal authority. Consistent with our tradi- tion, it should require a very strong determination of the need for such a system before its creation is seriously considered. We recognize that a number of the eastern coal States have adopted permit s~ystems under the conditions prevailing in those States where particularly difficult operating and reclamation problems are present. However, this does not mean that such a system should be imposed in all other States. The risks of unacceptabie environmental damage are by no means comparable, for example, in the desert States of the South- west or in certain of the Eastern States where essentially the only sur- face mining concerns gravel `and stone, most of which are already sub- ject to county and municipal zoning requirements. In such States, if any legislation can be justified at all, surely it should take the form of the enactment of statutory requirements, with enforcement left to injunction and abatement proceedings in the local courts. In this way, the burden of showing that a particular operation fails to meet the standards of sound mining practices declared in such a law would rest with the State. S. 3132 would establish criteria upon which State controls or Federal controls would be based. The heart of any regulatory system is the def- inition of the standards to be applied. The American Mining Congress accepts the concept that surface mining should be carried on so as not unreasonably to damage other resource values on mineral lands. But what is reasonable and what is unreasonable? PAGENO="0110" 104 As to surface mining, the establishment of guidelines or standards is especially difficult because every mining operation is to some extent unique, and what would be consistent with good mining practices in the desert country of the sparsely settled areas of the West might be unacceptable in the East where rainfall and the nature of alternative land uses create far different conditions. Indeed, subsection 3 (d) of S. 3132 recognizes that "because of the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic~ chemical, and other physical conditions in mining areas, the establishment on a nationwide basis of uniform regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclamation of surface-mined areas is not feasible." This recitation adds weight to the point that Federal standards would have to be defined in very general terms. Although S. 3132 pro- vides that regulatory plans should "promote an appropriate relation- ship between the extent of regulation and reclamation that is required and the need to preserve and protect the environment," it does not require that, in determining whether such an appropriate relation- ship exists, such factors, for example~ as technical and engineering requirements, economic feasibility, and the relationship between costs and benefits should be considered. S. 3132 demands that State plans "provide adequate measures for enforcement" including criminal and civil penalties for failure to comply with applicable State laws and regulations. This is wielding a big stick. Why? Of the 15 States which have enacted surface mining laws to date, two-thirds of them rely on civil procedures. The bill also calls for criminal and civil penalties in States where direct Federal regulation is in force. It is significant to note that the Federal air and water pollution statutes rely on injunction suits, which are far better suited for the enforcement of this type of legislation. In a suit for injunction, the requirements of the law as applied to a particular operation are spelled out in the injunction issued by the court after a full hearing. This places the burden of establishing the inadequacy of existing practices with the enforcing agency where it should be. S. 3132, while purporting to engage the cooperation of the States, in our judgment, would place substantia1ly all authority in the Secre- tarv of the Interior. Section 7 provides for State regulatory plans which must have Federal approval. If the Federal Government does not approve a State plan ( and the States are given no opportunity for judicial review of the Secretary's decision) , the bill then provides under section 8 for direct Federal regulations. In essence the Secretary would decide what requirements to impose, irrespective of whether these regulations are issued under a State or Federal label. All of this, of course, is incompatible with any notion that the States will have an individualistic role to play in such a Federal-State coop- erative scheme. Indeed, subsection 3 (c) provides that regulation will in fact be "by the Secretary" and cooperation by the States as contem- plated by the act will be merely the extension of the regulatory arm of the Federal Government. This approach reflects one of the mistaken assumptions upon which ~S. 3132 is based. If the Secretary establishes the regulations and if PAGENO="0111" 105 State cooperation is mere adherence to Federal standards, all to be "judged" by the Secretary, then there is no practical latitude or incen- tive for individual State action. In essence, the Federal Government would command all the States- regardless of the need of the particular Stat&-to adopt a specific plan for the regulation of surface mining, all based upon the issuance of permits and enforced through criminal penalties. It would be a serious mistake to attempt Federal regulation of such a diverse industry under any circumstances. It would be a particu- larly serious mistake when that regulation assumes the form and approach outlined in S. 3132. In opposing this legislation, we do not dismiss the Federal interest in the problem. The Federal Government has an appropriate role to play in mined land reclamation and that is in the field of research. As the Interior report states: A modest amount of research has been conducted by agencies of State and Federal Governments, universities, industry, and conservation groups. However, a more thorough coordinated research effort is needed * * * The Department of Agriculture, in its report on "1~estoring Sur- face-Mined Land," issued just last week, urges that Federal research programs, studies, and field demonstrations be expanded. We agree with this proposition. Research efforts `by the Federal Government to aid and supplement the research of the mining in- dustry will far better serve the public interest than the vast system of Federal regulatory control as envisioned in S. 3132. Cooperative research is an appropriate use of Federal resources. Suç~h an approach makes infinitely more sense and will prove far more beneficial than a massive Federal regulation and control program, a program certain to bog down in a morass of costly, inefficient, and unreasonable direc- tion-direction which should be left to the skills and wisdom of the State and local people who know and understand the real nature of the problem in their own areas. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this legislation be- cause we do not believe it is needed, and because it could impede production of vitally needed mineral resources in our country. We are opposed to this legislation because the costs to the Federal Treasury, even with financial contributions by the States, will be staggering and far out of proportion to the benefits derived, and because such a con- templated extension of Federal control to land use raises serious constitutional questions. The Stases, the local communities, the mining industry are fully aware of the problem. The effectiveness of these efforts will continue to increase. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Abdnor, for a per- suasive, forceful, and vehement statement. Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman~ I appreciate getting the views of the American Mining Congress. The statements, I think, are significant here. You say that the high-grade ores generally are mined first. As the mining goes forward throughout the Nation, we are more and more required to use low-grade ores which call for the handling of increased PAGENO="0112" 106 yolume in getting the concentrate from which the minerals, themselves, are derived. It seems to me that this indicates that we are going to have to look more and more toward open-pit mining in order to handle this volume. Is that a fair statement? Mr. ABDNOR. Yes, sir. I consider it to be fair. I think, in the first place, the statement I made was a quote from Dr. Elibbard but our own experience backs that up entirely for the most part. Senator JORDAN. You quoted Dr. Hibbard again. I think you said, "Our capability to produce minerals from domestic sources may not only remain static but in some cases disappear because they cannot be maintained in con~petition costwise with foreign production." I remember when Dr. Hubbard made that statement. I think that is a fair statement and one that should give us some concern because I hope this Nation never becomes wholly dependent on foreign minerals for the requirements of our industrial and defense needs. Mr. ABDNOR. I certainly agree with you, sir. This is our total domestic industry about which we speak and I had a sense this morning that there might be some disregard for this basic factor in some of the ex- pressions that were heard. Senator METCALF. Senator, I wonder if we can suspend here and go over and vote on the new regulations for the Senate Office Building. As soon as we can, we will return and you will continue your interrogation. Senator JORDAN. Yes. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much. ( A brief recess was taken.) Senator METCALF. The committee will be in order. Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we were so rudely interrupted by the buzzer, we were talking about the importance of domestic production of strategic minerals and metals to meet the defense requirements and the expanding needs of our industrial economy. I would ask you, Mr. Abdnor, what percent of our strategic minerals and metals are now in~ported? Do you have an idea? Mr. ABDNOR. I am sorry, sir, I don't. I think I can get the figure and I will be happy to send it for the record. Senator JORDAN. Will you, for the record? Mr. ABDNOR. Yes. (The information requested is as follows:) PAGENO="0113" 107 METALS IDefinitions: st-short tons; It-long tons; NA-not availablej mports U.S. imports for consumption, as percent 1966 of con- sumption Antimony 45,682 s.t 19,712 st. (general) Arsenic NA 18,856 s.t Bauxite 14,083,941 l.t 11,529,000 I. t Beryllium (11 percent BeO) 6,026 s.t 2,147 st. (general) Bismuth 3,199,321 lb 1,681,472 lb. (general) Cadmium 14 780,000 lb 3,358,000 lb. (metal) Chromite (44.5 percent Cr203) 1,461 000 s.t 1 864,000 ~ Cobalt 14 20~,0O0 lb 1~,823,OOO lb Columbium 3,l~73,237 lb. (Cb content) 9,278,000 (concentrate) Tantalum 1,393,361 lb. (Ta content) 2 143,000 (concentrate) Copper 2,359,954 s.t 5ä3,507 st. (general) Gold 6,062,100 troy oz. (industry and 1,200,000 troy oz. (general) arts). Iron ore 134,047,000 I.t 46,259,000 l.t Lead 1,323,877 s.t 356,441 s.t Manganese ore (35 percent or more Mn) 2,369,923 s.t 2,651,921 s.t Mercury 72,O33flasks 31,364flasks Molybdenum 75,476,000 lb 5,000 lb Nickel 187,833 s.t 141,000 s.t Platinum group 1,675,795 troy oz 1,435,017 troy oz Rare earth oxides 5,740 s.t 1,775 s.t Selenium 1,131,000Ib 286000lb Silver 183,696,000 troy oz. (industry 63,O32,000 troy oz. (general, and arts). excludes coinage). Tellurium 215 000 lb 18,000 lb Tin 85,486 l.t 46,071 l.t Titanium: (a) Ilmenite concentrate 962,706 s.t 186,539 st. (general) (b) Rutile concentrate 135,883 s.t 151,482 st. (general) Tungsten 17,710,000 lb 4,298,000 lb Uranium (U308 content) 10,180 st. (AEC stocks) 2,049 st. (concentrate) Vanadium 5,481 s.t 72 st. (ore and concentrate) -- - Zinc 1,806,543 s.t 676,682 s.t Zircon 34,000 st. (excludes foundries) - 57,976 s.t NONMETALS Asbestos 805,391 s.t (apparent) ___~~_ 726,459 st. (unmanufactured)~ Barite (primary) 1,417,000 s.t 699,000 ~ Boron ___________~~_ 74,700 s.t 12,000 s.t Clays 55,765,000 s.t 139,000 ~ Diatomite 515,000 s.t Feldspar (crude) 685,592 l.t. (apparent) Fluorspar ~ 1,065,124 s.t 878,546 s.t Graphite (natural) 48,400 s.t 56,700 s.t Gypsum 15,088,O00 s.t 5,479,000 s.t Kyanite NA ________~_~ 3,405 s.t Lithium NA 9,260 s.t Magnesite 2,100,000 s.t 172,588 s.t Mica: (a) Block and film 2,813,000 lb 3,538,000 lb (b) Splittings 7,100,000 lb 6,797,000 lb Perlite 394,000 s.t Phosphate rock 27,382,000 st. (apparent) 178,000 s.t Potash (K20 equivalent) 3,999,000 st 1,487,000 s.t Pumice 3,500,000 s.t 269,028 s.t Salt 38,280,000 st. (apparent) 2,479,000 s.t Strontium 5,490 s.t 5,490 st. (estimated) Sulfur and pyrites 9,157,822 It. (apparent)~_____~_ 1,514,000 Lt Talc, soapstone and pyrophyllite 824,000 s.t 21,000 s.t Vermiculite ___ ____________~_~ 253,000 s.t 17,000 s.t Commodity U.S. consumption, 1966 43. 2 NA 81. 9 35.6 52. 6 22.7 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 24. 7 19.8 34. 5 26. 9 100. 0 43. 5 (1) 75. 1 85. 6 31. 0 25.3 34. 3 8.4 53. 9 19.4 100.0 24. 3 20. 1 1.3 37. 5 100.0 90. 2 49.3 16.1 (1) 82. 5 100. 0 36. 3 NA NA 8. 2 100. 0 95. 7 (1) 37.2 7. 7 6. 5 100.0 16. 5 (1) (1) 1 Negligible. Note: Data based on 1966 Minerals Yearbook, vol. I and II, Metals, Mine~als and Fuels, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Bureau of Mines' Commodity Statements (supplement to Bureau of Mines' Strategic Plan), January 1968, and U.S. Bureau of Mines' Commodity Dnth Summaries, January 1968. 95-623-6h8-----8 PAGENO="0114" 108 Senator JORDAN. Mr. Abdnor, do you believe the enactment of this legislation would possibly jeopardize the ability of the mining indus- try of this country to produce the strategic minerals and metals we need for defense and expanding of the industrial economy? Mr. ABDNOR. Senator, I think the scope of the authority that would be given to the administrator, particularly at the Federal level, would be such that it could conceivably create a situation that would be en- tirely uneconomic. I don't say this is going to happen, but I say that the authority granted is so broad in this legislation, without any right of appeal to the courts, without any recourse, simply what rests in the judgment of a man, will be imposed upon the mining industry, and some of this will depend upon what the eyes of that man see : Is it beautiful or is it not beautiful? This is the wide-open approach that gives us such great concern and particularly because this legislation makes no reference to economic feasibility or practical feasibility. Senator JORDAN. I think you make a good point when you say that there is no opportunity for judicial review of the Secretary's decision, whatever that may be and whoever the Secretary may be. Mr. ABDNOR. Precisely, sir. Senator JORDAN. Could not you people in the mining industry sug- gest amendments to this bill, if you have to have a bill, and I assume that you probably are going to have to have a bill? What amendments would you suggest that would provide for judi- cial review, would provide for some of the things that you think this bill lacks ? Have you gone into that? Mr. ABDNOR. No, sir. We have not gone into that at this point. If I were convinced that we had to have a bill, I am confident that we could furnish amendments which would vastly improve this bill as written. However, the problem inherent in Federal legislation is that it encounters the diversity that exists in the total mining industry in all of the States involved. It is these inherent problems that we address ourselves to at this time. Certainly, sir, there could be amendments to vastly improve the bill, but we don't think it would make it a good bill. Senator JORDAN. So you have not addressed yourselves at this point to any amendment that might make the bill more palatable to your industry? Mr. ABDNOR. Not specifically. We have pointed out a number of areas which, as I say, I think are inherent in the Federal approach to the problem but there are other areas here such as the one you noted on the matter of lack of judicial review, which obviously could be reflected by corrective amendment. At an appropriate time, I am sure that upon inquiry of this com- inittee we as an association would be glad to present such information to you. Nevertheless, I again say that at this point we take a position of opposition to the total concept of Federal control. Senator JortDAN. I understand. Again I repeat, if a bill is going to be enacted, it might be helpful to this committee if you offered some amendment which in your mind was constructive and would obviate some of the evils you see here. Mr. ABDNOR. I think we understand that, sir, and certainly it will be brought to the attention of the American Mining Congress for whom I speak. PAGENO="0115" 109 Senator Joiw ~N Thank you Mr ABDNOR Thank you, sir Senator METCALF I am very grateful to my colleague from Idaho for bringing up this question of judicial review I feel that in almost every instance there should be some judicial review and I hope that you will come up with some suggestions If you come up with some legislation, I would suggest that maybe you would remember that for many, many years I have fought for ju~ dicial review in the appropriate district court, rather than requiring Montanans to travel more than 1,000 miles to San Francisco from Butte. So, I am in `complete accord with that. In your principal discussion, Mr. Abdnor, and your responses to Senator Jordan, you said that this might make us less competitive with foreign production. In other words, if we made the Anaconda Co or the Kennecott Co do something about the pit-and I don't think this bill does that-if we did that, Chilean production or some thing would be more competitive and would put some of our Mont'tna miners or all the miners out of work Mr ABDNOR I think that is elemental, sir Senator METCALF. Then you really didn't mean this was a global bill, did you? Mr. AI~DNOR. I meant global in a sense that you might use the word general or generic applying to the total of the United States under control Perhaps it was an unfortunate word In the statement I read global meant generic throughout the United States Senator METCALF If we had global j urisdiction that ~ ould not be a problem, would it? Mr ABDNOP If we could control some of the fellows in the other countries, I think that would be different Senatoi METOAr r I think I mentioned that more than 30 years `tgo I was a member of the Montana Legislature Mr ABDNOR Yes, sir Senator METCALF. And had introduced similar legislation for gold dredgers who were going down the valleys and the streambeds and were destroying farmland that w'is much more valuable than some of the land we are discussing today And the representatives of the American Mining Congress and the mnnng people came in and op posed that legishtion because they didn't want State control It would seem to me that you consistently whipsaw us in this busi ness of trying to get some control Believe me, I want to compliment many of the mining institutions for some of the forward looking operations that they have had in the 30 years thit have elapsed since I introduced that legislation You go into the State legislatures and you s'ty you cannot be com petitive and the legislature cannot put this sort of law in Montan'~ because the miners cannot compete with the price of copper in Utah and Arizona. You go into the coal areas and you say th'tt if Kentucky passes, ~ bill for reclamation and restoration of strip mining, look what it will do for us in the Four Corners Region of Oklahoma ~nd Kansas and so forth It would seem to me that this approach, where we are trying not to make it Federal but we are trying to encourage equitable State I PAGENO="0116" 110 regulations, that business of a lack of competition or a flight of in- dustry or something is unfounded. Now, you folks really go to the State legislatures and discourage and oppose the same sort of legislation at the State level ; isn't that true ~ Mr. ABDNO1i. I cannot reject or deny, and it would be foolish to do so, some of the inconsistencies perhaps that you outline, Senator. Yet, I would like to address myself briefly to what I think is a very basic proposition. It seems to me that whether you are in industry or in legislative action in the Halls of Congress or in the State legisla- tures that you are essentially obliged to respond to the public demand. I think it is a demand of people that furnishes the initiative and the motion for accomplishment. With all due respect to what you are saying, obviously you were ahead of your time in your first bill in Montana 20 years ago or whenever it was. Senator METCALr. Thirty. Mr. ABDNOR. And I think 30 years was even more further ahead of times. I think perhaps it was not too many years ago that it was still ahead of the times because there was still not an awareness~ a need, a demand for it. Now, I think that essentially as a result of what has happened in the `coal mining areas-and, let's face it, this is where the big problem lies and the coal people have acknowledged it ; they have State laws covering it-this problem has existed and it is not going to be cured in a day by State laws. If the problem is moving ahead toward solution in those areas where it has first arisen and first became paramount in the eyes of the people who demanded solution, then I say they are on the right track. Now, today, speaking only for my own industry in Minnesota, I am sure the representative of the State will confirm the fact that my in- dustry came forward to him and to the State government. I confess it was after this thing stirred in Denver last year that we knew of this Federal move and knew that we were obliged to take a position that certainly some authority is going to act, so we came forward and said, we will work with you. Now, at least the proposal for Federal legislation is in itself saying that if you don't do the job we are going to do it, but I do not believe that the States need to be forcefully directed at this point to do the job in the manner in which they are told to do the job. I say, let the States do the job if they will. This is not, I think, the appropriate time for the Federal Government to impose its rules on the States be- cause I think they are moving into it very, very well. Senator METCALF. What if the States will not do the job? Mr. ABDNOR. I don't think that has yet been demonstrated. Senator METCALF. Well, for the record, I would like to insert some statistics on surface mining of coal and lignite in 1966. Now, as you point out that is a different proposition ; they are not nonferrous ores. There are non-State-regulated areas where there is substantial coal production-Ala)bama, Missouri, Wyoming, North Dakota, New Mexico-all of which have coal production greater than some of the regulated areas such as Virginia, Tennessee, and Colorado. They have not done the job and it seems to me as if we should en- courage States such as Kentucky and Illinois and Ohio, which put PAGENO="0117" 111 through some oi unese programs, to continue to work in that direction and at the same time make the industry in their State competitive with these other States which are not regulated. If this is going to be a burden on anybody, then there is a strong argument that the States should not do it by themselves, because you put the States' industry in a noncompetitive position. Mr. ABDNOR. Well, let me say first- Senator METCALF. I would like to put these statistics in the record at this point. Senator JORDAN. Without objection. ( The document referred to follows:) SALIENT STATISTICS FOR SURFACE MIFUNG OF BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE IN 1966' State Number of mines Strip Auger Total Production (tons) Strip Auger Total - ---- -- - - - - - - - ~ - - - --- State regulated: Kentucky Illinois Ohio Pennsylvania WestVirginia Indiana 49 274 63 618 60 179 100 38 49 337 678 279 38 32,151,169 5,191,722 36,112,742 28,545,829 1,735,629 24,796,639, 826,241 12,285,443 4,919,899 15465,433 37,342,891 36,112,742 30,281,458 25,622,880 17,205,342 15,465433 1,269 1,620 149,357,255 12,6.73,491 162,030,746 66 65 49 10 6 1 5 10 1 27 2 15 4 131 59 7 5 11 29 15 4 3,640,580 2,178,952 2,276,395 301,721 1,616,459 5,337 1,121,546 834,171 3,037 772,142 20,785 761,322 328, 936 5,819,532 2,578,116 1,621,796 1,121,546 837,208 792,927 761,322 328, 936 182 79 261 11,351,551 2,509,832 13,861,383 Total (State Regulated) ~ ~ 430 1, 881 160, 708, 806 15, 183~ 323175,892,129 13 9 2c 67 13 9 25 3 4 4 1 1 5,203,174 115,369 3,580,604 3,547,094 3,542,839 2, 363, 854 927, 145 172,203 9,500 2,944 5,318,541 3,580,604 3,547,094 3,542,839 2, 363, 854 927, 145 172,203 9,500 2,944 Total (non-State regulated) . 121 6 1,572 436 127 2,008 19, 349, 357 115, 369 180,058,163 15,298,692 19, 464, 726 195,356,855 Grand total Subtotal Virginia Tennessee Colorado Kansas Oklahoma Maryland Iowa Montana Subtotal Non-State regulated: Alabama Missouri Wyoming North Dakota New Mexico Alaska Arkansas South Dakota Washington ------ ---~~--------- --~---- - ------ - --------- ---- ----~----~~-- -- ---------~-- I Source: Minerals Yearbook, 1966 Edition, Published by The Bureau of M!nes, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mr. ABDNOR. The next people I think to appear be~ore you are the coal people who are better qualified and more knowledgeable. I would point out, however, that this statement that I have presented, shows that 93.6 percent of the coal production by surface mthing in the United States, based on 1964 production, was in coal-producing States where there is presently State regulation, some 14 of them. Senator MEPCALF. I have the statistics but I didn~t add them up because my mathematics is very poor, as the Internal Revenue Serv- ice always reminds me after I turn in my income tax. The statement will speak for itself. Mr. ABDNOR. Very good. sir. 351 PAGENO="0118" I 112 Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for your very helpful testimony. Do you have anything more? Mr. ABDNOR. Nothing more, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, sir. . Senator METCALF. The next witness is another old friend of this committee's, a man who has appeared before us many times and fur- nished us counsel and advice and constructive suggestions, Mr. Joe Moody, president of the National Coal Policy Conference. Joe, we are glad to have you here. Mr. MOODY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to try to cut down this duplication and to get the `story told in one spiel, I wonder if you would mmd if I called up my conferees here so that we have them at the table and then we will just go through our presentation from one end to the other without interruption except for questions and discussion with you. Is that agreeable? Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Moody. We will be delighted `to have your colleagues with you. You may bring them up and identify them and then proceed. Mr. MOODY. All right. Mr. Edwin R. Phelps, vice president of the Peabody Coal Co., will follow me. He is a technician of technicians, by the way, of `the largest strip mine in `the country. He will be followed by Mr. George Sall, who will give you the history on the statistics of this problem in the coal industry, the di- rector of the Mined Land Association and also director of Mined Land Reclamation for the National Coal Association. He will be followed by James Reilly. Jim Reilly is with the Hanna Coal Co. which is, of course, a member of the family and has done a great deal of actual strip mining and reclamation in Ohio. We had anticipated that maybe our old friend, Senator Lausche, would be here and we are rather disappointed that he is not. We thought Jim might be helpful under the circumstances and also because they have done a tremendous amount of reclamation in Ohio, as you know. Senator METCALF. I think he will be helpful, in any event. Mr. MOODY. Then we have Mr. Robert E. Lee Hall, senior vice president of the National Coal Association, who will make his statement and summarize the points that we are trying to make. You know, as the minister ` said, "You `tell them and then you tell them what you told them and then you tell them what you intended to tell them." That is the way we are. Senator METCALF. We are delighted to have all of you here. You are welcome. Mr. MOODY. I have accumulated a certain amount of odds and ends during the day here. The statement that I am presenting is really in two parts. One is a direct statement of the situation as I see it and then there is what I have termed a supplemental statement. The supnlemental state- ment, however, covers a review of the legislation, Senator Jordan, PAGENO="0119" 113 along the line that you were inquiring as to our interest in the legislation. It is not presented, however, as an amendment or as a rewrite of the legislation. As you probably know in the air pollution area we were active in trying to have certain parts of it considered and dis~ cussed and handled in that way. We have not, in this particular instance, made that as a suggestion but it is quite possible that this suplemental statement, which I will not read but I would like to have in the record as part of my state- ment, will remedy that. STATEMENT OP JOSEPH E. MOODY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COAL POLICY CONPERE~NCE; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWIN IL PHELPS, VICE PRESIDENT, PEABODY COAL CO. ; GEORI+E SALL, DIRECTOR, MINED LAND ASSOCIATION AND NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION; JA]~ES REILLY, VICE PRESIDENT, HANNA COAL CO. ; AND' ROBERT B. LEE HALL, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION Mr. MOODY. My name is Joseph E. Moody, and I am president of the National Coal Policy Conference, Inc.,. which represents the di- verse groups comprising the industrial federation built around bitumi- nous coal-coal-producing companies, the industry's great union, the United Mine Workers of America, coal-carrying railroads and barge lines, coal-burning electric utilities and manufacturers of coal mining machines and equipment. With the indulgence of this committee and its staff, we have ar- ranged to present testimony from the representatives of coal as a coordinated group, with spokesmen for various segments of the indus- try presenting parts of the whole picture. We felt this would avoid unnecessary duplication, at the expense of the committee's time, but still make certain that the several aspects of this most important proposed legislation, insofar as it may affect the fuels and energy of this country, as well as the jobs and economic strength of those involved with coal production, transportation, and consumption, are adequately presented. Although I have been rather closely associated with the coal indus- try for more `than 20 years now, I cannot claim that I have ever actually mined a ton of coal, or been responsible for the technology by which it is mined. Thus, I will leave testimony of mining operations and techniques to those whose daily responsibility is involved in the realm of the practical and cost-price balance sheet of the possible. I believe I can lay claim, however, to having absorbed some knowl- edge of the broad picture of coal and its interrelationship with other fuels, with the intensely competitive energy market both among our own domestic fuels and between indigenous fuels and foreign supplies and, finally, in the broad aspect's of national energy demands, sup- plies and potentials. And these matters are at the heart of the legisla- tion we are considering today. Since the relationship of fuels and their use to our environment began to be a matter of national concern a few years ago, the Na- tional Coal Policy Conference staff and its members have become PAGENO="0120" 114 deeply ithmersed 111 seeking ways in which coal and other fuels can continue to meet their tremendous obligations to national growth, within the framework of national aspirations for a cleaner and more attractive environment. A shrewd observer once remarked that humankind was sometimes less than astute in its collective logic. All too often, he noted, we were prone to follow the reasoning: "A horse is white ; therefore, everything white is a horse." I am afraid we have been guilty of some such associations of ideas in regard to strip-or surface-mining of fuels, metals, and minerals. In some instances, strip mining has marred the beauty of nature and its site has been left unreclairned. once the mineral removal was com- pleted. Therefore, this type of reasoning would proceed : All surface mining is an abomination and, regardless of the national need it ful- lills, should be banned. I submit that this is neither factual nor sensible. It reminds me of a story that was told one time by a general dur- ing-not the last war ; I cannot remember which one it was ; the Sec- ond World War, I think they label it. General MacSherry, who is associated with me, one day thought that I had completely lost my buttons, I guess, by being rather sharp in my comments concerning something that had happened. He said, "Joe, I want to tell you a story." He said, "You know, in a little town that I lived in we used to hang around the drugstore and as the girls went by we did our girl watch- ing. There was always some itsy, bitsy oomment. There was one girl that was pretty good looking but not exactly beautiful from stand- ards that ordinarily are applied. As she went by this afternoon, one of the boys said, `Lord, her face would stop a clock.'" All of you who are old enough-and you may be, Senator-re- member buggy dashing and the shed back behind the church in the small towns. It seems that that evening the general, with a gal, went into the shed and parked and noticed that in the buggy alongside was this young lady who had gone past the drugstore and whose face supposedly would stop a clock. IEEe said, much to his amazement, he heard her companion say, "Eloise, your beauty would make time stand still." So, lots of times you know when you think that maybe a high wall and a strip mine is ugly, remember somebody got a lot of benefit out of it somewhere. We had low-cost power that gave us a chance to produce what we needed ; it kept us in competition. By the very nature of ore and other mineral deposits, I and terrain, location, and economic competition, a great deal of our mining opera- tions must necessarily be of the surface extraction type today. And we simply cannot afford to do without the fuels, metal and nonmetal ores, and other basic substances recovered by this method for our ravenous industrial, agricultural, and social needs. The fact is, however, that regulations which unduly hamper-sur- face mining operations and add production costs which make do- mestically mined products noncompetitive with the same or substitute products produced abroad, could very well hasten a further decline in our self-sufficiency of many fuels, metals, and mineral ores. PAGENO="0121" 115 We believe you gentlemen will agree that it should be the responsi- bility of the Congress to encourage a strengthening of our domestic in- dustrial economy and that, while recognizing the need for essential protection of the health and welfare of all citizens, caution must be used to avoid unjustified injury to America's industrial might. For a number of years, there has been general recognition that America must maintain its self-sufficiency of a number of essential raw materials as a simple fact of national security. Political or military crises could-and have-shut off our supplies of oil, tin, natural rubber, sugar, and many other essential commodities in the past, and this Na- tion cannot afford to be in a position where another such event could deprive us of things necessary both to our life and strength. I could talk for hours on this point-in fact, if all I have said to various committees of the Congress since 1959 on the national security dangers of excessive imports of residual fuel oil were made a part of this record the Government Printing Office probably could not have it ready for publication before the Congress adjourns. I will only cite the most recent warning I have seen, from a responsi- ble, concerned, high Government official. Speaking of crude oil, but in a context that is equally applicable to any other essential fuels, metals or raw materials, Assistant Secretary of the Interior J. Cordell `Moore told the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association on March 27 that it is essential "that the United States have an assured, plentiful supply at the lowest practical cost. "-Plentiful, because we will need to find at least 41/4 billion barrels of new oil each year just to replace what we take out of the ground. "-Assured, because we cannot afford to be dependent upon sources which might be denied us through war or political instability." Now, to this compelling iiational security factor has been added a new-and, to us, unprecedented-reason for self-sufficiency of essential supplies. We no longer can afford to purchase more and more of them abroad, which we, nevertheless, are doing each year. That is, perhaps, a drastic way of saying that we have to curtail our spending for overseias purchases of things we can produce, or substi- tute for, at home. But it is basically true. Anyone who has watched the dwindling of our gold reserves, the continuing deficit of our for- eign payments balance sheets, and the steady inroads into our domestic market of critical minerals and fuels by foreign supplies cannot help but be alarmed. I don~t want to go too far afield here, and I certainly recognize that the foreign trade and balance-of-payments situation involves much more than purchases of fuels and other raw materials. Never- theless, I think they are legitimate and crucial factors when we are considering the wisdom of adopting new restrictions which may fur- ther weaken the competitive position of domestic supplies vis-a-vis those in other countries. I likewise fully recognize the desirability of maintaining substan- tial trade with other nations, with the legitimate interests of each trading nation properly accepted and protected. Because of our `tech- nical and industrial development, our trade balance, as contrasted to our payment `balance, remains favorable, and this was written 10 days ago and they tell me since the first quarter of this year `there is a deficit, too, some two and three-tenths billion. PAGENO="0122" 116 But that does not mean we should let ourselves become dependent on "sources which might be denied us," in Secretary Moore's words, for essential materials which form the very basis of our civilization and industrial might. We are reaching a point where these policies cannot continue. In 1949, the United States possessed $24.6 billion in gold reserves, or 70 percent of the world's total. Today, that has dropped to $10.7 billion-or 25.3 percent. Not since 1956, when the Suez crisis opened up extraordinary foreign markets for United States fuel, have we shown `a plus in our balance of payments. The liquidity balance in 1967, as recently esti- mated by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, was a minus $3.4 billion. it seems quite clear to me, Mr. Chairmain, that these facts eon- vmeingly prove that, even though there may be an enticing desire to further promote the esthetic beauty of our countryside, America cannot afford actions `which would add still further unnecessary costs to our own domestic production of essential minerals, metals, and fuel's, and results in still greater demands for imports of these neces- sary materials from abroad. And passage of legislation which would add materially to the cost of surface mining of our natural resources could do just that. ` Now, there is another compelling reason, besides the plaguing problems of gold reserves and balance of payments, for us to be very wary of increasing our dependence on foreign sources for our essential minerals, fuels, and metals. And that is, if we do not continue to encourage development and utilization of our own mineral resources, we may all to soon find that we are too late to do so. There are various statistics which warn that we already may have gone dangerously far in this direction. Let me cite my own industry as a partial example of what is happening as a result of a Government policy to encourage dependence on foreign, rather than domestic, resources. As we all know, our tremendously increased demand for energy fuel's has re- suited in a steady increase in fuel consumption in recent years, inciud- ing coal, for electrical utility plants. What is not generally realized, however, is that in one vital, highly industrialized, heavily populated section of the country-the north- eastern part of the United States, consisting of New England, New York, `and New Jersey-domestic coal is actually losing its utility mar- ket to imported residual oil. While this hearmg is not concerned with oil imports per Se, it is concerned with proposals and regulations which could further weaken coal's ability to compete both with domestic alternative fuels and with fuels imported from foreign sources This, of course, affects the future strength of our industry just as does an increased dependence on for- cign sources for essential metals and minerals. Although probably most of the coal which has traditionally moved into the northeastern market has been from deep mines, rather than surface mines, any circumstances which can erode this major iconsump- tion area as a consumer of coal necessarily has an important impact on the production of coal in all sections, since coal pushed out of this market must compete in markets further from the coast. PAGENO="0123" 117 To give you an example how this ties in, last Friday there were two things that happened at TVA where they had announced two coal plants; a couple months ago they announced two atomic reactors. Even in the face of their statement that the atomic reactors had become, price-wise, noncompetitive. At the same time, they issued a release-I will read the beginning of it, and this is the TVA release: The Tennessee Valley Authority has reached agreement with its two largest suppliers of surface mined coal for sharing increased production cost resulting from more stringent strip mine reclamation requirements. TVA's share of the extra cost will amount to more than five million dollars with Peabody Coal Corn- pan3r and Kentucky C~ke Mining Company for 100 million tons of coal for 20 cents a ton their share. So you figure that they must figure that it costs 40 cents a ton. Now, maybe there is nothing but coincidence in the fact that TVA decided that in their statement 2 months ago the reactors were not competitive but along with this announcement went the announcement that, because they had purchased the two reactors, they would no longer consider the addition of a coal plant at Bull Run. Now, this is where these ramifications go. Senator METCALF. Will you explain that ? You say that reactors are nonfcompetitive ~ Mr. MOoDY. The TVA said that the reactors had reached a point where they were not competitive with coal plants in that area and they purchased two coal plants. So, we anticipated that we had done a good job, that somehow we cut our prices down and that the coal was being offered in volume great enough to take dare of these monster plants they were building. But the coincidence of switching from the coal plants to reactors and gave notification that they no longer considered the coal pl~amt ait Bull Run and also a vOluntary adjustment on their contracts of 20 cents a ton, saying that this is their share and the producer has to take up the rest of the slack, indica~tes how we are dealing in the competitive relationships of what we are talking about, and I will now go into that. It must be recognized that utilities buy fuel or build generating plants designed to use various fuels, including uranium, on the basis of costs per million B.t.u.'s and, recently, decis~ions have been m~ade on an extremely narrow cost differential. Sometimes ~s much as a frac- tion of a mill per kilowatt hour for power costs, a standard proportion of which is the fuel cycle costs, determines whether a new plant will be dethgned for nuclear power, coal, or fuel oil. Thus, it is significant that when the residual oil import con:trois program was loosened and virtually ~liminated 2 years ago, prices of imported oil dropped several cents a barrel and oil began to take over more and more of the northeastern market. In fact, between 1965 and 1967, the annual use of coal by utilities from New Jersey northward declined `by 2,644,000 tons. During this same period, the use of fuel oil by utilities~~~_~and 82 percent of all fuel oil used on ithe east coast is now imported-increased by the equivalent of 8,463,000 tons of coal. Coal's share of the market in these States declined from 62.2 percent to 50.2 percent. In contrast, utility `consumption of coal on the rest of the east coast increased by about 13 million tons and coal's share of the market from Pennsylvania southward remained unchanged at about 84 percent. PAGENO="0124" 118 Any action taken to further increase production costs of domostic coal oarnio't fail to further w~aken coal's competitiv~ position in mar- kets where even a few cents per ton might swing a decision for or against one fuel. The same argument holds true for other domestic extraction indus- tries w'h'idh must compete on both domestic and world markets, and where an inability to so compete inevitably results in a weakening of our dom~stic metals and minerals resources position. There are already examples of U.S. production losing out to foreign sources in several fields and, while that may not result from cost daf- ferentials, certainly they are significant in assessing our `ability to remain self-sufficient for vital raw materials in the future, and ocr- tainly any Federal action which would increase domestic production costs would tend to add to this already apparent trend. Between 1951 and 1966, domestic production of iron ore decreased from 118.4 million tons to 90 `million tons, while imports increased from 10 million tons to 46~3 million tons. This meant an increase of about $400 million in our balance-of-payments deficit. In the same period, our production as a percent of world pro'duct~on dropped from 40.4 to 14.6 percent. Thus, while U.S. production of iron ore was declining almost 28 million tons, total annual world production was increasing by 325 million tons. You probably saw in the paper where the Yamada and Fuji steel companies of Japan are merging and will be the largest steel company in the world. In 1951, we produced 1,878,000 tons of bauxite, the raw ore for aluminum, and imported 2,830,000 tons. In 1966, we were still produe- ing less than 2 million tons, but we imported 11,529,000 tons. Thus, the growth of our aluminum raw material ore consumption was all from foreign production. It might be noted that the cost of the 1966 imports was $147.3 million, compared to about $20 million as the value of our domestic production. The U.S. production of crude petroleum was 2,245 million barrels in 1951, or 52.4 percent of world production. In 1966, it had increased t~j) 3,027,763,000 barrels but world production had multiplied about six times, to almost 12 billion barrels, and TT.S. production by then was only 25.3 percent of world production. Meantime, crude petroleum imports had grown from 8 percent of domestic production to 14.7 percent. Perhaps the clearest warning that has been issued against the grow- ing dependency of foreign sources of metals, minerals, and fuels came from Dr. Walter Hibbard, then Director of the' U S. Bureau of Mines, on March 21 of this year. I know he has been quoted once before but I think it is worth emphasis. Dr. Hibbard told the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels of this' Senate Interior Committee th'at a long-range study which he had had the Bureau make had revealed, and I quote his words: * . . a situation that is' emerging which appears to threaten both the adequacy and dependability of our supply of minerals and mineral fuels. Mr. Chairman, these are startling words coming from the Govern. ment official charged with primary responsibility for compiling factual information on minerals, fuels, and other mining products. They PAGENO="0125" . 119 simply cannot be ignored by the Congress, or any other branch of Government, Dr. Hibbard pointed out that as readily available, supplies of any re- source become more scarce, the extraction costs increase, and admitted that how long our "important domestic capability" to supply our own mineral needs, as well as supply a great variety to world markets, "can be maintained is open to considerable conjecture." The Mines Bureau Director noted that already U.S. mining in- terests are `turning to foreign material sources, and that we now import- Forty percent of our iron ore; Nearly 40 percent of our zinc; More than 25 percent of our lead; Almost 20 percent of our copper ; and Eighty-five percent of our bauxite. He did not state, although he might well have, that we also import 82 percent of all the residual fuel oil used in the Atlantic seaboard States in competition with domestic coal and other fuels. I will not dwell further on Dr. Hibbard's very important testimony, except for one more very pertinent quotation: If current trends continue- He warned- our capability to produce minerals from domestic sources may not only re- main static, but in some cases disappear because they cannot be maintained in competition costwise with foreign production. Any new regulations adding to the burdens and cost of, and further discouraging production of, domestic fuels, minerals, and metals is certainly going to augment our already substantial dependence on foreign sources, a few examples of which I have cited above. ` Mr. Chairman, I have addressed myself to the broad picture of the Nation's fuels, metals, and energy needs, supplies and capabilities, balanced against costs and world competition. Several of my associates will testify more specifically ` to the fact that almost all of the coal-mining States where surface mining is conducted in areas where it may temporarily affect the beauty of the countryside now have reclamation laws which their legislatures feel are sufficient to protect the esthetic qualities of the scenery. They will also comment more specifically on both technical, produc- tion, and marketing problems for coal which could result from the superimposing of Federal reclamation programs on top of such State regulations and they will supply you with facts about the surface mining of coal-why it is necessary under certain conditions and in certain areas and why restrictions which make it uneconomic would not only be a serious blow to the economy in many sections of the Nation, but would also seriously impair our ability to provide a secure and low-cost fuel to utilities and other users in many areas. My testimony has emphasized that we cannot afford at this time new regulations which further hamper our ability to supply our own needs for fuels, minerals, and metals. I sincerely hope the committee will agree with me, and that 5. 3132 and other proposed legislation on this subject will be rejected by this committee in this session. Members of the coal industry, as ordinary good citizens, are hon- estly concerned with the maintenance and improvement of the en- PAGENO="0126" 120 vironme~ntai quality of the Nation. But it has to be recognized that there are limits to the colsts and problems which can be imposed upon it without serious consequences to the industry's strength and to the national economy and fuel security. Not very long ago, the Water Quality Act was passed, creating wide- spread new problems in controlling and eliminating acid mine drain- age. The industry is still seeking to find ways to comply with national policy in this field. Last year, the industry recognized that in some cases air pollution is becoming a serious problem and cooperated with the Congress in support of ~a control program. We endorsed the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1967, even though we recognized that a great deal of dam- age to coal as a competing fuel in the marketplace could result. We are still trying to find the answer to air quality improvement without severe injury to our industry. With these two problems still facing us and demanding solutions, it seems to me that only the most serious emergency would justify the imposition of still further restrictions and higher costs on mining at this time. I do not believe a case can be made to show that such an emergency exists today. Because I am hopeful that this committee will agree that there is no pressing need for this legislation and that this is not the time, eon- sidering all the other national problems we face, to take the action called for here, I have purposely refrained from specific comments on this bill. There are, of course, some who disagree with me. They feel such legislation is necessary and are urging its passage. Even if Federal reclamation control legislation was needed, there are certain provi- sions of S. 3132, as drawn, which would render it completely un- acceptable and compound to a serious degree the undesirable conse- quences against which I have warned. For whatever value it may be to you in your deliberations, and with the hope that it will demonstrate why S. 3132 should not be approved at this session, I have prepared several specific comments on these pro- visions which, with your permission, I would like to submit at a supplemental statement to my text. In the interests of time, I will not read it, but I hope it will be read and will be accepted for the record. Thank you for your courteous attention and the opportunity for myself and my colleagues to present the viewpoint of the coal industry on this mwtter. May I put this in the record, as if read? Senator METCALF. The supplemental statement will be included as part of the record, and I assure you that it will be read with a great deal of interest, both by the staff and those members of the committee who are concerned about this legislation. Mr. MOODY. Well, Mr. `Chairman, you know if there is something in it `that does not sound just like good English, why, you may change it. (The statement referred to is as follows:) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF JosEPH E. MooDy, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COAL POLICY CONFERENCE, INC. The following comments are offered to point out what we believe are the prin- cipal faults of S. 3132 as introduced. They are not intended to be exhaustive and, indeed, if there seems to be an intention on `the part of the Committee to rec- PAGENO="0127" 121 ommend Federal mined land reclamation legislation ait this session, we woukZ urgen~tly request an Opportun~ity to submit additional te8ttlnony, e1abc~rating on these pcdnts and discuss~ng other provisions o~ legislation being considered. These points, however, do suggest our overall reaction to S. 3132 in its present form. (1) The definition of surface mined areas in Section 2 seems unrealistically broad and particularly Section 2(e) , page 2, line 19, which could be interpreted to mean that if operations of a particular surface mine are still underway, al- thongh parts of some "surface mined area" might have been mined ever years before, the entire area would be subject retroactively to provisions of this legis- lation. This would create an impossible situation in many instances and could add costs which wouffd be completely intolerable for the continued economic mining of the area. (2) There are several places throughout the legislation in which wording is so general as to allow almost any arbitrary interpretation by enforcement author- ity, even if such interpretations are completely unrealistic and far beyond control envis~ioned by the Congress. For example, in Section 3 (b ) , page 3, in listing the findings of the Congress, it sets forth certain operations which allegedly "bnrden and adversely affect commerce by destroying and diminish- ing the availability of land for commercial, industrial, recreational, agricultural and forestry purposes by causing erosion and land slides, by contributing to floods and the pollution of water, by destroying fish and wildlife habitat and impairing natural beauty" among other things. It further states in Section 3(c) that regulations by the Secretary and cooperation by the states, as contem- plated by this Act, must be appropriate to prevent and eliminate such adverse effects. Further Section 7(a) (1) (A) gives the Secretary power to disapprove a state plan if in his "judgment" the plan does not provide "an appropriate rela- tionship between the extent of regulation and reclamation that is required and the need to preserve and protect the environment." This combination of provi- sions gives such a broad definition of the environment to be proteeted and such sweeping discretion to the Secretary as to the adequacy of a state plan, that for all practical purposes there is no legislative standard. It is no secret that much land which is surface mined for its minerals, fuels or metals is so located as to have no value for commerce, industry or recreation. Particularly in such circumstances, it makes much better sense to leave the discretion as to the adequacy of the regulation to the individual states which can far better take account of the situation in their own areas and in the various sections of their state, and thus, determine what restrictions are neces- sary in the public interest. This philosophy is recognized in Section 3 (d) , which pointed to the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical, and other physi- cal conditions in mining areas, which make the establishment of a nationwide basis of uniform regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclama- tion of surface mined areas not feasthle. For this reason, in Section 3 (e) , it is stated that the legislation would leave initial responsibility for regulations with the states. That statement, however, is not accurate in view of the unlimited discretion the legislation would vest in the Secretary. The provision of Section 7(a) (1) (C) where eight specific criteria are listed which it says must be met for a state plan to be acceptable, do not improve this situation. These criteria are very broad, with no statutory definition or measure other than the Secretary's "judgment". As a matter of fact, these provisions could, and as a practical matter probably would be used by the Secretary to set up a rigid structure which must be adhered to by all states and which would have the effect of creating nationwide uniform standards in contradiction to the stated purpo~e of the Act. Certainly there is a strong invitation to the Secretary, for ease of administration, to move toward a single regulatory pattern. (3) Section 5(a) refers to developing and administering state plans for "the regulation of surface mh~es", as well as reclamation of mined areas. It seems to me it should be made very clear that this Act does not intend to authorize either Federal or state interference in surface mining operations, except insofar as these operations very clearly affect the public interest or might interfere with the ability to carry out sound reclamation practices at the conclusion of mining operations. (4) Section 8(a) seems to grant a great deal of unilateral power to the Secre- tary, without any recourse by a state or its citizens, to override a proposed state plan or to force on a state a plan even if the citizens of that state are convinced that their plan Is adequate or that one is not necessary. At least some PAGENO="0128" 122 protection of state rights in this instance would be provided if the bill were changed to provide for a public hearing board or appeals board if a state requested an appeal of the Secretary's ruling. This would be consistent with the Air Quality Act of 1967, which provides that if a state fails to act to set up standards for air quality, or if the Secretary of HEW determines that the standards are not acceptable, or if the Governor of another affected state peti- tions for revisions of such standards, and HEW develops standards to be applied to that region (after calling a conference to include representatives' of all inter- ested agencies and parties ) the state may then petition for a review of such standards and HEW is required to call a public hearing board consisting of representatives of affected states, HEW and other interested Federal agencies, with HEW not having a majority. Such hearings are to be held in or near the affected region after at least 30 days notice to parties concerned and at the hearing, state and local officials, industry and other parties are invited to present testimony and evidence. The Board's decision then is binding. We believe a similar provision should be included in S. 3132. (5) This legislation also fails to make clear a situation in a state which already has an existing mining reclamation law. Under Section 7 ( a ) , line 5, page 7, it appears that a state may siTbmit its plan for the regulation and reclamation of surface mining "after public hearings". Does this mean that a state which already has a law in effect would have to hold public hearings on this law and then submit it as its proposed plan? And if the Secretary rejects the state law as its plan, and the state refuses to repeal it in order to accept a Federal a]iterna- tive, does the Federal government really wish to override the legislative action and supersede local control despite the proposed provision that primary re- sponsibiliity lies with that state? Should this be solely a matter of the Secretary's "judgment" ? Perhaps part of this pro~b~em c'ould be obviated by the inclusion of a grandfather clause which would excuse a state which already has a mined land reclan~ation law which it believes is working satisfactorily, from being subject to this provision. ( 6) Perhaps most important of all, the proposed legislation provide's no recog- nition whatsoever that there are considerations vital to the national economy and local economies that must be reflected in any regulation of surface mining. Unlike the Air Quality Act of 1967, where maximization of the use of our industrial resource's is reflected in dealing with a major environmental problem, and air quality regulations i's required to be consistent with economic and technological feasibility, this proposed surfate mining legislation provides no such objective and no such standard. While we do favor natural beauty, surely economic realities also must be taken into account. There are many more specifics I could mention. I believe the legislation as now proposed is an unsatisfactory bill which should be carefully re~4ewed if it is to be considered `at all. As I said at the outset, if further consideration is to be given to this legislation, I would like an opportunity to submit more detailed comments. Mr. MOODY. I would like now `to call on my colleague, Mr. Ed Phelps, who will tell you what strip mining really is. Senator METCALF. We are honored to have you here. Go ahead, Mr. Phelps. STATEMENT OP EDWIN B. PHELPS, VICE PRESIDENT OP EI~IGI- NEERING, PEABODY COAL CO. Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edwin R. Phelps, and I am vice president of engineering for Peabody Coal Co. I am an engineer and I have been employed for 30 years in the industry and have served in several operating, engineering, and management positions for strip eoal mining companies. I can qualify as an expert simply from the standpoint of experience; as I have lived with `the problem ever since graduating from college. I feel confident that many on this committee are not too familiar with surface mining of coal and its attendant reclamation, and since PAGENO="0129" 123 you are being required to make important decisions affecting this industry, I feel it is not presumptuous ~on my part to give a short description of our portion of the surfaoe mining industry, particularly strip mining of coal. Of first interest would be the question why strip mining ? Why not other methods ? Some of the reasons for this are as follows: The geological condition of many seams and their surroundings prevent their recovery by any other method. If the seam is under 30 inches in thickness, it is too thin to mine by underground methods and can only be recovered by strip mining ; because mining equipment that must be built with a maximum height of less than 30 inches is almost impossible to design and, if manufactured, would have a very low production rate. You can also visualize the problem of men working in a room with a ceiling height of 30 inches or less. The only way to move around is to crawl on hands and knees, which is enough said. Mr. MOODY. You should see me in 30 inches of coal, it is something. Mr. PHELPS. By the same token, if the seam is over 10 feet thick, it can best be recovered by strip mining ; `because, in underground mining, the only way to support the roof is to leave a portion of the top coal for roof or leave larger pillars for support, and both result in low recovery of coal. If the seam is irregular in thickness it is next to impossible to choose underground equipment that will be capable of effective and efficient mining. If you choose machines to clear the low roof, they will not be efficient when the seam thickens. Steeply pitching seams cannot be `mined with present underground mining systems and equipment. When the pitch is steeper than 20 percent, the underground equipment now available will not negotiate the grades ; whereas, strip mining equipment which is not limited to physical dimensions, as the underground is, can be built with surplus horsepower. In addition, since the strip mining is performed in the open, it is always possible to work on the strike, rather than up and down the pitch, so that you in effect work on the level. If there are varying bands of impurities separating the seam into benches, strip mining permits the `bench loading of coal which is im- possible in other methods. By `bench loading I refer to the practice of loading out the first layer of coal in the seam. Then loading out and disposing of the layer of impurities or "no coal" and continue the process of mining the next layer of coal. If there is a lack of sufficient roof strength in the formations over- lying the coal it is impossible to mine by the underground method. Poor roof can be caused by insufficient thickness as well as poor sta- bility of the overburden, and both of these conditions actually are advantageous to strip mining. Strip mining is generally the k~west cost method of mining coal and this in turn provides the most economic fuel for the customer who, of course, is the general puiblic. The lower costs are the results of lower labor and lower maintenance costs. Both of these advantages stem from the use of larger equipment than the necessarily compact units required in underground mining. The larger capacity equip- ment furnishes more production per man-hour of lithor. In addition, the larger equipment permits the use of oversize bearings, gears, and support structure which in turn results in lower maintenance costs. You hear a lot of stories about the big equipment that the coal mines 95-623-68-9 PAGENO="0130" 124 use. I think it is all relative. It reminds me of a story of a fellow driv- ing clown a road in Kentucky and the road was winding and he could not get in front of the truck. The truck had a big canvas cover and the truckdriver would get out and just beat the side of the truck, jump in and go down the hill to the bottom of the next one and do the same thing. Finally, after the third time he did this, and the fellow still could not get by, he said, "Say, Buddy, what are you doing ? " He said, "Well, it's very simple. You see, this is a one-and-a-half-ton truck and I have 2 tons of canaries in here, and I have to keep half of them flying all the time." Historically, strip mining is much safer due to the less dangerous conditions in the mining areas. I refer to the danger of roof falls, the problems o~f air circulation, water removal, explosions due to gas, and so forth. Strip mining meets the requirements of natural resource conserva- tion because of almost 100 percent recovery of the minerals against only 50 percent recovery by other methods. Strip mined coal is easier to prepare or process because the mining produces less fine coal and the fines are the most expensive portion of the product to clean, This also tends to reduce cost and aids in con- servation as less coal is lost in the preparation and processing. There are additional beneficial effects of surface mining which even the U.S. Department of Interior's special report to the Nation, "Sur- face Mining and our Environment" states and I refer to desirable hydrological effects from the strip areas in the retention of rain which tends to diminish the dangers of flood, diminishes the amount of cr0- sion, augments the ground water table, levels off the stream flows dur- ing dry weather, and forms lakes and ground water sources where none existed before. The mining access roads to the strip areas when made available after mining is completed can be of eonsiderthie value to the public for the multiple land use of the area. The fact that most of the abandoned strip pits form ponds or lakes which provide all types of water recrea- tion spots such as swinuning, boating, skiing, and fishing gives an added benefit to the public. I sincerely feel the above 11 reasons or advantages of strip mining over other types of mithng adequately prove the need for strip mining of coal. The second item to discuss would be the types of surface mining. I have a couple of illustrations here I might show and I will go through them hurriedly. I realize there are only a few here. I know you two gentlemen are pretty conversant with the open pit mining but the open pit mining that we use in coal is a little different and I would like to at least give you a quick story about it. This Tllu5trates the open pit mine which you are familiar with where you have an ore body in the middle and you bind a pit, take the over- burden out along the side and this continues down in the same area and benches as you have to enlarge the body and enlarge the mine. Now this mine could be 600 or 700 feet in diameter, it might be a mile in diameter. Some of the pits, as you know, have been in the same location for 60 to 70 years or more. This is strictly a separate kind of open pit mining. PAGENO="0131" 125 Then you come to what we call an open cut mine and strip mining which sounds the same but is considerably different. In this case I have the ground line here, the coal bed lying here. We start out along the outcropping of the coal where it is either thin due to poor cover or due to lack of stability of cover and open, what we call the first cut here. That would be this area here. We pile the dirt out here and the machine comes down through and takes the coal out. The stripping machine is then ready to start on the second cut. That is this area right in here. He takes this dirt out and piles it here on the second cut. The loading shovel follows through, takes the coal out and so forth. Then you just keep continuing across up and down the pit as you advance. This could cover a considerable area, depending of course on the thickness of the coal seam. Most of the coal seams average out around 5 feet or so in thickness. This is just a plan of the same thing. As I told you, I hurried through it. Here is the stripping shovel back here doing the stripping. He is un- covering this portion of the overburden. He is sitting on the coal be- cause this is a shovel. He is taking this dirt and piling it here. Behind him is the coal. Now if you can visualize, he has been through once. Up here ahead is the loading shovel taking out the coal that he had uncovered with the stripper of the pit before and he leaves a trough here in the coal so that the stripping shovel can then dump into the next cut as that shows you, and just advance along there. When you get to the end you turn around and come back the same way in one pit after another. This could go into several details if you had two seams or three seams, and so forth. This is an artist's conception of one of our pits. You have seen the large shovels which have gotten a lot of publicity. If I had the gift of words that some of them have here, I could go into the beauty of the machine, but it is an engineering master- piece. 11t is 200 feet from the top of the boom to the ground. The bucket, as they say, will move 140 yards of dirt, which is around 190 tons at a swing. The shovel runs along on the coal, and takes the overburden off, puts it in the area where the coal has been loaded be- fore. So you see there is 100 percent recovery of the coal. The over- burden is moved from this pit over to here in much the same way as you would plow one furrow to the next, you uncover one furrow to the next. When you get to the last cut you have what the farmers call the dead furrow. This is the open pit that is left at the end. Almost all of your coal formations in the United States have fire clay under them. This fire clay is impervious to water. When you leave this last pit open, the impervious bottom, you get lakes formed. In many areas all over the country you can see the lakes that are formed from the strip mine pits. Now I just wanted to go over this hurriedly to show you the differ- ences in the strip mining of coal and the strip mining of other mm- erals. There is considerable difference but even in the strip mining of coal there is is considerable difference. For example, we operate in 36 strip ffiines in different States. The coal varies from 15 inches in thickness to 12 feet in thickness. The pitch of the seam varies from zero degrees, or fiat, to more than a 20-percent pitch. The quality varies from less than 10,000 Btu per pound to more than 13,000 Btu per pound. PAGENO="0132" 126 The overburden overlying the coal varies from 40 feet to 140 feet, so you can see that although various combinations of these forms a ~rip coal mine almost every mine has different conditions and differ- ent requirements for mining equipment, mining procedures, and of course for reclamation procedures. This is just in the areas we operate in. To further explain, the variances in not only the operating but also the economics, let's compare the difference between 15 inches of coal and 12 feet of coal. If we uncover an acre of coal in the first in- stance we would have available to us 1,870 tons of coal, whereas in the second instance we would have 18,000 tons of coal. In other words, if the coal were of the same value we would have 10 times as rnuoh value in the second instance as in the first, and this amount of differ- ence, as you can readily understand, greatly affects the overall economics. I explained to you before how the opencut mining operation pro- ceeded and since the spoil areas I referred to will also vary in composi- tiion according to the formations of which they are composed, and will vary in size and shape according to the size and type of equipment that has mined them, it is easy to see that the type of reclamation work that is required will also vary. You remember I stated we operated in eight States and six of these States already have State strip mining reclamation laws which we are operating under and the remaining two have proposed laws under study at the present time by their respective legislative bodies. Both the mining companies and the State officials feel the present laws are accomplishing the reclamation results required for the conditions in that State. These requirements are not all uniform, and they must be different, due to the extreme variation in the condition of the areas to be reclaimed and the results expected as explained above. There is an extreme difference in this. As you have heard, som,e States have changed their conditions as they go along, trying under actual conditions to determine what is the best results that we can obtain. As you know, even the yard in an expensive new house is unsightly and unacceptable to the public until the shrubbery and grasses that are planted have a chance to grow, and we feel that this makes a good comparison to the conditions in many of our mining areas at the pres- ent time. As proof of this statement I could take you to areas that were mined 30 years ago on which no reclamation work whatsoever was performed and I would challenge you to distinguish these areas from adjacent nondisturbed areas. We don't propose letting nature do it alone, but even man also might be given time. One of the early original factors that made this country the most outstanding in the world was our abundance of all types of minerals and our technical ingenuity and ability to mine these at a cost which permitted us to be independent of all other countries. I feel that a Federal law such as the proposed S. 3132 will result in increasing the cost of which will lower our competitive position in the world market. In addition, due to the law's necessary broadness to permit it to apply to all types of surface mining throughout the varyin~' mining condi- tions across the entire Nation, it will result in the mining limitation PAGENO="0133" 127 of some areas and hence cause us to lose some of our valuable minerals. When it is broad it will meet conditions that will not meet the re- quirements and then we are going to lose some of our valuable minerals. I want to point out this fact and I am sure others will repeat it. It is important enough to bear repeating and that is that a large per- centage of the strip mining areas are being reclaimed now, but the re- suits of this work are lost in emotional type publicity and literature which do not tell the whole story. I take exception to Mr. TJdall's story about our green earth program and I ask you to come down and see where this machine has been strip- ping, the reclamation work we have done. We are proud of it and we are ready to show it to you or anybody else that comes down. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Mr. Moody, I wonder if you will yield to me for a moment. The men at the table will be the last witnesses today. We are anìxious to accommodate everyone. I am going to convene the committee at 9 o'clock in the morning, and our first witness will be Mr. Frawley, who is No. 12, Mr. John W. Frawley, who has informed us he has another engagement. Then we will continue with Mr. Johnson and so forth down the line, from 9 o'clock on. We will try to accommodate as many as possible tomorrow and we will get through and we will hear you all on this very controversial and vital subject. Go ahead, Mr. Moody. Thank you. Mr. MooDy. Mr. Sail. STATEMENT OP GEORGE SALL, DIRECTOR, MINED LAND CONSER. VATION CONFERENCE, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION Mr. SALL. Mr. Chairman, I am George Sail. I am a mining engineer presently employed as associate director of Government relation's for National Coal Association which represents the principal commercial bituminous coal producers and sales companies throughout the Nation. In the interest of saving time I plan to abridge my statement con- siderably. Unfortunately, two or three of the pages I am leaving out contained invitations to the committee to see strip mining also. Senator METCALF. We are grateful to you. Your statement will be printed in full at the end of your remarks. Mr. SALL. Some of my presentation, gentlemen, is that as a measure of what the coal industry is doing to reclaim strip-mined land, these six States, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia, last year started the reclamation process on 45,828 acres by planting trees and grasses, making water impoundments, and devel- oping land for recreational uses. This figure is all the more significant when it is compared to the 45,576 acres of land affected in the six States by surface coal mining in the same period. Gentlemen, more land was planted than was mined last year in these six States. I wish we could say that if you inspected this land today you wouldn't know that coal has been mined there. But that just isn't so. There is no such thing as instant reclamation-it takes time to estab- lish a carpet of grass or a stand of trees. Given that time, though, the scars left by mining will be healed. PAGENO="0134" 128 These six States, all of which have reclamation laws, contain 81 per- cent of the surface coal mines-strip and auger-in the Nation, and were responsible for 83 percent of the coal produced from surface mines in 1966. Thirteen of the 23 States in which coal is now being surface mined have reclamation legislation on the books and an additional State has a voluntary reclamation agreement between State conservation authorities and strip mine operators. A total of 90 percent of the auger and strip mine coal produced in 1966 came from these 14 States; and 94 percent of the auger and strip mines in this country are located therein. In addition, three States, Alabama, North Dakota, and Missouri, are now considering reclamation laws. When these three States enact such laws, it will mean that 99 percent of the country's surface coal mines and over 96 percent of surface coal mine production are covered and regulated under State law. The bulk of the remaining production is on public and Indian lands in the West where the Secretary of the Interior had responsibility. If there is one thing that my experience with Mined-Land Con- servation Conference has shown, it is that there can be no single comprehensive national blueprint of reclaimed land use. Topography, soil climate, and the surrounding environment must all be taken into consideration in developing productive and useful land reclamation programs. Thus, what is feasible and appropriate in reclaiming strip mined land in one area may be impracticable, inappropriate, or even im- possible in another. For example, a reclamation plan for a strip mine in the arid areas of the West would hardly resemble a reclamation plan for a strip mine east of the Mississippi River where 40 inches of rainfall make revegetation easier. We are pleased to see that this fact is recognized in paragraph (d), section 3, of S. 3132. We concur wholeheartedly with that portion of paragraph (e) of the same section which states, "~ ~ ~ responsibility for developing, authorizing, issuing, and enforcing regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclamation of surface mined areas should rest with the State." As we have pointed out, States which produce 90 percent of the coal mined by surface methods now have reclamation laws, and other States are acting. We believe that the States are doing an effective job and, insofar as coal is concerned, that there is no need for Federal surface mining legislation at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to tell you a little bit about what the coal industry is doing to reclaim the land it disturbs in the surface mining of coal. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for a very persuasive and illuminating statement, Mr. Sail. Your prepared statement will be included at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) PAGENO="0135" 129 STATEMENT OF GEORGF~ W. SALL, ASSOCIATE DIRECToR, GOVERNMENT RELATrONS, NATIONAL OOAL ASSOOIATION Mr. Chairman and Members oi~ the Comxrdttee, My name is George Sail. I am a mining engineer presently employed as Associate Director of Government Relations for National Coal Association whi~h represents the principal corn- mercial bituminous coal producers and sales companies throughout the nation. In addition, I serve as diredtor of the Mined-Land Oonservation Conference, a division of National Coal, which was formed in 1963 to promote more emphati~aliy the effective reclamation of surface-mined coal land's. We are proud that the report which generated the administration's bill now being considered by this cornrnilttee had this to say about our efforts : "The Mined Land Conservation Conference has been particularly instrumental in pronioting mined land recla- mation programs among its members." Members of NCA and MLOC are responsible for two-thirds ocf~ the coal pro- duced in this country by surface mining methods. Mr. Moody has described the impact o~ strip mining on the economy of the Nation and stressed the broad aspects of national energy demands, supplies and potentials. Mr. Phelps has explained why and how coal is strip mined. My purpose here today is to discuss and shed some needed light on what surface coal mine operators throughout the country aire `doing to reclaim strip mined land. If, in the next few minutes, I seem to be accentuating the positive side of the reclamation story, please understand that It is not because we fail to recognize the need for continuing effoirts in mined-land reclaimation. It is rather because the negative aspects of the ~ubject have been so grea~tly emphasized in recent years. Were `this not the ease ,your committee would not now be considering the legislation at issue. Our public relations problem, ins~far as reclamation is `concerned, is really a two part problem : ( 1 ) when we do our job well, we don't get credit for it because no one realizes that land now producing a crop of timber, for example, was once harvested for a crop of energy. (2) The coal industry has simply lacked the funds and facilities to provide the public with all the fact about what is being done to reclaim mined land. Recently, however, we have engaged in a modest `advertising campaign which is beginning to produce results. More~ver, we have just completed a motion picture that vividly illustrates what is being done by the coal industry to reclaim strip-mined land. Called "The Reclaimers-A Story of Coal, Land and People," the film is being widely circulated. We extend a cordial invitation to members of this committee to view "The Reclaimers" at your convenience- either individually, or as a gtoup. Even better, of course, would be for you to visit some strip mines to see first hand what is being done. Should your various schedules allow, we would be especially pleased to arrange for such a visit-ngain, individually or as a group. 1~t is generally agreed that planned reclamation of strip-mined coal lanl began 50 years ago, in 1918, when surface coal miners in Indiana planted peach, apple, and pear trees on a mined area in Clay County. Because Indiana is a pioneer state in the field of surface mining and land reclamation, it offers an excellent example of how the coal mining industry has been meeting its land conservation responsibilities over the years. Statistics show that up to June 30, 1967, `some 91,238 acres of coal land had been affected by strip mining in Indiana. Of this amount, some 75,911 acres have been reclaimed to forest and pasture land, including 23,318 acres which have been converted into sth te forest and other recreational areas, as well as private home sites. An additional 10,727 acres have been converted to lakes. Thus, only 4,000 acrels of all the land strip mined for coal din Indiana remained nureclaimed in mid 1967. And most of that can attributed to land recently mined and still in the process of being reclaimed. Turning to the State of Ohio, the Ohio Division of Forestry and Reclamation and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources `have jointly reported that all of the land srip mined in the state from 194S-~the year of the first Ohio strip mine law-through 1955 has been reclaimed. (See Table I.) PAGENO="0136" 130 TABLE I-STATISTICAL RECLAMATION REPORT, LICENSES ISSUED, ACRES AFFECTED, ACRES RECLAIMED Number Acres Acres 2 Total reclaimed Percent reclaimed Year I licenses affected Trees Forage reclaimed, 1967 1948 273 6,882 3,432 2,933 526 6,882 100.0 1949 267 8,539 3,805 3,919 815 8,539 100.0 1950 356 10,087 4,375 4,596 1,116 10,087 100.0 1951 358 9, 781 4, 537 4, 357 887 9, 781 100. 0 1952 338 9,981 5,675 3,604 702 9,981 100.0 1953 367 10,057 5,790 3,611 656 10,057 100.0 1954 322 9,469 5,703 3,356 410 9,469 100.0 1955 309 10,817 6,766 3,679 372 1 10,817 100.0 1956 4257 11,178 7,417 3,373 352 0 11,142 99.7 1957 250 10,599 6,887 3,464 230 19 10,581 99.9 1958 254 10,247 6,442 3,562 144 10 10,148 99.0 1959 272 11,023 7,251 3,465 154 48 10,870 98.5 1960 263 10,162 6,890 2,869 149 69 9,908 97.5 1961 247 9,414 6,445 2,169 306 397 8,920 94.7 1962 240 9,807 6,193 2,402 123 758 8,718 88.9 1963 237 9 858 5,604 2,167 43 773 7,814 79.1 1964 222 ~10 712 5,960 1,923 80 3,091 7,963 74.3 1965 242 ~10,938 2,122 585 4 2,194 2,711 24.5 1966 194 ~9,699 60 60 60 60 60 ~0 Total State Iicenses_~ 5, 268 189, 250 101, 285 56, 034 7, 069 7, 360 164, 388 86. 9 Federal permits ~ 4, 236 3, 426 149 3, 426 80. 9 Ohiototal ~ 5,268 193,486 104,711 56,0347,069 7,509 167,814 86.7 1 Calendar year during which the strip mine operator's licenses listed opposite were effective. 2 Ponds, stockpiles, airstrips, area reaffected and reclaimed by a subsequent operator; or toxic (unplantable). 3 Grading of the area affected has not been included in these totals. 4 The strip mine law effective Oct. 13, 1955, permitting amendments of increases in amount of estimate of affected acreage and/or amendments of additional lands to be affected to an existing strip mine license, reduced the number of strip mine licenses issued during a year. I This figure is incomplete in that all of the actual acreage affected has not yet been reported. These acreages encom- pass abandoned operations, forfeitures, and findings to be made by the division. e Due to changes in the strip mine law, no completed reclamation has been reported for licenses issued in 1966. 7 Permits issued on Wayne National Forest lands. The totals reported by the Federal Service are compiled to June 30, 1967. The declining percentage since 1955 can be explained by the natural lag in reclamation work. That is, land disturbed in any one year might not be reclaimed for a period of years because of physical and chemical conditions of the over- burden-and because extensions of the time limit to complete reclamation have been granted in some instances where mining operations have been interrupted pending the introduction of new mining machines. Ohio coal operators graded 10464 acres, planted forest seedlings on 6,103 acres and seeded grasses and legumes on 97 acres in 1967. In Kentucky, where the state strip mine reclamation law was overhauled in 1966, land reclamation kept pace with mining last year. Kentucky coal operators and the Kentucky Reclamation Association which they sponsor, graded more than 12,000 acres-as much as was mined-and planted some 14,000 acres-2,000 more than was mined. In doing so, they planted more than 1,400,000 trees. Last year Illinois coal operators graded and planted 447 acres of strip mined land for forage and small grain crops, and 2,382 acres for permanent pasture. Three hundred seventeen acres were reforested, and 303 acres were developed for recreational use. In Pennsylvania, which has over 39 percent of the strip mines in the United States, more than 8,000 acres of land was graded last year. Some 9,400,000 trees were planted on 7,856 acres, and 2,146 acres were seeded with mixtures of various grasses. During 1967, West Virginia coal operators graded more than 21,000 acres and planted some 9,700 acres. Essentially all the remaining land graded last year is being planted this spring. In sum, gentlemen, as a measure of what the coal industry is doing to reclaim strip-mined land, these six states-Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, mdi- ana, and West Virginia-last year started the reclamation process on 45,828 acres, by planting trees and grasses, making water impoundments and developing land for recreational uses. This figure is all the more significant when it is compared to the 45,576 acres of land affected in the six states by surface coal mining in the same period. (See Table II.) PAGENO="0137" State 131 Total 1 All States require the successful establishment of vegetation 1 or more years after planting before release of perform ance bond. 2Source: Illinois Department of Conservation, Open Cut Land Reclamation Division. 3Source: Kentucky Department of Natural Resources, Division of Strip Mining and Reclamation. Source: Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, Bureau of Conservation and Reclamation. 5Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Reclamation. °Source: Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Source: West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation. I wish we could say that if you inspected this land today you wouldn't lcniow that ooal had been mined there. But that just isn't so. TheTe is n~o such thing as `instant reclamation-4t takes time to establish a carpet o~ grass or a stand o~ trees. Given that time, though, the sears left by mining will be healed. These six states, all o~ which have reclamation laws, contain 81 percent of the surface coal mines-~strip and auger-Jin the nation and were resp~nsTh1e for 83 percent of the coal produced from surtface mines in 1966. Thirteen of the 23 states in which coal is now being suri~a'ce mined have recla- mation legislation on the books and an additionial state has a v~olun~tary reclama- it4on agreement between state conservation authorities and strIp mine o~perators. A total of 90 percent of the auger and strip iuine eoal produced in 196G came from these 14 states ; and 94 percent of the auger and strip mines in this country are located ther~in. In addition, three states, Alabama, North Dakota and Missouri, are now eon- sidering reclamation laws. When these three states enact sudb laws, It will mean that 99 percent of the country's surface eo'al mines and over 96 percent of surface coal mine produletion are covered and regulated under state law. The bulk cxf the remaining produet~on is on Public and Indian Lands in the West. SitatistiCs m;ake dry testimony-and I don't want to be accused of playing a "nun~bers" game. A tabulatIon of the `infoi~maition we have just gone over is included in greater detail in Table III. TABLE 11.-COAL ACREAGE MINED, PLANTED AND RECLAIMED IN 6 STATES IN 1967 Acres affected IIIinois2 Kentucky3 Pennsylvania4 Ohio~ lndianao West Virginia? Acres Acres planted reclaimed (released from bond) 1 7,145 3,449 11,711 14,000 9,712 10,002 10,000 7,077 3,011 1,600 4,997 9,700 3,450 8,165 12,384 7,509 2,948 7,393 45, 576 45, 828 41,849 PAGENO="0138" Number of mines Production (tons) State - Strip Auger Total Strip Auger Total State regulated: Kentucky 111 128 139 32,151,169 5191,722 37,342,891 Illinois ~ ~ 36,112,742 36,112,742 Ohio 274 63 337 28,545,829 1,735,629 30,281,458 Pennsylvania 618 60 678 24, 796, 639 826, 241 25, 622, 880 West Virginia 179 100 279 12, 285, 443 4, 919, 899 17, 205, 342 Indiana 38 38 15, 465, 433 15, 465, 433 - ~ . - - --~------ - - --------- --- ----------- -- --- - ---- ------ --- Subtotal 1,269 351 1,620 149,357,255 12,673,491 162,030,746 .. Virginia 66 65 131 3, 640, 580 2, 178, 952 5, 819, 532 Tennessee "s 10 59 2,276,395 301,721 2,578,116 Colorado 6 1 7 1,616,459 5,337 1,621,796 Kansas ~ ~ 1,121,546 1,121,546 Oklahoma 10 1 11 834,171 3,037 837,208 Maryland 27 2 29 772,142 20,785 792,927 Iowa 15 15 761,322 761,322 Montana 4 4 328,936 328,936 Subtotal - 182 79 261 11, 351, 551 2, 509, 832 13, 861, 383 Total (State regulated) 1, 451 430 1, 881 160, 708, 806 15, 183, 323 175, 892, 129 Non-State regulated: Alabama 61 6 67 5,203,174 115,369 5,318,541 Missouri 13 13 3,580,604 3,580,604 Wyoming 9 9 3,547,094 3, 547, 094 North Dakota 25 25 3,542,839 3,542,839 New Mexico 3 3 2,363,854 2,363,854 Alaska 4 4 927,145 927,145 Arkansas 4 4 172,203 172,203 South Dakota 1 1 9,500 9,500 Washington 1 1 2,944 2,944 Total (non-State regulated) 121 6 127 19, 349, 357 115, 369 19, 464, 726 ~ Grand total 1, 572 436 2, 008 180, 058, 163 15, 298, 692 195, 356, 855 ----- --- --- --- ~------- --- -- --S-- -- I Source: Minerals Yearbook, 1966 edition, published by the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior. So far I have discu~s'sed the coal industry's reclamation efforts in qnanlitative terms. Yet in consiider~ng the problem of strip mining and land reclamation, your Oomraittee is al~o Interested in the qualitative measure o~ such mined land recla- maition pro~rIams. There are striking and dramatic examp~es of coal industry success in reclaim- ing sur~aice mined lands. For example- 1. The Lynn'v'ille, Trod., ecYm~m11n(ity reservoir was once land which was mined by Peabody Coal Co. Lynn~ille suffered a chronic water sh~ortage, and hauled in much of its supply by truck, until the coal com~p'any's community- minded ~ianning created a lake four miles long and 50 feet deep, hoiding `more thnn 400 million gallons, and dlonat~d it to Lynn~ille. 2. The Pkbsburg & Midway Ooal MIining Co.'s award-winning Kansas con- ser~ati!on pr'o'gr~am represent's a 30-year company investment in reclamat~on planning ai~d expei~imentation. P&M has developed not only fruit and walnut orchard's, vineyards and pasture area~s, but the strip mine lakes It has created provide ~ome of the finest fishing in Kansas and are the cornerstone of a thriving tourist and recreation industry. The Kansas Wildhfe Federation presented the company its "Soil Conservaition~ist for 1065" award. 3. A three-county, 100,000 acres "outdoorsman's paradise" was created by Ohio Power Co. on its strip~mined lands in cooperation with the State Dlvi- MIon of Wi:1dli1~e. More than 300 lake's and ponds, loaded wiith a variety of fish, dot a wildeimess that shelters deer, beaver, water~owl and other wild- life. Over 2,500 visitors a month from all over the Nation take advantage of these facilities. As I stated earlier, my purpose in citing these examples is simply to balance the scales somewhat regarding public understanding of the coal industry's strip mine reclantatlon efforts. Phese projects are not, of course, the universal rule, but they do demonstrate the substantial progress that has been made and is being made by our industry in this field. I 132 TABLE 111.-SALIENT STATISTICS FOR SURFACE MINING OF BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE IN 1966' PAGENO="0139" I 133 Over the years, coal coimpanies and 1~he~r assloie~ations have shown ~ores~ight in develioping and subsidizing reclamation researth programs conducted by univer- s~ties and agr~cu1Itura1 services. As a result, the agricii1tura~ and forest uses of re~eLainied mined land have expanded and diversified with time and successful eZperimentation. it is not uncommon for a company engaged in surface mining to have an agri- cultural division or subsidiary to manage the 1and~-~bo!th before and after mining operatIons. Such groups are involved in programs as varied as : growing berries for a pi~ofces~or of jellies and jams ; fattening cattle on their way to m~arket; growing and harvesting pulp wood ; raising hay and grain crops, and developing orchards, to name a few. Incidentally, Ohri'sftmas trees grown on reclaimed cofal mine land in Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana have been cut and shipped to Washington to be featured in the White I1~ouse Ohristinas Pageant of Peace for the past three years, under a pro- gram initi'ated by the Amerisc/an Mining Oongress. Next year they ~viil come from Pennsylvania. If there is one thing that my experience with MLOC has shown, it is that there can be no single comprehensive national bluep~rint of reclaimed land use. Topo- graphy, soil, climate and the surrounding enviornment must all be taken into consideration in developing productive and useful land reclamation programs. Thus, what is feasible and appropriate in reclaiming strip mind land in one area may be impracticable, inappropriate or even impossible in another. For example, a reclamation plan for a strip mine in the arid areas of the West would hardly resemble a reclamation plan for a strip mine east of the Mississippi River where 40 inches of rainfall make revegetation easier. We are pleased to see that this fact is recognized in paragraph (d) , Section 3, of S. 3132. We concur wholeheartedly with that portion of paragraph (e) of the same Section which states, ". . . responsibility for developing, authorizing, issuing and enforcing regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclama- tion of surface mined areas should rest with the state." As we have pointed out, states which produce 90 percent of the coal mined by surface methods now have reclamation laws, and other states are acting. We believe that the states are doing an effective job, and, insofar as coal is concerned, that there is no need for Federal surface mining legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to tell you a little bit about what the coal industry is doing to reclaim the land it disturbs in the surface mining of coal. Mr. MOODY. Mr. Reilly, please. STATEMENT OP JAMES REILLY, VICE PRESIDENT, CONSOLIDATION COAL CO. OP PITTSBURGH Mr. REILLY. In the interest of saving time, I am going to ask to file my statement, but I am going to indulge, if I may, just a minute or two to explain my viewpoints on this particular legislation. Senator METCALF. Let me repeat, all statements will be accepted and printed in the record and the Chair will from now on enjoy hearing a summary such as you have, Mr. Reilly. Mr. REILLY. I would not impose upon you. My name is Jim Reilly. I am a viue president of Consolidation Coal Co. I happen to be an immigrant miner to the United States. I would like to say that I am awfully proud to be a part of this industry. I would like to say that before I ever strip mined any coal that I had the pleasure of taking my buHdozer from an underground mine and making some beautiful lakes and some wonderful recovery of lands because I happen to believe in this sort of thing. PAGENO="0140" 134 I wou'd like to give you my thoughts on why it is important that we allow the ii~genuity of the American mining engineer, the man who works in reclamation and the man who is running these coal mines. I can assure you that my friends say, Why do you oppose legislation ? Your company and your mines are considered the tops- and I want you to come and see them, what we did. My answer is simply this : that I want to be a part of America's secret weapon. I want to be a part of the group who has developed these machines that make this reclamation possible and a part of the group who has developed seedlings that have been brought in here from Switzerland, for example, that are covering thousands of acres of our land and actually helping our problem that our Secretary re- ferred to this morning. We are the great exporters of the crownvetch seed that the Federa' Government is using to hold the banks that keep slipping on both State and Federal highways. Some of it is down here in the District, I bring some of it with me for my friends. Every time I come I bring some to help hold these difficult banks. The person who does the job of really bringing on reclamation i.s the man in the field. I want to give you a couple of the things that hurts and impedes. When you have many layers of authority and you preplan a job and you are working on it and then you have different authorities to deal with in getting this job done in the most economic and in the most advantageous way in the future of our Nation, when there is more than one layer of the authority there is jealousy as to who is going to do what, and how you are going to do it. I submit the dialog had here this morning between two Federal groups is what I am talking about. Now if you were working in a mine and here is a State man saying you should do it this way, and you have a Federal man over here saying you should do it this way, and more than likely at different times they both work for you and they are now experts, but the truth of the matter is they didn't have the capacity in many cases to hold r~ job but they are telling you how to do it. Now I believe sincerely as a reelaimant that the progress that the United States particularly has made in the last 3 to 5 years is phe- nomenal and I would like to indulge this group to give us an oppor- tunity to prove what we can do voluntarily and under State controls. I think you will be real proud of it. I would like to add one thing that has been mentioned here, what England has done several times. Now, bless England's heart, I am emigrated from there and I don't want to go to Australia because of Federal controls, but the money came out of that mine in Fort Knox known as Fort Knox, Ky., that subsidized most of the socialistic recovery that you have in England and in Germany. We poured $10 billion in there trying to make that program work and it didn't work, man. I am not ashamed of what happened with the acid mine draining the old mines in Pennsylvania. They made it possible for my daddy to have a three-room house to put me in when I came to this country "and develop this Nation, and hardly anyone that did that work in those days could even read or write. Sure, they left us some problems, but we can overcome them. I better be careful, I will get to singing that song. PAGENO="0141" 135 I can really do it. I can honestly do it, the way I feel about the job we can do as miners. I mean we can do it, we are doing it, and please take a good look at us. Remember when you see one of our baddies, you have the problem with Adam, you have the Senators from people in other places, doctors have problems, law3 ~rs have to disbar people once in a while. There are some who are not exactly the finest people in the world, and you know that goes on. But we are doing a job. Selfishly we ought to ask to make everybody do wh~ t we are doing. When you see what we are doing, you will know why 1. say that. But I know that is not the way to do it, that is not what made America great. We will whip this problem, believe me. I said I was going to file this statement in an effort to save time. Well, I am getting carried away so I will answer any questions you have and shut up. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Reilly. ( The prepared statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT O1~ JAMES REILLY, VICE PRESIDENT, CONSOLIDATION COAL Co. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is James Reilly. I am vice president of Consolidation Coal Company of Pittsburgh. I have been involved in the coal strip mining industry for more than twenty years. Most of my career in coal mining has been spent in Ohio, although I am generally familiar with strip mining in other parts of the country. It happens that the first mined land reclamation in this country took place fifty years ago, in 1918, in Clay County, Indiana. Peach, apple, and pear trees were planted on that mined land and some of them are still bearing fruit. In 1967, the reclamation experts of Indiana's bituminous coal strip mining industry planted their fifty millionth tree. They have reclaimed more than 95 per cent of the land disturbed since stripping operations began in Indiana 50 years ago. We think that is a pretty good average. Actually, very little strip ruining was done between World War I and World War II, but during World War II the tremendous demand for coal brought many who had had no previous experience in coal mining into the strip mining field. There were road contractors, bulldozer operators and just about anyone else who thought he could make a fast buck by strip mining coal. Many of them returned to other occupations immediately after the war ended and as the demand for coal began to slack off a bit. The fact that these outsiders did very little reclama~ tion created problems which still haunt those of us in the strip mining business today. We are sometimes asked why we strip mine at all. Well, for one thing, strip mined coal is usually cheaper to produce. It is estimated that if all 196G coal production had come from underground mines-if there had been no strip mm- ing-American consumers would have paid some $250 million in ridded fuel costs that year. In addition, there is always the geological factor to consider. When special topographical conditions in an area make underground mining impractidal, then lifting the roof of the soil iecomes the only feasible way to recover the coal. The industry today has the techn&cal and engineering staffs to reclaim strip mined land-and they are doing the job-emphatically so ! Remairkable progress has been made in the art of land reclamation in the last few years. This prog- ress has been made under local and state supervision, and it is now in good hands. Let me describe for you some of the techniquets now used in land reclamation by the responsible coal strip mining companies. First, there is soil testing. It is extremely important that the land be put to its best possible use once the coai has been removed. In our company, and in most of the other major coal strip mining companies, we test the soil before the land is strip mine~i. Then as mining proceeds, reclamation plans are developed to reclaim the land to its best possible use. In some cases, it is necessary to make adjustments as mining proceeds. This is because we may encounter different soil conditions than we had originally anticipated, or because of other geological factors which develop as the land is stripped and mined. PAGENO="0142" 136 SG11 tests will tell us how moisture may best be captured and held, instead of rmuiing off. This will help to prevent erosion, and it will enable us to build up the waiter table of the area. Let me give you one example out of our experience. As some of you may know, some years ago we operated a coal pipeline from our strip mining area near Oadiz, Ohio, to one of the large generating stations of Cleveland Dlectric Illumi~ nating Oompany, a distance of about 108 miles. To pipeline the coal, we made a slurry by mixing the coal with water. One of our problems then was to get an adequate water supply. We first arranged to secure water from one of the water conservation di s- tricts in Ohio. However, we found that because of our strip mining opera- tions, the water table bad risen to the point that we could get all the water we needed from our mining area. Therefore, we were able to cancel the plans we bad made with the water conservation district. Now this water was not available until we started strip mining, and not until we brought the water table up by holding the water there instead of allowing it to run off and, in the process, taking a lot of the top soil along with it. We have also conducted a number of experiments with different methods of reclaiming land. For example, in some areas we have found that we have cx- cellent results with reforestation. We have experimented with ~arious types of trees and have adapted ourselves to those which would grow best in the areas we were mining. Soil conditions many times dictate the types of trees which will flourish in a given area, and soil conditions vary widely. Some- times a tree which will grow well in one locality will not do so well oniy a short distance away. The precise type that will do best under all circumstances must be determined experimentally before planting is undertaken. One of our most successful plantings on reclaimed strip mined banks has been Penngift crown vetch. This perennial legume is a native of Europe and has adopted well to growth in the eastern part of the United States. Dr. Fred Grau first found it growing on a field in Berks County, Pa., and developed the tech- nique of culture and seed harvesting. Crown iretch has many advantages over other legumes and grasses for rec- lamation. It is longer-lived, adds nitrogen to the soil, even though the original stand may appear sparse, and spreads slowly until it forms a complete and dense ground cover. It is not easily affected by insects. Once an area is corn- pletely covered with an established stand of crown vetch, then erosion is no longer a problem. From the first of April through May it is a mass of pink flowers and presents a spectacular panorama. It is green from April through November. The only drawback we have found in it is that it does take three or four years to get 100 percent cover. Crown vetch also is an excellent animal food. We have grazed as many as 1,500 head of beef cattle on lit and have found that they have made phenomenal progress. Crown vetch has a high protein content which enhances its forage value. Many, many recreational areas also have been developed on strip mined lands. We are sometimes asked why `all strip mined areas are not turned into recreational projects. Well, for one `thing, the economics will not permit this. For another, not all areas have a need for the recreational developments that may be particularly suitable in some places. There are some notable examples of recreational areas developed after strip mining. For example, the Fairgrounds State Park near DuQuoin, Ill., the site of the Hambletonian, which is the Kentucky Derby of harness racing, is on land once strip mined for coal. The United Electric Ooal Companies have successful farms and a commercial peach orchard on reclaimed lands in that same area. Ohio has many, many lakes and recreational spots that have been developed as a result of strip mining. Numerous sportsmen's clubs and outdoor groups use these lakes. They are stocked with b'ass, blue gill, and channel catfish. But recreational development is not limited to lakes. There are picnic areas, wildlife preserves and even golf courses on reclaimed strip mine land. We have a golf course in my own section of Ohio that is on land we mined. In addition to agricultural and recreational use, some surface mined areas now provide sites for private homes and churches, schools, theaters, shopping centers, industrial parks, and even air strips. Reclamation work has been limited only by man's ingenuity and imagination. We sincerely believe, gentlemen, that a Federal law which would place an additional layer of paper work on top of that we already have to do, not only PAGENO="0143" 137 ror our own companies but J~or local and state officials, under the mining regula- tions of local and State agencies, would only impede progr~ss. It would cut down on the imaginative work now taking place, and in the end serve no useful purpose. I mention the creative aspect of mined land reclamation. You iaay be inter- ested to know that some of the seeding now is done by airplane, some by hell- copter. The airplanes fly only a few feet off the ground. They can do in three days what it once took a ground crew forty days to `accomplish. Aerial seeding is now being done even in the mountainous couutry of Kentucky and West Vir- ginia, whereas it once was limited to the flatlands of Ohio, Indialia, and Illinois. Aerial seeding can be an especially effective way of getting ground cover quickly. In addition to aerial seeding, we now have what is known as' bydro~seeding. The hydro-seeder is mounted on a truck ; it mixes the seed, fertilizer and water, then sprays the mixture over the planting area. This technique has proved espe- cially successful in revegetating stee~ily-sloping mined areas. Recently we have brnached out into test-tube seedlings to try to find better ways of making the plants survive. This has been one of our major problems over the year~-the mortality rate of seedlings and transplants, just as you may have trouble with the s,hrulbs you trapsplant in your own yards. At the moment we are experimenting with the tubeling, or test-tube baiy tree seedling. The tubeling is grown in six weeks in a three-long plastic or cardboard tube packed with native soil. Unlike the conventional seedling, whicii spends a year in a nursery bed before being uprooted and replanted, the tubeling stays in a restricted area which contains its own microclimate. Thus the initiail ~hoek of transplanting, which accounts for most seedling failures, is minimized. Forestry experts stay that these tubelings then can be planted throughout the entire growing season. Cur- rently, seedling methods are limited to spring and fall planting. In Ohio, mined land reclaimers are trying a Suspended vegetation process to minimize plant losses which occur when the delicate roots of ~eeidlings dry out during shipping, storage and field planting. By coating the seedling roots with a protective clay, we are finding that the hair roots can be kept moL~t, and they have a much better chance of survival. We also are continuing to experiment with equipment to get the best possible use out of it in land reclamation. For example, we use different types of bull- dozer blades, so that we can do the most effective job in the most economical way. We have to lay out each job independently because no two are alike. We are also experimenting with the use of draglines, 510 that they will `deposit topsoil in the right places as they swing around. 1i~or the first time we are using rock- i~ickers to get the large rocks out of reclaimed areas. Then the seeds and ground cover will have a better chance to grow. Needless to say, those of us who are deeply committed to reclamation can go too far. We could bankrupt a company by spending more money on reclamation than it's worth to get the coal out of the ground. We therefore must proceed with caution and planning. We have to consider not only cost, but the season, and the most important factor of all-time. Progress cannot be made overnight. We mifsit have time to reclaim the land and to get it back into the best pos- sible shape. Adding `another layer of authority, as I have mentioned before, is not going to do the job. In fact, it can only impede the progress we are making. As has already been pointed out, most states where there is strip mining of any con~ sequence, already have their own laws. State officials are acquainted with local topography and local conditions. They are in the best position to deal with what we concede to be a problem-one that requires the best efforts of all of us. It is far simpler to change state regulations as we improve our techiniqutes. This is the proper and orderly way to proceed. Where one layer of authority is imposed on top of another, then jealousy and conflicting regulations inevitably result. In many cases those who are trying to enforce the regulations simply have not had the experience to deal with the problem. We m'ainliain that progress only can be made if these who have had the experience and know the techniques are permitted to do the job. We must have flexibility to deal with the problems as they come up. Gentlemen, it is to onr interest to restore the land to productive use, rather than be saddled with acres of taxable but useless and unsaleable property. As the land is restored, it will continue to benefit all of our citizens. I am a coal miner, not a legislator. I have my own ideas about some of our PAGENO="0144" I 138 national and international problems, bnt I do not presume to be in possession of all the facts on whic~h to base decisions. I think that is what you gentlemen are here for. I sympathize with you as you try to deal with some of the great issues that confront you. But I must say this, that just as you are better equipped to deal with broad national and international issues than I am, those of us who are engaged in coal mining and in strip mine reclamation are in a much better position to judge the effectiveness of our programs than you might be. It is our considered judg- ment that a Federal law would only slow down the progress we're now making. Granted that we may have made some mistakes in the past, we feel that we are now making great progress. The State laws under which we are now operat ing are working out quite well. For verification of that, ask the State officials Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and the other states where strip mining is going on. I lelieve they will tell you that it would be a mistake to impose a Federal strip mining law We are making progress-let s stay on that road Thank you very much. Mr. MOODY. Mr. Robert Hall. STATEMENT OP ROBERT E LEE HALL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION Mr. HALL. I am Robert E. Lee Hall. I have been introduced. I am not going to read my statement. I am going to commend Mr. Reilly as an able advocate of black power in a different form, you might say. I am going to make the committee a gift of time which is man's most precious possession Besides, I feel somewhat in the position of Richard Burton, or Barbara Hutton's seventh husband-what I had in mind has already been done perhaps better before, anyway. I will say that the ~ first five pages of my statement are devoted to raising the constitutional question in the dialog, Mr Chairm'~n, that you and Senator Hansen had this morning with Secretary Udall I feel the question was adequately raised. As John L. Lewis once said, "I don't propose to answer the question, I only pose the question." I am sure your committee will look into it I believe it is important In the second half of my testimony, I point out something that has not been but lightly touched upon, and this is the cost of the adminis- tration of the proposed legislation. Secretary Udall, I noticed this morning, mentioned the budget prob lem inherent in taking oare of past sins of omission in the reclamation field. Well, I submit that the cost of the administration of the proposed legislation would be prohibitive. It must be carefully assessed and weighed in the light of the new priorities for Federal funds posed by the needs for housing, for construction, for jobs, in short, in the present national ~mergency that I feel now exists. I will not labor the committee further with the arguments. The chair- man has said that these statements will be carefully read and evaluated both by the committee members and the staff. With that I will end by thanking you, Mr. Chairman and Senators and the staff, for hearing us out. I know it was at some personal sacrifice ; it is very much ap- predated. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Hall. (The prepared statement referred to follows:) PAGENO="0145" I 139 STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. LEE IIALL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee : My name is Rebert E. Lee Hall. I am senior vice president of the National Coal Association. The membership and functions of the association were described by my colleague, George W. Sall, in his testimony previously. In brief, however, we are the nationwide trade association of the bituminous coal industry, representing two-thirds of the corn- mercial production Qf coal and about the same portion ~f the strip-mine output of coal. I endorse the testimony of previ'ou~ coal industry witnesses who have explained the importance of the surface mining of coal to the Nation. They also have referred to the effective work of the land reclaimers and the progress being made in the art of restoring mined coal lands to useful purposes. Our witnesses have undertaken to show that the principal surface coal mining operators are meeting the obligation to reclaim the land. Moreover, it appears that 14 States where 89 percent of the surface-mined `coal is produced have effective laws con- trolling such operations. Valid objections to the legislation under consideration here have heen cited. `In short, therefore, you have before you reliable evidence to support the `conclusion that there is no need for Eederal intervention to control the surface mining of coal. A national imperative for Federal controls over the surface mining of coal certainly cannot be distilled out of the suprisingly low-keyed treatment this problem received at the hands of the President when be sent his conservation message to the Congress in March of this year. lit betrayed no compelling urgency for Federal controls over surface mining. To me it is significant that the nies- sage laid most of its emphasis on "scars" that can be observed by air travelers over America. While there is a later reference to the "blight" on beauty, there is, nevertheless, a notable absence of any substantive showing to offset the case for voluntary reclamation and reliance on adequate State laws where needed. A clear-cut basis for Federal intervention or entrance into the field is missing. We sincerely believe that, given additional time and encouragement, industry performance under these circumstances will further reduce the basis for Fed- eral controls. Gentlemen, we are opposed to the legislation but we are not opposed to natural beauty. "Beauty" is a relative term-and is relative in value. It has popularly been said to exist "only in the eye of the beholder !" Nor should this axiom be sum- manly dismissed as inapplicable in considering our problem here. For example, surface mining in Rock Creek Park, in an area specifically set aside for beauty, recreation, or the aesthetic pleasure of the general populace, might draw justi- fiable objections in the absence of an imperative national need to mine such an area. On the other hand, the same operation somewhere else may well be more than tolerated because of its vital contribution to the economy of the region as a supplier of an essential material to the Nation-a necessary and vital source of jobs and income. In such an area, by contrast, it could even be characteriz~l as a "thing of beauty and a joy forever !"-provided, of course, that reasonable reclamation practices are effectively undertaken on a voluntary basis or pur- suant to an adequate State law where needed. As the anchor man for our testifying team, I respectfully ask careful atten- tion to the facts, figures and contentions which have been advanced by my col- leagues. However, I have the special purpose in my concluding remarks to em- phasize that `there are other reasonis why your Committee is entirely justified in laying aside this legislation at this time. These reasons have to do with the con- stitutional questions that remain unanswered and the predictable adverse impact on the Federal budget if `the Federal government undertakes to supervise and control surface mining in the United States. I have been a lawyer in Washington long enough to know that it is predict- ably futile to question the constitutionality of government controls once the Congress has acted. The Supreme Court understandably hands down liberal iii- terpretations of the scope of Federal power, particularly in view of the rapid growth of this country and the vast national problems this growth has created. However, in the ca~se of S. 3132, at least a question of "philosophical constitu- tionality" arises. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Federal power to control surface mining wholly within a given State may exist, or may be fash- ioned from a broad interpretation of the welfare or interstat~ commerce con- cepts-yet must a power always be exercised simply because it is there? Sure- 95-623-68-hO PAGENO="0146" 140 ly the philosophy of the Tenth Ameiidinent to the Cons4itution, which reserves to the States powers not subject to national authority, is intended to mean that States' rights and State re~poiisibilities should be encouraged in the absence of a compelling need for Federal action? This legislation contemplates a certain degree of exercise of police powers with the Federal government. Section 7 of S. 31~2 would authorize the Secre- tary of the Interior to approve or disapprove State surface mining plans, ap- parently based on consideration for the public health and safety as indicated by the Congressional finding in Section 3 of the bill. The police power is unquestionably reserved to the states-not held by them at the sufferance of the Federal government. The Supreme Court said in 1944, "The United States lacks the police power, such power being reserved to the State by this amendment." We question whether the Federal Government has the prerogative to determine whether a State power is properly or improperly wielded, and whether the Federal government can impose its own authority just because it is "unhappy" with the way a State is exercising its powers. When control of interstate commerce and exercise of police powers are passed back and forth between the Federal Government and the States like a basketball, this surely violates this Nation's concept of the separation of State and Federal powers. In fact, the Supreme Oourt has said that uniform operation of a Federal law is a desirable end, but it cannot be achieved at the cost of establishing over- lapping authority over the same subject matter in State and Federal governments. nor by precluding state authority from executing State laws in a normal manner within state power.2 Even if we assume the Federal government may infringe on, or overlap, the powers of the State as this legislation proposes, a second major constitutional question arises. S. 3132 gives the Secretary of the Interior almost unlimited dis- cretion to approve or disapprove State reclamation programs, and to formulate regulations in lieu of them. Section 7 of the bill binds the Secretary o the Interior only by such broad, loose terms as "adequate" and "inappropriate." Under the bill, the regulations promulgated by the Secretary in lieu of State plans would have the force of law. Since the Constitution grants the power to legislate solely to the Congress, it is not unreasonable to assume this could be an unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch. It would occur, moreover, in an unneeded cause. The States are doing an in- creasingly effective job of controlling the surface mining of coal, so far as that control is necessary, and their efforts should not be impeded by the unnecessary intrusion of the Federal Government. With respect to the issue of the unconstitutionality of S. 3132, I will fall back on a phrase often used by John L. Lewis when president of the United Mine Work- ers of America: "I do not propose an answer-I merely pose the question By this I mean that I will not attempt to masquerade as a qualified constitu- tional lawyer by any categorical declaration with respect to the unconstitution- ality of this legislation. I only hope that this question will receive the serious con- sideration of your committee and the Congress it deserves before going further down the legislative road to enactment. The absence of demonstrated need to extend Federal control over surface mm- ing raises further questions which have special meaning and significance for Con- gress and the Nation. These questions are: What will be the cost of administration? What manpower and personnel will be required? What economic waste is inherent in the overlapping jurisdictions between State and Federal control agencies? How much should the pursuit of "beauty" needlessly drain funds from the Fed- eral treasury in the face of the higher priorities of housing, education, jobs, and the urgent problems facing both the cities and agricultural communities? Since there is no overriding need for a Federal program to control surface mm- ing, we believe that these questions must be answered. We submit that the Congress has a high duty to assess and weigh the impact of the added costs of the enactment of S. 3132 on the already over-extended U.ui. v. Renken, D.C.S.C. 1944, affirmed 147 F. 2d 905, cert. deni~ed, 66 S. Ct. 44 326 U.S. 734. 2 Davies Warehosese Co V. Bowles, 64 S. Ct. 474, 321 U.S. 144, 1944. I PAGENO="0147" 141 Federal budget. You may be sure that the proposed. nationwid~ administration of S. 3132 will be prohthitively high. We further submit that such cost alone is a basis for rejection of the legislation at this time due to the higher priorities. The cost of government has skyrocketed in recent years. In the past five years the price tag on the operation of the United States Department of the Interior has risen $700 million and here we have another proposal which will require manpower, experts, fieldmen, administrators, supervisors, administrative person- nel, and many more here undefined. We have reason to believe that Interior cannot administer such a new law with present p~rsonnel and that there must be substantial additions throughout the departmental system here in Washington and in all of the States of the Union. In other words, we have no reason to believe that Parkinson's Law will be repealed if, as, and when the Federal Gov- eminent is given another massive control responsibility. The experience with Interior's acquisition of the Federal water pollution con- trol program is proof positive that the cost of this legislation should be an important factor in your deliberations. From modest beginnings, the Federal water pollution control program has burgeoned into a $356 million a year pro- gram according to 1969 budget estimates. The interstate aspects of the flow of water are more clearly defined than the local disturbance of the earth in the several States and it can be argued that the entrance of the government in the water field is justified. By the same token, it cannot be denied that it is ox- tremely costly-~and so will he the control necessary to switch over to Federal preemption or control of surface mining activities. In summary, we believe that your Oommittee can and shouid lay aside 5. 3132 and similar legislation at this time. I believe we have shown several reasons why the public interest does not require enactment of such a law: First, there is no overriding demonstrated need for it. Second, the cost of administering the program would be substantial and im- I)Ossible to justify in the face of higher-priority demands for Federal funds. Third, the legislation raises important unanswered constitutional questions. Fourth, the States are doing an effective job, in the main, of soiving their problems of land reclamation ; they shouid be allowed to continue. And finally, the coal industry is learning more each year about effective roe- lamation. It learns by experience, by trial and error, and by research. It recog- nizes its responsibility, and is meeting it. The coal industry therefore opposes S. 3132. While I recognize that industry groups are sometimes subject to criticism for outright opposition, let me say for the record that we do not always oppose on every proposal for Federal controls as such. The coal industry in 1967~ for exampie, recognized the need for the Air Quality Act of 19437 and actively supported its objectives and contributed sub- ~tantially to its amendment and suhsequent enactment. With equal sincerity, therefore, we say that there is not the same need for S. 3132, and we urge there- fore to lay it aside. Senator METCALF. Senator Jordan. Mr. PHELPS. I have just one comment. You have heard blaok power now so this should be a good time to end it. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall be very brief, because we have had a very thorough discussion of the problem of the co'ai people with respect to this legislation,. May I say I am pleased to serve on the Public Lands Law Review Commission and there Robert E. Lee Hall is a member of the advisory committee, I know him better than I do these other gentlemen here before us. Mr. Moody, I would ask you this : You have been priced out of the market by the import of crude oil into the New England States. You are being priced out of the market in your dealings with the TVA for supplying fuel for generation. I assume from your statement you think you could not stand one single regulation or control that would add cost to your production. Is that a fair statement? Mr. MOODY. Senator Jordan, there is no way of knowing where the last straw is. There is no way of knowing where one addition or an- PAGENO="0148" 142 other addition will cause a breakdown in the competitive relationship of fueL For that reason, I cannot say this bill or some other bill, but it does seem like we have had a heavy load in coal. Now we are doing the best that we know how. You know the history of the coal industry where the pipeline came in and the gas took away one of our markets, the diesel engine took away another market and we were pretty low down and pretty flat on our backs in 1958 or 1959, and we have come a long way since then. We are hopeful that we can continue to do that. Mr. Hall quoted Mr. Lewis. I will quote him again. He once said, "Joe, I have never reached the end of the ingenuity of the management of the American coal mines, and Lord, I hope I never do." Well, we hope we never do. The Jim Reillys, the George Sails, the Bob Halls and the whole industry is made up of wonderful people who, when everybody in the world knew that the coal industry of America was dead, was sick, was dying and everybody except the coal people knew it did not give up. That kind of an active reaction is the same one that is taking place now. We are just saying that it is getting awful thick and we hope that this committee wo'n~t impose another one at this time. Senator JORDAN. Now I take it from all of the testimony here that you are against this bill and you are against it with a great deal of conviction that you don't need any regulations at all. Is that the substance? Mr. MOODY. I think we are working pretty hard at this job and I think there has been a lot of accomplishment made. It is a tremendous job. We don't say we can defend everything that has been done by a stripper anywhere, we are not saying that. We are just saying that the major companies at the present time, and the industry as a whole, are all convinced that we have to do this job and we are tryiDg to do' it. We are asking for that opportunity. Senator JORDAN. I was impressed by the statement that Mr. Sall made that more land was planted last year than was mined last year, which would indicate that you are moving in that direction. Getting back to this legislation, you are against it and there is nothing good about it that you can. see, as you examine these three bills. is that a fair statement? Mr. MOODY. Certainly at this time we don't see the need for it, sir. We hope that you won't report it out of the committee. We hope that it will be held here. Maybe there will be a future time when we can see some method by which it can be useful. Senator JORDAN. By what line of reasoning did you finally decide that you could accommodate your operations to get around to endors- ing the passage of the Clean Air Act? Mr. MOODY. I think an evaluation by u's that there was going to be a bill. We were not convinced that this one has to be passed at this time. I think that the proof of our judgment was the fact that both the Senate and the House passed the Clean Air Act unanimously, indicating that our judgment in that matter certainly was justified. We don't feel that that is the. same situation here. Senator ,JORDAN. When you say the Clean Air Act was inevitable, you `decided to get on with it. Is that a fair statement of your position? PAGENO="0149" 143 Mr. MOODY. WeJ1, I think that human beings generally react along that line. Mr. HALL. Senator, may I respond briefly to that? Senator JORDAN. Yes. Mr. HALL. This comes from not reading all of my statement. In my conolusion I said we evaluated the imperatives that made the Clean Air Act necessary in the public interest and found them to be valid. I said the test of our sincerity is that we make the same test and do not ~ find the same imperatives presently with respect to surface mining. Senator JORDAN. You do not see the same validity that you finally discovered in the Clean Air Act? Mr. HALL. That is correct, and it was not any impression, Joe, really that we went only because it was coming. I remember, early in the Staite- Mr. MOODY. We were in, right in the beginning. Mr. HALL. That is right. Mr. MOODY. We thought there was a conviction on the part of the people of this Nation that if someone created a mess he had to clean it up. Senator JORDAN. So, is there any likelihood that you might have a change of heart, that you might go home `and reread this legislation and find that fragments of it are agreeable to you and possibly suggest some amendments that would make it more palatable and then come back here at later day and say, "We misjudged it in the first instance, and now we are ready to figure with you a little more favorably? Mr. MOODY. I think anything is a possibility, Senator. I hope that that does not have to happen, not within the foreseeable future. Senator JORDAN. All right. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Senator Jordan. You know, Mr. Moody, that the coal industry-you and John L. Lewis and my old friend from Montana, Tony Boyle-taught us how to do this in the old Mine Safety Act. We passed that act and got the States to pass the mine safety provisions and it worked so well that perhaps we have been applying the same sort of medicine to some of these other things. I compliment all of you in the advancement that you have made in recent years on reclamation of some of this land. I am very glad to hear Mr. Sall's testimony and Mr. Reilly's statement about his con- viction of the need for restoration. But really, for example, the passage of this bill would not increase the cost a nickel in the State of Ken- tucky, isn't that true? Mr. MOODY. Well, I waive that. Mr. PHELPS. We don't know what the requirements are going to be from the Federal Government. Senator METCALF. Well, you heard the Secretary praising the activi- ties of Kentucky, for example, and the activities of some of these other States who have this kind of legislation. Where it will increase the cost will be in the States where they have failed to act and those States it will merely restore the competitive position of your people in the States where you do have laws such as in Kentucky and Illinois. Mr. Reilly. PAGENO="0150" 144 Mr. R~irix. Well, I think this is one of the misfortunes of the horseback approach. I heard the statement the Secretary made. By the same token, I also heard the statement that he made that we would run this law from Washington. I think that is in the record. Senator METCALF. If in the event that there were failure on the, part of the States to act in compliance with the law and proceed, as the legislature would do. Mr. REiLLY. And he would decide it. Senator METCALF. And it was the coal industry before even I came to Congress that put through a mine safety law. Then you went out to the legislatures and passed the law and most of it is being enforced at the State level. I think that is a pretty good way to do it. I think that putting the whole coal industry on an equally competitive basis in enforcing safety provisions probably has saved some lives and at the same time helped the people who were forward looking, who did have a desire to create safety conditions. It has helped them in their com4Detitive position against the miner who would pay or against the operator who would take a chance. Mr. REILLY. You won't get discouraged with me, I happen to have one of the best safety records in the industry as a manager. The point 1 want to make is this, that when the Secretary makes the statement about the excellance of the Kentucky law, per se, it is being misunderstood in many cases because a law has certain pro- visions in it. That has not proven what they will do, they are new. I think the best laws in the United States on reclamation are not neces- sarily in Kentucky or Pennsylvania just because they are the most expensive. Their approach to it is more expensive than it should be, but that does not make it the best. Because something costs the most does not make it the best. I don't believe we want to leave any im- rression here that we agree that the Pennsylvania law and the Ken- tucky law are good laws, because I don~t think they are. I don't think they get the job done efficiently. I think they cost too much for what they get. That is one man's opinion who is in the field. Senator METCALF. It is my opinion, however, that Kentucky and Jllinois and others-the statistics are in the record twice now-are among the States which have these laws on the book's now. The pa's~age of this bill will not thange the competitive position of the peonle in those areas, but the passage of this bill will change the competitive posiltion of the people in the areas where they have no laws. Mr. Moony. Mr. Chairman, any time that we can have 91 percent of this problem covered by State law, certainly if you put another layer of bureaucracy on t~o'p of it it is going to co'~t a lot more money. We are taxpayers and i~t does cost money. The problem of trying a second blow at the same t~'me in other words, to make both your State operator happy and your Federal operator happy, certainly this' morn- ing's little discourse that took plate here is indicative of the problem. To my mind your que~ti~n is almosit self-answered. We are sayin~ that 91 percenlt of this production is covered in `the coal indusitry. We are saying that as long as that is so, give us a chance; don't load some more I aws on us at this time. Senator METCALF. Mr. Hall. PAGENO="0151" 145 Mr. HALL. I would not want to leave the impression, either, that the only test is the economic impact on coal competition. There is enor- mous cost 1to the Government which I was not able to cover in detail. Senaitor METCALF. It was well raised. Mr. HALL. I certaInly feel that Federal legislation whioh cannot be shown to be neded in an overwhelming manner ought to be forgqne at this time but there is ~he additional possibility that Federal legis- lation would discourage the efforts of self-help ; that is, the work of States and the producers them~s~1ves. Here is another feature. It is not just the economic impact on the price of coal alone. There are so many unknowns ahead. it has been our unhappy experience that the first step over control is never the last, and just to say that this bill might be less severe than one might expect is not to answer the whole question in the future. Senator METOAI~F. Gentlemen, you have been most persuasive, you have been most helpful. I think `that your full statements in the record will be additionally helpful. I know that I am grateful, the whole com- mittee is grateful for your appearance. Mr. MOODY. We thank you for the courtesy extended to us. We are available 24 hours a day from here on to help you. `Senator METCALF. Our past experience has demonstrated that. The committee will be in recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 5 :15 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Wednesday, May 1, 1968.) PAGENO="0152" I PAGENO="0153" SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1968 TJ.S. SENATE, C0MMPrTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Wa8hington, D.C. The conimittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9 a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Lee Metcalf presiding. Present: Senators Anderson, Church, Burdick, Metcalf, Allott, and Jordan of Idaho. Also present: Jerry T. Verkier, staff director; Stewart French, chief counsel; and Porter Ward, professional staff member. Senator METCALF. The committee will be in order. This is a continuation of the hearings on S. 3132, S. 217, and S. 3126, surface mining bills. The first witness this morning is Mr. John P. Frawley, Appalachian Stone Division of the Martin Marietta Corp. Mr. Frawley. STATEMENT OF J~OHN P. PRAWLEY, APPALACHIAN STONE DIVI.. SION OP MARTIN MARIETTA CORP.; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM CARTER~ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND CHARLES BUCY, COUNSEL Mr. FRAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be accompanied by two colleagues here, Mr. Bucy and Mr. Carter. Senator METCALF. We are very pleased to have them. Mr. FRAWLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of `the committee, my name is John P. Frawley. I am a vice president of the Martin Marietta Corp.'s Appalachian Stone Division with my office in Harrisburg, Pa. I have been engaged in either the crushed stone industry or the closely related construction industry for approximately 25 years. During that time, I have been actively involved in the considera- ~ion of reclamation `matters and State regulatory programs in Penn- sylvania as chairman of both the Pennsylvania Stone Producers Asso- ciation legislative committee and the Combined Mining Industry Leg- islative Committee in that State. I am also a member of the reclamation committee of the National Crushed Stone Association, a nonprofit trade association whose mem- hers engage in the quarrying of rock and the processing of the rock into numerous crushed stone products in all sections of the United States. I appear before you today on behalf of National Crushed Stone Association in opposition to 5. 3132 and any similar proposal which would provide for detailed Federal regulation of operations and rec- lamation practices within the surface mining industry. (147) PAGENO="0154" 148 With me are Mr. William Carter, executive director of the asso- ciation, and Mr. Charles Bucy, from the law firm of Gall, Lane & Powell, counsel for the association. These gentlemen will be pleased to assist in answering any questions which you may have of us. You have received copies of the association's formal statement of position. That statement sets forth in detail the reasons why National Crushed Stone Association, on behalf of its members and the in- dustry, is opposed to these proposals. This morning, I would like to discuss with you the two principal reasons why our association is opposed to these proposals. Briefly, those reasons are: 1. These proposals are ostensibly designed to carry out the recommendations developed by the Secretary of Interior's study concerning reclamation in the surface mining industry. How- ever, as drafted, these proposals go far beyond the recommenda- tions of the report and, indeed, the expressed intent of Congress in authorizing the study, by proposing nothing less than the detailed Federal regulation of every aspect of surface mining operations, whether related to reclamation in any way or not; and 2. These proposals ignore express congressional direction that any proposed reclamation requirements must take into considera- tion their cost impact upon the operators' competitive postures and could, if enacted, make it impossible for stone producers to be effective competitors. Before discussing these principal reasons for NCSA's opposition to these proposa]s, we believe that it would be helpful to describe the respects in which stone quarries and their products are different from other types of surface mining operations. An appreciation of those unique characteristics will, we believe, enable you to better understand not only why our operations are particularly best suited to local regulation but also why the reclama- tion requirements which these proposals would authorize are, as ap- plied to quarries, both economically unrealistic and disastrous in their impact upon stone producers' competitive postures. . Unlike the more typical strin or surface mine which follows a rela- tively narrow seam or vein of mineral across the countryside, stone quarries are stationary and large quantities of stone are obtained within a very small area. In many instances the only limitation upon the depth at which quarrying operations can be conducted is the cost involved in hauling the stone to the surface and, as a result, quarries normally remain in operation for extremely long periods of time. Indeed. a recent survey conducted by NCSA disclosed that, on a nationwide basis~ the average total op~rational life of the industry~s current quarries is estimated to be 81 years with some quarries expected to continue in operation for as long as 2~5O years. As a result of this unicnie characteristic~ stone ouarries disturb very little of the surface land in relation to the vast tonnages of useful stone which are removed. Indicative of this fact is that, according to the Secretary's report, stone ciuarriss have accounted for only 8 percent of the total land area which has been disturbed by surface mining operations. I PAGENO="0155" 149 Moreover, while NCSA cannot disprove this assertion, we would suggest that the 8-percent figure is much too high and we would be most interested in learning how the total acreage figures upon which it is based were determined. As the industry's nationwide association, we know that a stone quarry involving as much as 30 acres is considered to be a very substantial operation and most quarries are even smaller. A second distinctive feature of the typical stone quarry is the fact that the amount of overburden and other nonsalable material which is excavated, and which, presumably, would be available for reclamation purposes, is extremely small in proportion to the quantity of stone which is removed and sold. In this respect, the response to the industrywide survey conducted by NCSA indicated that, nationwide, an average of more than 84 per- cent of the total material excavated results in a salable product. In many instances, the amount of nonsalable material was so small as to not be susceptible of percentage comparison with the amount of stone which was removed and sold. Finally, crushed stone products, in common with sand and gravel, are notable for their low value, high volume and heavy loading char- acteristics, Statistics developed by the Bureau of Mines disclose that the average sales price of our industry's aggregates is only $1.42 a ton. This has required that stone be produced as close to the sites of the construction which it intends to supply as possible and has resulted in stone producing operations being concentrated in and near urban areas. At this point I would note that in recent years this fact has caused quarries by and large to be subject to strict zoning and municipal laws. These unique characteristics of stone quarries and their products make at least three general conclusions quickly apparent as follows: 1. The extremely long productive life of typical stone quarries makes before-the-fact planning of reclamation at least highly un- realistic and any attempt to estimate the cost of reclamation impos- sible; 2. At best, only a very small amount of overburden and other material resulting from quarrying operations will be available for reel amation purposes. I would interject here that, even in those quarry operations which do produce any significant amount of such nonsalable materials, the high cost of storage makes it impossible for the operator to retain the material the 80 years or so until reclamation would begin; 3. Because of the extremely low price of our products, proposals whose cost impact upon our industry's operations can be measured in any significant number of cents per ton plainly would have the di- rect effect of causing a significant increase in the costs of all con- struction. For example, highways would cost more because concrete, black top, and base course would cost more, dams and other structures would cost more because concrete would cost more, steel would cost more be- cause limestone would cost more and on and on and on. Other conclusions will become apparent in our discussion of our basic reasons for opposing these proposals. To those reasons we now turn. PAGENO="0156" 150 1 BLANKET RECULAT~ON OF OPERATIONS IGNORES CONGRESSIONAL INTFNT The legislation authorizing the conduct of the study upon which these proposals are ostensibly based limited the study to "reclamation and rehabilitation" matters. It in no way contemplated the detailed regulation of aspects of sur face mining operations which are in no way related to such matters. Moreover, the Secretary's report did not discuss nor did it recommend that such detailed regulation of the industry even be contemplated. These proposals, however, would provide for nothing less than absolute, complete and detailed Federal regulation and control of each and every aspect of surface mine operations. Thus, mine operators, in order to either begin new operations or to continue existing operations, would be required to secure a permit either from the Secretary or, where the Secretary has approved the State's program, from the State agency. The issuance of the permit would be contingent upon, among other things, the operator first having filed and secured the approval of an adequate mining plan. Thereafter, operations wou~d have to be conducted in strict accord~ ance with the approved plan lest the permission to operate be with- drawn. The bill does not define nor would it place any restriction whatever upon the Secretary's discretionary authority to decide just what would constitute such an adequate mining plan which, we note, would be separate and distinct from the reclamation plan which the operation would also be required to file and have approved. As a result, operators, under threat of having perm~ssion to' operate withheld or withdrawn could be compelled to adhere to suggestions as to what type of equipment to use, the number and type of employees to be hired, the precise methods to be used in mining the deposit and, indeed, whether to mine the deposits or portions of it at all. The possibilities for purely arbitrary and, indeed, capricious action which would be created are limitless. We would suggest that no system of such detailed governmental regulation of an industry has ever been seriously proposed without including, in addition to protection against arbitrary action, detailed provisions designed not only to protect the regulated industry against competition but also to either subsidize the industry or guarantee a specified minimum rate of return on its investment. We would also suggest that these proposals would, by authorizing the Secretary to arbitrarily determine not only when and how mine operations are to be conducted but, indeed, whether they are to be con- ducted at all would plainly constitute a sufficient "taking" of the owners' property rights to at least give rise to serious constitutional questions. Finally, we would also suggest that insofar as these' proposals would require mine operations to be conducted so as to control air and water pollution, isolate toxic materials, prevent landslides, protect fish and wildlife, and prevent health and safety hazards, they would by and large be duplicative of existing State and Federal regulation. Moreover, except possibly for air pollution, the'se are problems which simply do not arise in the operations o'f typical stone' qu'arries. I I I PAGENO="0157" 151 2. PROPOSALS IGNORE IMPACT UPON OPERATORS' COMPETITIVE POSTURES Section 205 (e) (6) of the Appalachian Development Act expressly directed the Secretary of the Interior, in conducting his study of rec- lamation and rehabilitation matters in the surface mining industry to include, and I quote: Specific consideration of (A) the extent, if any, to which strip and surface mine operators are unable to bear the cost of remedial action within the limits imposed by the economics of such mining activity, and (B) the extent to which the prospective value of lands and other natural resources, after remedial work has been completed, would be inadequate to justify the landowners doing the remedial work at their own expense : ~ ~ With respect to the crushed stone industry at least, these express congressional directions were given extremely cavalier treatment in the study report, and in these proposals, the problems of competition and economics with which Congress was concerned are completely ignored. The only mention of these problems in the study report is contained at page 90 where reference is made to a `table contained in the appendix which sets forth what are represented to be average per-acre costs for reclaiming land which has been disturbed by quarrying and other surface mining operations. The report immediately goes on to say, however, that: Details are lacking as to the exact type, or degree, of reclamation repre- sented by the costs reported by the mineral industries, but the level was prob- ably influenced by legal requirements of the States. In other words, after setting forth an impressive looking table of average per-acre reclamation costs for stone and other minerals, the report says "We don't know what these figures mean." Moi'eover, no consideration is given by the report of what effect even these figures would have upon operators' competitive postures in the industries affected. We would note in passing that the average "cost" shown for stone is nearly four times that shown for sand and gravel, a commodity with which stone is in severe price competition in many markets. The nature of the proposals before the committee makes plain that no consideration was given to their potential effect upon competition within ( and between) the various surface mining industries or whether reclamation would always be economically feasible or possible. Thus, S. 3132 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, with- out review by other authority, to establish reclamation requirements. Mine operators would be required to file a plan providing for the "reclamation" of their operations and such plan would have to be approved before the operator would be permitted to commence new operations or to continue existing ones. Given these important requirements, it would seem that the term "reclamation" would be defined in considerable detail. S. 3132, how- ever, provides merely that "reclamation means the reconditioning or restoration of an area of land or water, or both, that has been adversely affected by surface mining operations." "Reconditioning" and "restoration" both strongly imply "return to original condition." As applied to typical stone quarries, such a re- quirement would not only be unreasonable, it would, as a matter of PAGENO="0158" 152 simple economics, be impossible for stone producers to oomply with and still remain competitive in the pricing of their products. First, given the extremely long life of the typical stone quarry, it is plain that no meaningful plan for the reclamation work can be developed before operations are commenced. Yet, under these proposals, stone producers would be required, not only to develop such a plan and have it approved, they would also be required to post a performance bond in an amount "adequate to insure the land is reclaimed." I would say here that just how any bonding company, in these cir- cumstances, could be persuaded to issue such a performance bond completely eludes us. Second, given the extremely small amount of overburden and other nonsalable material which remains after production at the typical quarry, it is obvious that to require the land on which the quarry is located to be "returned to original condition," would place an impos- sible economic burden upon the operator. The cost implications of such a requirement cannot reasonably be estimated. Plainly, however, they would be staggering, particularly when it is conSi(iered that this cost impact would have to be borne by a prod- uct which, at present, sells on the average for approximately $1.42 a ton. This cost impact would place crushed stone at a severe and prob- ably impossible disadvantage with other materials with which it is strongly competitive in many markets~ Those other materials are normally obtained by either dredging operations or surface mining operations of a relatively shallow nature which would not give rise to such substantial reclamation costs as would be the case with stone. The extremely severe and disproportionate cost impact which these requirements would have upon stone producers' operations would be greatly magnified, moreover, in their application to currently existing operationS. Thus, a typical quarry which had been in operation for 60 years and v~hich had a remaining productive life of another 20 years would have to recover the cost for reclaiming the results of 80 years of excavation from the sales for 20 years of production. As a result, one effect of the enactment of these proposals would undoubtedly be to cause the pre- mature closing of many existing operations so as to avoid being subject to these requirements. Such premature closings of existing operations not only would cause many employees to lose their jobs ; it would also cause a severe diminution of the available sources of stone which can meet the in- creasingly stringent specifications which are being imposed by Federal and State agencies as well as by the private construction industry. Accordingly, all Government-sponsored construction activities such as highway programs, dams, bridges, and airports as well as private construction would be confronted by shortages and delays in obtaining their supplies of stone, base course, concrete, and other building mate- rials, not to mention increases in the prices of those essential supplies. These effects which these proposals would have upon the crushed stone industry make plain that they have been developed without any consideration whatever being given to the impact which they would PAGENO="0159" 153 have upon competition and the economics of operation within our industry. We very respectfully suggest that, in view of the fact that the Con- gress expressly directed that specific consideration be given to these precise questions, the failure to do so requires that these recommended proposals be returned to the Department of the Interior for com- pliance with the congressional mandate. . In any event, whether this is done or not, we submit that examina- tion of these questions demonstrates plainly that stone quarries can- not be subjected to the type of reclamation regulation visualized by these proposals and still survive as viable competitive businesses. These then are the reasons why NCSA is opposed to the enactment of these proposals. They demonstrate', we believe, why these proposals would not be a realistic or a desirable method of securing the reclarna- tion of mined land and why they would have a disastrous impact upon the crushed stone industry. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before your committee. If there are any questions, we will do our best to answer them. Senator METCALF. Do you have a statement, Mr. Carter? Mr. CARTER. No, I do not. Senator METCALF. Mr. Bucy? Mr. Brjcy. No, sir. Senator METCALF. Senator Anderson. Senator ANDERSON. I take it you are not wildly enthusiastic about this bill, are you? Mr. FRAWLEY. No, sir. Senator ANDERSON. In your statement you say: I would say here that just how any bonding company, in these circumstances, could be persuaded `to issue such a performance bond completely eludes us. Have you discussed this with the bonding industry? Mr. FRAWLEY, Yes, sir, this was discussed with bonding companies in connection with the consideration of reclamation legislation in Pennsylvania. Their answer is this : "How can we bond something that will not be reclaimed until 20 or 30 years from now?" Senator ANDERSON. Is reclamation a new concept to the stone in- dustry? Mr. FRAwLEY. The kind proposed in this bill is new to the stone industry, sir. Senator ANDERSON. Don't you have to comply with any laws such as those that govern the coal mining industry? Mr. FRAWLEY. I don't know about the coal mine phase of it, sir. Senator METCALF. If the Senator will yield, in many States you have to get a bond to guarantee recapping of oil wells and drilled water wells and sometimes the recapping would be tO or 20 years in the future. Mr. FRAWLEY. Yes, sir. However, with respect to stone quarries, the bonding companies say, "Well, just how are you going to back- fill? Where are you going to get the material to fill this big hole ?" Senator METCALF. Mr. Frawley, if the Senator will yield to me, I think that you have stretched your statement to the ridiculous. You know, and I know, and every person in this room knows that reclamation of an open pit mine or a rock quarry does not mean PAGENO="0160" 154 that you are going to have to fill it up again and turn it back to pasture land, grazing land, or farmland as it was before. Now, you say the pictures that Secretary TJdall presented showing how they took some of these areas and made a series of lakes, used them for fish and wildlife development, or for swimming pools or things of that sort, and you know and I know that no one in Amer- ica contemplates that we will fill up the Brngham pit or the Butte open pit or any of these rock quarries. Now let's ]ust not talk about a ridiculous situation. Senator ANDERSON. That is why I asked the question. I think I have had some experience in bonding company requirements. It is not a particularly difficult subject. You say you discussed the bond- ing matter. What firms have you talked to ? Where is your home office ~ Mr. FRAWLEY. Pennsylvania, sir, Harrisburg, Pa. Senator ANDERSON. Well, have you talked to bonding companies up there? Mr. Fjip~wj~y. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. And they said they couldn't possibly issue this type of bond? Mr. Fit~wu~y. In this particular case we were discussing a Penn- sylvania State bill. We defined reclamation up there in more detail than is done by S. 3132, by defining the term to mean "to return the land to a useful purpose." Senator ANDERSON. Do you see that in this bill? Mr. FRAWLEY. Sir, the way I read the bill it strongly implies restoring to original condition and I was delighted to hear the chair- man's remarks. Senator ANDERSON. Why don't you read some of the sections in the bill you think do that ? Do you find language in the bill that you think does that? Mr. FRAWLEY. On the bottom of page 12, sir, in my statement. Senator ANDERSON. Are you talking about the bill, or your state- ment? Mr. FRAWLEY. I was talking about my statement, sir. I don't have a copy of the bill in front of me. Senator ANDERSON. What part of the bill says that you should fill these holes? Mr. CARTER. I don't have a copy in front of me. May I comment, Senator, on that please? Senator ANDERSON. I will be glad to have you, but he introduced the statement. He knows it, doesn't he? Mr. CARTER. Yes, he does. Senator ANDERSON. You may reply. Mr. FRAWLEY. I don't have a copy of the bill in front of me, sir. Senator ANDERSON. We will give you a copy of the bill. Who pre- pared your statement for you? Mr. FRAWLEY. My statement, sir? Senator ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. FRAWLEY. It was prepared by a committee of our members who are intimately familiar with both the day-to-day operations as well as the long-range planning and reclamation of quarries. Senator ANDERSON. Point out the section in the bill that you think suggests that you must refill all open pits and quarries. PAGENO="0161" 155 Mr. FTL4WLEY. On page 1 of the bill, sir ; d~finit1on of reclamation, section 2(b). Senator ANDERSON. I keep on asking the question, but I just don't understand how you can tell what the bonding companies may do. Mr. FRAWLEY. The problem arises, sir, because the way "reclama- tion" is now defined by the bill, it might someday be defined to mean and require "return to original condition." Senator METOALF. Senator Burdick. Senator BURDICK. No questions. Senator METCALF. I assure you, Mr. Frawley, that I don't interpret the word "reconditioning," which is the alternative, as a requirement for complete restoration. However, there may be some valid reasons why the crushed stone industry should not be included in this kind of legislation, I think that most of the reduetio ad adsurdurn in your statement hasn't made a very strong case for you for exemption, but we will carefully look at this legislation in view of the fears that you have expressed. If there is any ambiguity as to these various propositions you raise, certainly the committee will try to make it plain both in the legislation and in the report. Thank you very much. Mr. FRAWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ( The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF NATIONAL CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION Phe National Orus1~ed Stone Association is a nonprofit trade association whose members engage in the quarrying of rock and `the processing of the rock into numerous crushed stone products in all sections of the United States'. The crushed stone industry is an in~portant one. Bureau of Mines statistics indicate that the annual production of crushed and broken stone in the United States approximates 780 million tons. Without our aggregates, as they are called, most COnstruc~on wonid very quickly come to a halt. Our industry's products, in the form of concrete mixtures', "blacktop," base course and other critical sup- plies, are absolutely vital to the construction of roads, dams, bridges, and air- ports and to all types of commercial construction. In addition, the steel, lead, glass, paint, agricultural and other `so-called "basic indtistries" require our in- dustry's products In order to produce their own. In addition to being absolutely critical to the construction and other basic industries, crushed stone products are notabie for their low value, high volume and heavy loading characteristics. Statistics' available from the Eureau of Mines disclose that the average sales price of our industry's aggregates is only $1.42 a ton. As a result of this extremely low price, proposals whose cost impact upon our industry's operations can be measured in any significant number of cents per ton plainly would have the direct effect of a significant increase in the costs of all construction. Phe returning of worked-out quarries to a useful purpose has `been a matter of continuing concern to stone producers who have long recognized that it is nothing more than good business to be a "good neighbor" to their surrounding coin- niunities. This concern led to the formation within National Orushed Stone Association of an active Reclamation Committee. That committee is comprised of operating personnel of NOSA's members who are intimately involved in both the day-to-clay operations and the long-range planning of stone quarries and who have considerable personal experience in working with State and local govern- ments in the development of effective and realistic programs for the regulation of reclamation practices within the surface mining industry. That experience has made clear that, because of variations in climate, physlog- raphy, geographic location, vegetation, land values and other features, surface mining operations and their reclamation are matters which can be effectively and realistically regulated only at the state and local l~vel where due regard can be given to the `different circumstances and factors present in each area. That experience has also made clear that any attempt, even on the state level, to regulate reclamation practices in the s'urface mining industry on a uniform, PAGENO="0162" I 156 across-th&b°aI~d basis without taking into consideration the unique characteris- tics of s4:one quarries would result in costs being Imposed upon atone producers which would be so ot~t-o~-1inie with those imposed up~ the producers of corn- petitive materials as to make it impOssible for stone producers to sell their products. The proposals contained in S. 3132 and similar bills would impose direct and very detailed Federal regulation, not only of reclamation practices but also of all aspects of operations within the surface mining industry. Such regula- tion, moreover, would be imposed in apparent utter disregard of the unique char- acteristics of stone quarries or other surface mine operations which might also require special consideration in order to avoid disastrous cost and competitive consequences. The assooia~tiofl'S position National Orushed Stone Association, on behalf of its members and the industry, vigorously opposes the enactment of S. 3132 or any similar proposal designed to authorize Federal regulation of operations and/or reclamation practices within the surface mining industry. In support of this position, NOSA submits that- 1. These proposals seek to impose Federal regulation in an area which, by its very nature, can be effectively and realistically regulated only at the state and local level; 2. While ostensibly designed to carry out the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's report of the study conducted by him concerning reclamation in the surface mining industry, these proposals go far beyond the recommendations of the report and, indeed, the express intent and direc- tion of the Congress in authorizing the study; 3. These proposals ignore express Congressional direction that proposed reclamation requirements must take into consideration their cost impact upon operators' competitive postures ; and 4. These proposals would give to the Secretary of the Interior unproce- . dented discretionary authority to exercise life-and-death power over the businesses of mine operators and the jobs of their employees without irn- posing any restrictions whatever upon that discretion by way of either legis- lative standards or procedural safeguards. Effective and Realistic Regulation Possible Only at Eltate and Local Levels The area of surface mine operations and reclamation is one which, by its very nature, can be effectively and realistically regulated only on the state or local level. This fact was expressly recognized by Mr. Julian Feiss, Office of the Assist- ant Secretary for Minerals, Department of the Interior, in his April 13. 1964. address before the Conference on Surface Mining called by the Council of State Governments in Itoanoke, Virginia. Mr. Feiss stated: "In evaluating mine operational problems, I suggest that they be analyzed in terms of your own local land, economy and conservation programs. May I stress the word local. A vast open pit operation in the deserts of our Southwestern states is quite different from surface mining operations in Appalachia. Northeast stone quarries which have integrated into both the economy and the scenery for well over 100 years, cannot be compared to gravel pits, temporarily established to furnish road materials for a new superhighway. The degree of destruction, if and when it occurs, and the degree of its duration, is dependent upon climate, physiog- raphy, geographic location, vegetation, land values, and other economic aspects which may or may not make rehabilitation desirable ; water and stream pollution may be a serious problem in one region ; in another, they may not be problems at all." NCSA wholeheartedly agrees with Mr. Feiss' statement Surface mine opera- tions and reclamation can be effectively regulated only by the individual state and local governments since only they are in the position of being able to give realistic consideration to the different circumstances and conditions in their own areas. It is clear, moreover, that state and local governments are well aware of and are increasingly fulfilling their responsibilitics in the area of surface mine operations and reclamation practices. Indeed, the conference at which Mr. Feiss made the above remarks was called by the Council of State Govern- ments for the express purpose of reviewing the progress which the various states bad made in this area and to coordinate future efforts. At its conclusion, the conference unanimously adopted a resolution which stressed that the regu- PAGENO="0163" 157 latton o1~ surface mine operations and reclamation practices is a state responsibility. This statement of belief, moreover, has been followed by action. Since the close of that conference regulatory programs have been expanded or estab-~ lished or are under consideration In Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Okia- homa, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, among others. These de-~ velopments, coupled with existing programs in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio plainly indicate that the states which are substantially affected by surface mining operations are undertaking to provide for effective regulation. Stone producers have also been subjected to ever-increasing and more re- strictive regulation by local governments. This has been caused by the fact that stone, because of its low value, high volume and heavy loading charac- teristics, must, in order to be competitive, be produced as close to the sites of (onstruction activity which it intends to supply as possible. This has resulted in stone producing operations being concentrated in or near urban areas where ill recent years particularly, they have been subjected to stringent municipal zoning ordinances and other restrictions. An indication of just how stringent these restrictions can be is to be found in the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead.' In that case, the Court upheld the validity of a municipal ordinance notwithstanding that its effect was to force a very substantial and long-established sand and gravel producing operation out of business. In light of this record of increasing state and local action, NCSA submits that the Federal regulatory scheme contained in these proposals is not only inappropriate, it is unnecessary. Blanket regulation of operations ignores congre8sional intent Notwithstanding its caption as a "Mined Land Reclamation Act," S. 3132 pro- poses nothing less than absolute, complete and detailed Federal regulation and control of each and every aspect of surface mine operations whether related in any way to reclamation requirements or not. Mine operators, in order to commence operations at a new facility or, for that matter, to continue operations at an existing facility, would be required to secure a permit either from the Secretary of the Interior or where the Secretay has approved the state's program, from the State agency. The issuance of the permit would be contingent upon, among other requirements, the operator having first filed and secured the Secretary's or the State agency's approval of an "ade- quate mining plan~" Thereafter, operations would have to be conducted in strict accordance with the approved plan lest the permission to operate be withdrawn. The bill gives absolutely no guidance as to what would constitute such an "ade- quate mining plan" except to make clear that it would be separate, distinct and in addition to the reclamation plan which the operator would also be required to file and have approved before permission to commence or continue operations would be granted. Moreover, the bill places absolutely no restrictions on the Sec~ retary's purely discretionary authority to pass judgment upon what sort of a plan would be adequate nor does it afford any opportunity for independent re- view of the Secretary's decisions in these respects. Thus, by virtue of his absolute power to withhold approval of "mining plans," the Secretary would be able to effectively regulate and control each and every aspect of surface mining operations whether related in any way to reclamation or not. Operators, under threat of having permission to operate withheld or with- drawn would be forced to adhere to "suggestions" as to what type of equipment to use, the number and type of employees to be hired, the precise methods to be used in mining the deposit and, indeed, whether to mine the deposit or portions thereof at all! The possibilities for purely arbitrary and, indeed, capricious action which would be created are limitless. We know of no system of such detailed govern~ mental regulation of an industry which has ever been proposed without also in. eluding, in addition to protection against arbitrary action, detailed provisions designed not only to protect the regulated industry against competition but also to either subsidize the industry or guarantee a specified minimum rate of return upon its investment. These proposed powers on the part of the Secretary are even more startling when it is considered that, while S. 3132 is ostensibly designed to implement, in 369 U.S. 590 (1962). PAGENO="0164" 158 part, the recommendations of the Secretary's report "Surface Mining and Our Environment" ; that report contains not a hint and most certainly does not rec~ ommend that such detailed regulation of the industry even be contemplated Moreover, in proposing these powers, the bill goes far beyond and, in effect, corn- jpletely ignores what was intended by the Congress when it authorized the study to be conducted in the first place. Section 205(e) of the Appalachian Develop- ment Act expressly limited the study to "reclamation and rehabilitation" matters and in no way contemplated the detailed regulation of all aspects of surface mining operations which these proposals would authorize. In addition to ignoring Congress' intent, these proposals would, by authorizing the Secretary to determine not only when and how mine operations are to be coiiducted but, also, whether they are `to be conducted at all would plainly con- stitute a sufficient "taking" of the owners' property rights to at least raise serious Constitutional questions. In addition, the authority which would be given to the Secretary to regulate matters sueh as air and water pollution and safety would be completely dupilca- tive of existing regulation of those matters both at the Federal and State levels. Finally, we would note that the Secretary's report indicates that there are currently in excess of 18,000 separate surface mining operations in the United States. The detailed regulation of that number of operation's would require a vertiable army of new Federal employees who would have to be fully qualified and well-experienced in mining operations. Even were the Congress disposed to authorize the creation of such a huge new bureaucracy, such numbers of qualified persons simply `do not exist. Recla~matiOfl requirements ignore impact upon Operators' competitive postures Section 205(c) (6) of the Appalachian Development Act expressly directed the Secretary of the Interior, in conducting his study of reclamation and rehabili- tation matters in the surface mining industry to include: " (S)pecific consider~tiOn of (A) the extent, if any, to which strip and surface mine operators are unable to bear the cost of remedial action within the limits irn- posed by the economics of such mining activity, and (B) the extent to which the prospective value of lands and other natural resources, after remedial work has been completed, would be inadequate to justify the landowners doing the remedial work at their own expense ; . . ." With respect to the crushed stone industry at least, these express Congressional directions were given extremely cavalier treatment in the study report and, in these proposal's, the problems of competition and economies with which Congress was concerned are completely ignored. The only mention of these problems in the study report is contained at page 90 where it is stated that: "The amount that surface mining opei~ators can afford to pay for reclamation varies widely among industries and individual operations. In effect, reclamation merely superimposes an additional charge upon variable cost structures that have already been largely determined by the economics of doing business." After discussing bow detailed average per acre reclamation costs were developed for coal, the report then states: "These data, plus comparable information on clay, sand and gravel, stone, and phosphate rock are `shown in Table 5, Appendix I." The report immediately goes on to say, however, that: "Details are lacking as `to the exact type, or degree, of reclamation represented by the costs reported by the mineral industries, but the level was probably in- fluenced by legal requiremei~t5 of `the states." In other words, after setting forth an impressive looking table of average per acre reclamation costs for stone and other noncoal minerals, the report says "We don't know what these figures mean" I Moreover, absolutely no considera- tion is given by the report of what effect even these meaningless figures would have upon operators' competitive postures in the industries affected. We would note in passing that the average "cost" shown for stone is nearly four times that shown for sand and gravel, a commodity with which stone is in severe price competition in many markets. While the problems of economics and effect upon competition which concerned Congress were, to the extent they were considered at all, given cavalier treat- ment by the report, they are completely ignored by the proposals before the Committee. The nature of those proposals makes plain `that absolutely no con- uideration was given to their potential effect upon competition within (and PAGENO="0165" 159 between) the various surface mining industries or whether reclamation would always be economically feasible or, for that matter, desirable. Thus, S. 3132 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, without review by other authority, to establish "reclamation" requirements for surface mine operations. Mine operators would be required to file a plan providing for the "reclamation" of their operations and such plan would have to be approved before the operator would be permitted to commence new operations or to con- tinue existing ones. Given these important requirements, it would seem that the term "reclama- tion" would be defined with considerable specificity. The only definition con- tamed In S. 3132, however, is found In Section 2(b) which provides that " `reclamation' means the reconditioning or restoration of an area of land or water, or both, that has been adversely affected by surface mining operations." The bill contains no other provision which would either guide or restrict the Secretary in the development of the requirements which would be imposed upon operators. The terms "reconditioning" and "restoration" both strongly imply and could well be construed as meaning "return to original condition." Iii light of the peculiar characteristics of typical stone quarries, the imposition of such a re- quirement upon stone producers would not only be unreasonable, it would, as a matter of simple economics, be impossible for stone producers to comply with and still remain competitive in the pricing of their products. Unlike the more typical strip or surface mine which follows a comparatively narrow seam of mineral across the countryside, stone quarries are compara- tively stationary and large quantities of stone are obtained within a relatively small area. Indeed, in many instances, the sole limitation upon the depth at which quarrying operations can be conducted is the cost considerations involved in hauling the stone to the surface. As a result, quarries normally remain in operation for extremely long periods of time. That typical stone quarries remain in production over extremely long periods of time was amply demonstrated by a recent survey which NCSA conducted throughout the industry. In that survey, industry members were requested to furnish the date on which operations began in each of their currently active quarries and to estimate the number of years which each quarry would continue in operation. The response to that survey, covering a total of over 200 quarries located throughout the country, indicates that the average total operational life of current stone quarries is estimated to be 81 years with some quarries expected to continue in production for as long as 250 years. A direct effect of this unique feature of typical stone quarry operations is the fact that quarries disturb very little of the surface land in relation to the vast tonnages of useful stone which are removed. Indicative of this fact is that, accord- ing to the Secretary's report, stone quarries have accounted for only 8% of the total land area which has been disturbed by surface mining operations. More- over, while NCSA cannot disprove this assertion, we would suggest that the 8% figure is much too high and we would be most interested in learning how the total acreage figures upon which it is based were determined. As the industry's association, we know that a stone quarry involving as much as 30 acres is con- sidered to be a very substantial operation and most quarries are even smaller. A second distinctive feature of the typical stone quarry is the fact that the amount of overburden and other nonsalable material which is excavated is extremely small in proportion to the quantity of stone which is removed. This fact is also amply demonstrated by the response to NOSA's survey of current quarry operations. That response indicates that nationwide, an average of more than 84% of the total material excavated results in a salable product. These unique characteristics of the typical stone quarry make several conclu- sions respecting the potential application of the proposals contained in S. 3132 readily apparent. First, given the extremely long life of the typical stone quarry, it is plain that no meaningful plan for the reclamation work to be performed on the facility after operations are concluded can be developed before operations are commenced. Yet, under the proposals contained in S. 3132, stone producers would be required not only to develop such a plan and have it approved in order to com- mence operations, they would also be required to post a performance bond in an amount "adequate to insure the land is reclaimed." 2 Any doubt that this amount 2 How any bonding comneny, in these circumstances, could be persuaded to Issue such ~ performance bond completely eludes us. PAGENO="0166" 160 cannot be realistically determined in advance with respect to the typical quarry should be dispelled by consideration oJ~ how unrealistic an amount determined in 1887 to be adequate for the reclamation of a quarry which was commencing operations then would appear today when, assuming the quarry's productive life to be the industry average, its operations would be concluded. Second, given the extremely small amount of overburden and other nonsalable material which remains in the typical quarry in proportion to the total amount of material which is removed (16% on the average, but which in many quarries approaches zero percent) , it is plain that to require the land on which the quarry is located to be "returned to original condition," would place an impossible eco- nomic burden on the operator. Assuming that such vast amounts of fill would be available (an extremely questionable assumption in many parts of the country), it would still have to be loaded, transported to the quarry and unloaded, spread and compacted. The cost implications of such a requirement cannot reasonably be estimated. Plainly, however, they would be staggering, particularly when it is considered that this cost impact would have to be borne by a product which, at present, sells on the average for approximately $1.42 a ton. phis cost impact would place crushed stone at a severe and probably impos- sibie disadvantage with other materials with which it is strongly competiitive in many markets. Those other materials are normally obtained by either dredging operatio~ns or surface mining operations of a relatively shallow nature Which would not give rise to such substantial reclamation costs as would be the ease with stone. The extremely severe and disproportionate cost impact whlth these require- meats would have upon stone producers' operations would be greatly magnified, moreover, in their application to currently existing operations. Thus, a typical quarry which had been in operation for 60 years and which had a remaining productive life of another 20 years would have to recover the cost for reclaiming the results of 80 years of excavation from the sales for 20 years of production. As a result, one effect of the enactment of these proposals would undoubtedly be to cause the premaiure closing of many existing operations so as to avoid being subject to these requirements. Such premature closings of existing operations not only would cause many employees to lose the permanent and well-paying jobs which they would other- wise have, it would also cause a severe diminution of the available sources of stone which can meet the increasingly stringent spe~i&ations which are being imposed by Federal and state agencies as well as by the private construction industry. Accordingly, all governmeut-sponsored construction activities such as highway programs, dams, bridges, and airports as well as private construction would be confronted by shortages and delays in obtaining their supplies of stone, cement, and other aggregates and bi~iiding materials, not to mention increases in the prices of those supplies. These potential effects upon the crushed stone industry make plain that these proposals have been developed without any consideration whatever being given to the impact which they would have upon competition and the economics of operation within the industry. NCSA very respectfully suggests that, in view of the fact that the Oongress expres~dy directed that specific consideration be given to these precise questions, the failure to do so requires that these recommended proposals be returned to the Department of the Interior for compliance with the Congressional direction. NCSA submits that examination of these questions will demonstrate plainly that many surfia~e mining operations, most particularly including stone quarries, cannot be subjected to the type of reclamation regulation visualized by these proposals and still survive as viai~1e competitive businesses. Proposals lao/c adequate legislative standards and procedural safeg~ards S. 3132 is utterly lacking in any meaningful legislative standards or proce- clural safeguards which would tend to limit the vast amount of discretionary authority which would be granted to the Secretary of Interior or which would tend to afford operators at least a modicum of protection against the possi- bility of completely arbitrary action by the Secretary. Accordingly, any regulatory proposals which might be forthcoming following examination of the questions concerning the impact of reclamation require- ments upon the economics and competitive structure of each of the different segments of the surface mining industry should be directed to include: 1. A precise definition c~f the term "reclamation"; I PAGENO="0167" 161 2. Prov~ion for a meaningful advisory board procedure whici~ would insure adequate operator represei~tation in the development of all requirements which would be imposed upon their individual `segment of the industry; 3. Provide for meaningful and independent review of all decisions by the Secretary which affect the rights and/or obligations of mine operators and the individual states; and 4. A requiremenit that inspectors be qualified, both by education and practical mining experience, to capably carry out any responsibilities which might be entrusted to them. If the Committee wishes, NCSA would be pleased to furnish the Committee or its staff with further details as `to these more technical and procedural aspects in which we believe these proposals to be deficient. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, National Crushed Stone Association is vigorously opposed to the enactment of S. 3132 or any similar bill which would provide for Federal regulation of stone producers' operations or reclamation practices. (Subsequent to the hearing, the following additional information was received:) NATIONAL CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., May 1, 1968. Re hearings on S. 3132 and similar bills. Hon. Lni~ METCALF, 1~Ienate Comiwittee on Iaterior and Insular Affairs, U.s. Senate, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Du~u SENATOR METCALF : In the questioning which followed NCSA's testimony this morning, interest was shown in our position concerning the difficulty of securing the performance bond which S. 3132 would require operators to post as one of several conditions for permission to either commence or continue operations. This difficulty arises from the fact that the bill, as drafted, does not make clear what is meant by the term "reclamation." Indeed, the ]imited definition which is provided could be construed to mean "return to original condition." The costs of such a requirement, particularly as applied to stone quarries, would not only be completely out of any reasonable proportion to the price which stone producers receive for their products, they would be impossible of any reasonable estimate prior to the fact. Since the costs of performing the reclamation work could not be estimated prior to the fact, bonding companies would clearly not be willing to give financial assurance that the work would be performed. We recognize, of course, that Secretary Udall and members of the Committee have indicated that it is not intended that "return to original condition" would always be required. This intention, we submit, should be carefully spelled out in the bill itself so as to clearly preclude attempts being made at some future time to impose such a requirement upon stone producers. We trust that this explanation satisfactorily answers the questions raised by Senator Anderson, and we would request that this letter be placed in the record at the conclusion of our testimony. If you wish, we would be pleased to develop these points in more detail. Very truly yours, JOHN P. FRAWLEY. NATIONAL CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., May 24, 1968. Subject S. 3132 and similar bills. Hon. LEE METCALF, Committee o~ Interior and Insular Affairs, U.AS~. S~enate, WashingtOli, D.C. DEAn SENATOR METCALF : At the conclusion of National Crushed Stone Associa- thou's testimony before the Committee, you indicated that the Committee might give consideration to the possibility of exempting stone quarries and other deep pit operations of a similar nature from the provisions of the legislative proposals contained in S. 3132 and similar bills. PAGENO="0168" 162 This letter i~ intended as a summary for your convenient reference of the reasons why we believe the application of the requirements proposed by these bills to stone quarries is not only unnecessary and unfeasible but wou~d produce consequences so undesirable as to require thwt exemption be granted. The factors underlying these reasons were discussed at length in NCSA's testi- mony before the Committee. They may be summarized as follows: 1. Stone quarries are relatively small and disturb very little surface land in relation to the vast amounts of essential stone which are removed. In addition, stone quarry operations do not give rise to problems of water pollution or toxic materials nor do they disturb fish and wildlife or their habitat. Hence, stone quarries simply do not make any significant contribution to the problems of extensive land disturbance and spoilation which these proposals are intended to remedy. 2. Stone quarries typically remain in operation for extremely long periods of time-81 years on the average according to a nationwide survey conducted by NCSA. Moreover, reclamation work typically cannot be started until quarry- ing operations are concluded. Thus, it is apparent that no meaningful "reclama- tion plan" could be developed prior to the beginning of quarrying operations as would be required by these proposals. How realistic or satisfactory would a rec- lamation plan developed for a quarry in the Rockville, Maryland area in 1887 be today? It is equally plain that no reasonable estimate of the costs of reclama- tion can be made so farm advance as to permit the posting of the performance bond which would be reqpired. 3. Stone quarries differ from all other types of surface mining operations in that, at most, only a very small amount of overburden and other material is available at the conclusion of mining operations for reclamation purposes. It is plain, thereforO, that the costs of "reclamation" whatever that term. may mean since it is not meaningfully defined by these proposals, would be substantially greater for stone producers than for producers of competitive materials which are secured by dredging or surface mining operations of a comparatively shallow nature. Thus, even the Secretary's own report Surface Mining and our Environ- ment indicates at page 113 that the reclamation costs for stone would be over four times as great as those for sand and gravel and we have every reason to believe that the actual disparity on a per ton basis would be much greater. As a result, not only would there be a substantial Increase in the cost of our industry's products which are absolutely essential . ~o the construction, agricultural and other basic industries, stone producers would be placed in an impossible corn- petitive position. 4. As drafted, these proposals would in effe~t attempt to provide for detailed regulation of the more than 18,000 separate surface mining operations in the United States. This would require a veritable army of new government employees who would have to be fully qualified and experienced in mining operations. Even were the Congress disposed to authorize the creation of such a huge new bureauc- racy, such numbers of qualified persons simply do not exist. Plainly, in this context, the goal of better reclamation would be best served by limiting the application of these proposals to those operations which do contribute significantly to land disturbance and spoilation. 5. Finally, because of the low cost, high volume and heavy loading character- istics of stone products, quarries are typically located close to urban areas where they are subjected to increasingly stringent local regulation. Hence, exemption from Federal regulation would not mean that quarries and their reclamation would be unregulated. Rather, it would mean that they will be regulated at the government level where consideration can best be given, not only to the peculiar geophysical and other natural characteristics of the area, but also to such purely local considerations as land values and the necessity to provide for adequate supplies of stone products and employment opportunities for local labor. The foregoing summarizes the reasons why special consideration must be given to stone quarries and similar operations and why the National Crushed Stone Association believes that these operations should be exempted from the proposals contained in S. 3132 and similar bills. Before closing, we would like to take this opportunity to again register our most i~igorous opposition to the proposed "adequate mining plan" requirement contained in these bills. As Secretary Udall's testimony before the Committee made very clear, this proposed requirement would give the Secretary of the In- terior unlimited and nonreviewable discretionary authority to regulate every aspect of mining operations (whether related in any way to reclamation or not) and, indee~l, to control whether individual operations can be conducted at all. PAGENO="0169" 163 Such power on the part of the Secretary plainly was net contemplated by the Con- gre~ when it authorized the study which underlies these proposals. The exercise of this power, moreover, plainly would constitute a sufficient "taking" of the owners' property rights to at least raise serious Constitutional questions. We trust that this letter will be helpful to you and to the Committee in your de- liberaions on this critical matter. If we may be of further assistance to you or the Committee, we would welcome and be most appreciative of the opportunity. Cordially, w. L. CARTER, Ecrecutive Director. Senator MRTCALF. The next witness is Mr. Hugo E. Johnson, presi- dent of the American Iron Ore Association, and he also is accom- panied by a group. We will be glad to have you bring your group for- ward, Mr. Johnson. STATEMENT OP HUGO E. JOHNSON, PR~EST]XFLNT, AMThICAN IRON ORE ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ~FOHN Di. BORNTJE, JR., PRESIDENT, PITTSBURGH PACIPIC! CO. ; AND S. W. SUNDEEN, GENERAL MANAGER, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, CLEVE- LAND-CLIFFS IRON CO. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, I am Hugo E. John- son, president of the American Iron Ore Association. I am a registered professional engineer and for the past 15 years, I have been on the staff of the American Iron Ore Association where, for the past 10 years, I have had the honor of serving as president. The member firms of the American Iron Ore Association mine over 95 percent of the iron ore mined in the United States. We appear here today in opposition to Senate bill, S. 3132, Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968. We oppose the adoption of this legislation because we feel that it is unnecessary and unwarranted and that the request for such legislation is based upon inaccurate and ex- aggerated statements in the report entitled "Surface Mining and Our Environment," which are not representative of the actual facts. Before we proceed with our statement, we would like to point out that we have followed closely the work of the American Mining Con- gross in connection with this important legislation and we endorse the statement presented here yesterday by their representative, Mr. J. S. Abdnor. In the interest of giving to you and your committee a firsthand re- port on how this proposed legislation, S. 3132, may affect ~ iron ore mining operations and why we oppose this legislation, we have asked representatives of two of our member firms to present their views to this committee. Both of these gentlemen are well qualified to discuss this important legislation and to give to this committee the views of two important firms whose operations in mining iron ore are substantially different, yet would be seriously affected by this legislation. On my left is Mr. John D. Boentje, Jr., who has been actively en- gaged in the iron ore mining industry for over 20 years. Trained as a mining engineer, he started his career in iron ore mining shortly after his service in the U.S. Navy. TOday he serves as president of Pitts- burgh Pacific Co. in Minnesota. PAGENO="0170" 164 On my right is Dr. S. W. Sundeen of the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. Dr. Sundeen has been active in research, in planning, and in opera- tions for over 25 years. Today he serves as general manager, research and development, for the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will ask these gentlemen to present their statement and then I will close our appearance with my remarks. First we will hear from Mr. Boentje, the president of Pittsburgh Pacific Co. Mr. BOENTJE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am John Boentje, Jr., a graduate mining engineer. I have worked in mining operations for over 30 years, of which the past 20 years have been on the Mesabi and Cuyuna Ranges of Minnesota in open pit iron mining. For the past 5 years, I have been president of Pittsburgh Pacific Co., a small independent iron ore producer. Our company is currently operating mines and concentrating plants on the Mesabi and Cuyuna Iron Ranges in northern Minnesota. We sell our products on the open market to blast furnace operators in the area tributary to the Great Lakes in competition with other United States and foreign iron ore producers. The mineral properties we operate are held under lease from the owners. The properties we have operated in the past and those we hold today fall into three general categories. They are properties which have been "exhausted" of ores in the past, measured by the economics and technology of the period in which they are mined, or they contain too little ore to have been attractive to larger operators, or they oontain lean ore stockpiles, materials which prior operators were unable to process economically because of existing technology so as to produce a usable product. We have been able to opera~ these properties successfully by employing modern equipment and concen- trating techniques. In the past 10 years, our company has produced an average of over 600,000 tons per year of usable iron ore products which have been sold in the United States `and Canada. This figure may seem small corn- pared to total U.S. iron ore consumption or to the production of some of the large companies, however, it does represent about 11/4 percent of the production from Minnesota in this 10-year period. The delivered value at lower lake ports exceeds $6 million per year. During the past 5 years, payments to and on behalf of our employees have averaged over $1% million per year. State and local taxes paid during the past 5 years have averaged over $450,000 per year. Our company does have an impact upon `the communities in which our operations `are conducted. I have read and attempted to understand S. 3132 from the stand- point of the possible effects upon our company if it should become law, and I have several concerns. My first concern is that it may not be generally recognized that iron ore is produced by other than the extremely large mining corn- panies. We, as small operators, - continue to serve a useful function. In one sense we are conservationists in `that our principal work is extracting materials left b~hind as uneconomic or undesirable by pre- vious operators `and converting them into usable `and saleable products. In doing this we provide a public benefit in that we create wealth which is distributed to our employees; our suppliers; the local, State, PAGENO="0171" 165 and Fedcral Government ; the property owners ; and to the investors in our company. . * My second concern is that it would be required that all operations would be conducted in accordance with detailed plans `su'bnutted by the operator and approved by a governmental body prior to con- tinuance or commencement of a surface mine operation. The nature of our operations is such that many times' we can make no mining plans in advance. In many properties the potential economics will not support a detailed exploration program. We may move our equip- ment in and explore with our power shovel as we mine, paying close attention to quality of product, overall costs, and safety of our em- ployees. If we don't find what we expected, we move on to the next property. In many cases we `have moved into properties `and begun opera4ions within hours of notification that a lease had been agreed upon. In some cases our operations have been completed under verbal agreemen'~ before we have received executed lease documents. Our existence has depended to a great extent upon our ability to be flexible and mobile and to accommodate ohanges . as opportunities were presented or as conditions dictated. I am fearful that the detailed plan, governmental approval, `and permit routine would stifle our ability to perform the role that we have developed for ourselves. We don't have the leadtime nor, in many cases, the need nor the knowledge to develop plans which could be submitted for review. My third concern is that it is proposed that a performance bond adequate to * assure reclamation of the land be posted. I am quite sure that a large operator would have little difficulty in obtaining a bond. However, I am afraid that our company might have trouble in finding a company willing to supply this `coverage. And certainly the cost of bonding becomes an extra financial burden. Our company can and does insure against many contingencies. For these things, an insurance company is able to arrive at proper premium rates through experience. But how would a bonding company arrive at a charge for a boiid to cover land reclamation in our type of opera- tions ? Certainly any initial plans developed would be changed during the operation. It is also possible that the reclamation regulation standards could be changed between the start and the completion of an operation. It would seem that a bonding company would have to hedge so much in many cases because of the unknowns that their charge would be prohibitive. My fourth concern has to do with the allocation of liability to re- claim areas. Nearly all of our operations are on properties which have been operated by others in the past. If the regulations which would be developed under this act were to require that the active operator must reclaim the area and that he would be responsible for the entire area, we could have some insurmountable problems. We currently have leases on properties from which tens of mijlions of tons of ore have been removed by other operators. We hope to mine in some cases thousands or, in other cases, a few hundred thousand toiis. But if we were to inherit substantial reclamation obligations, there could be many cases when we would not be able to consider an operation because of these potential obligations. PAGENO="0172" 166 As I review my concerns, I can think that maybe our company shouldn't be allowed to continue operating if we are destroying more value than we are creating. But, what are we destroying, if anything? The Department of the Interior special report to the Nation entitled "Surface Mining and Our Environment" deals with several items in the chapter "Impact on Environment." In connection with the effect of surface mining on reshaping the surface, the comment is made that the piles of low-grade ore "may either be considered an attractive feature in an otherwise monotonous landscape or as unsightly, depending upon one's viewpoint." We also read that "the minerals in the formation are chemically inert and the terrain is flat ; thus the mining operations cause little or no water pollution." Furthermore, "~ . * * surface mining, per se, cannot be considered a major contributor to air pollution." We do not find anything directly describing the effect on vegetation of operations on the iron ranges; however, dumps and pits which have been unused or inactive for a period of time begin growing grass, brush, and trees and, if left undis- turbed, take on the appearance of the surrounding area. When I really look at the whole picture, I wonder why Federal legislation is needed. In general, good mineral conservation practices have been followed oIl the Minnesota iron ranges. As mines were opened, waste materials were removed and placed where they would not interfere with future operations. The State of Minnesota, as a fee ownef, is one of the stricter land- lords in this regard. Low-grade materials were segregated and stock- piled for future possible use. Our company has processed large quan- tities of these materials using the tools and technology available to us today to produce usable concentrates. As pits were exhausted of economic ores, they were generally left so that they could be reentered w~itli minimum cost and effort. These practices contributed to the ability of the iron mining industry to expand operations at an incredible pace dui~ing World War II. As to the appearance of the countryside, last summer some 80,000 tourists were counted at the viewstand overlooking the Hull-Rust Mine at Ribbing, which is the largest open pit iron ore mine in the world. Our Congressman, John A. Biatnik, succeeded a few years ago in having a new four-lane highway between Hibbing and Chishoim routed across one of the large open pits, recognizing that this would be an attraction for tourists. There is essentially no water pollution from surface mining. Our company has worked closely with the Minnesota Water Pollution Con- trol Commission in designing dikes and water handling systems. The two largest communities on the Mesabi Range obtain all or part of their water supplies from adjacent active open pit mines. There is essentially no air pollution. At times there is windblown dust from active operations ; however, our company, as have others, has planted vegetation to abate these problems where they are ~bjec- tionable and where it is practical. It seems to me that this act would unnecessarily burden the iron mining industry in Minnesota and could very well bring my company's operations to an end. If this were to happen, it would affect the some 250 families which our operations directly support, and would have PAGENO="0173" 167 an indirect effect upon those who serve our industry and those who live in our communities. It would also place a burden on the people of Minnesota who would be required to bear the cost of the admirnstra- tion of the law. It is easy for me to see the probable harmful effects this act wo&d have upon our area and our industry if it were to become law, but it is difficult for me to see what real benefits would be derived, Thank you for the opportunity to appear here before you to present my views in opposition to this important legislation. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, John. I am pleased to present the general manager of research and de- velopment of the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., Dr. S. W. Sundeen. Dr. &TNDEEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on In- tenor and Insular Affairs : I am Dr. Stanley W. Sur~cieen of research and development for the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. I hold a doctor's degree in geology and have been associated with the iron ore mining industry for 32 years, which I guess is more than the 25 which Mr. Johnson mentioned. My experience has included both operating and research responsi- bilities, from mine superintendent to my present position of general manager of research and development. The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. has a corporate history of 118 years and through predecessor companies can go hack to the beginning of iron ore mining in the Lake Superior District. At the present time Cleveland-Cliffs owns or operates five pellet plants, four open pit mines, and one underground mine on the Mar- quette Range in Michigan ; three open pit mines on the Mesabi Range in Minnesota ; and one pelletizing plant and open pit mine in Ontario. In 1967 the shipments from our operations in the United States was 10,854,000 long tons, or 13 percent of the total shipments of iron ore in the United States. During its 118 years the company has had operating experience which covers the gamut of underground and open pit mining of natural ores to modern concentrating and pefletizing operations. This experience in iron ore mining is representative of the larger iron mining companies in the United States. Cleveland-Cliffs occupies a position as a `leader in the development of beneficiating and pelletizing operations for iron ore~. I find it very difficult to acknowledge-in fact, I challenge-the premises which have been used as the basis for the proposed legisla- tion now before this committee for consideration. I respectfully sub- mit~ to you that the iron mining industry does not create the magnitude of problems which have been depicted for you. It is our contention that the iron mining industry does not, contrary to the statements in S. 3132, "adversely affect commerce by destroying or diminishing the availability of land for commercial, industrial, recreational, agricultural, and forestry purposes by causing erosion or landslides, by contributing to floods, and the pollution of water, by destroying fish and wildlife habitat and impairing natural beauty, by counteracting efforts to conserve the soil, water, and other natural resources, by destroying or impairing the property of citizens, and by creating hazards dangerous to life and property." I propose to discuss each of these alleged destructive effects sepa- rately in this statement. PAGENO="0174" 168 AVAILABILITY OF LAND In the State ~ of Michigan and Minnesota, iron mining operations to date have affected a very small part of the total acreage in those States. The Secretary of Interior, in his report "Surface Mining and Our Environment," shows on page 110 that 2,200 acres in Michigan and 67,700 acres in Minnesota have been disturbed by iron ore mining. In relation to the 37,300,000 acres in Michigan there has only been 0.006 percent of the total area of the State involved in iron ore surface mining, and of Minnesota's 53,800,000 acres, only 0.12 percent has been affected. The report "Surface Mining and Our Environment" indieate.s that the annual increment of acreage involved in mining metallic minerals is not known exactly but that it can be calculated roughly as 8,000 acres annually. Iron ore is only part of the metallic minerals mined and contributes a small portion of this increased use of the land each year. The increase in Michigan and Minnesota is negligible. In both of these States iron miiiing has been and is presently being carried on in sparsely populat~d areas. In the four counties of Michigan in which the iron ore mining operations are located, there is an average of 25 persons per square mile ; and in those counties in Minnesota in which the iron ore mining operations are located, there is an average of 30 persons per square mile. These figures contrast with population densities, for example, of 137 people per square mile for Michigan, 237 in Ohio, and 806 in New Jersey. The light population densities in these mining areas documents the fact that there is no great demand for land, and therefore the iron mining industry is not withdrawing land from use that is needed for other purposes. The iron mining industry is the largest industry and the prime employer in each of these mining areas in Michigan and Minnesota. Many of the other businesses support and serve the mining industry and its employees. There is little competition for other commercial or industrial uses of the land in these areas. Soil and climate make the Michigan and Minnesota mining districts marginal for agricultural purposes. In addition, the areas involved in iron mining surface operations are of low-quality for recreational uses. This fact, coupled with the vast acreages held by the State and Federal Government which are available for recreational purposes, argues that there is no significant diminution of recreational land. For forestry purposes, the areas which have been involved in iron ore surface mining in Michigan are very insignificant. It is my observa- tion that the second growth on the Mesabi Range has been scrub timber of low value. Moreover, in both Michigan and Minnesota mining is the highest value use that can be made of the land. EROSION AND LANDSLIDES There has never been a problem of any measurable proportions involving either erosion or landslides related to iron ore mining opera- tions in Michigan and Minnesota. PAGENO="0175" 169 FLOODS AND POLLUTION Floods are unknown in the iron ore mining areas of Michigan and Minnesota and therefore there have never been any problems of this nature related to iron ore mining. The report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment," states on page 52 in regard to the Mesabi Range "the minerals in the formation are chemically inert and the terrain is flat ; thus the mining operations caused little or no water pollution." The conditions in Michigan are similar with respect to the absence of chemical pollution. Pollution by solids in suspension is regulated by Federal and State laws for the control of water quality. The fact that these regulations are effective is borne out by the report of the Michigan Water Resources Commission, "Industrial Pollution Status," which lists open pit iron mining operations with the best rating. We in the iron mining industry mantain that water pollution is adequately controlled and that there is no need for additional legislation. Air pollution is not a sizable problem associated with iron ore open pit mining. The report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment," makes reference to air pollution, stating that "surface mining, per Se, cannot be considered a major contributor." There can be at times air- borne dust that occurs during heavy winds but this condition occurs over all kinds of land areas from virgin ones to city streets. The stack emissions from modern pelletizing operations are controlled by State and Federal regulations, and again no further legislation is required. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT State water pollution control agencies are keenly aware of the interest of sportsmen and conservation groups in protecting the habitat for fish and have included in State regulations controls which protect them. The relatively small areas which are actually involved in iron mining operations do not have a significant impact on wildlife habitat, considering the great acreage of open land available in these areas. CONSERVATION OF SOIL, WATER AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES Loss of soil does not occur in the iron mining areas through erosion and flooding. The withdrawal of land and soil from other uses by mining does not create a problem in Michigan and Minnesota because the mining areas are so marginal for recreation or agriculture. In modern beneficiating and pelletizing operations, water plays a very important role. We need it. Therefore the conservation of water is of primary value to the iron ore mining industry. DESTRUCTION OR IMPAIRMENT OF PROPERTY AND HAZARDS Any impairment of the property of others adjacent to the iron ore mining operations of Michigan and Minnesota is limited to such in- cidental effects as dust or noise from the operations and does not in our judgment constitute a hazard requiring further legislative controls. Our experience indicates that there have been virtually no incidents involving hazards to the public where surface mining operations are located. PAGENO="0176" 170 IMPAIB)1F~NT OF NATURAL BEAUTY This is perhaps one of the most controversial allegations. The ap- parent changes to the landscape which are caused by iron ore surface mining operations are the creation of open pits, rock or "lean ore" piles and tailings basins. The report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment," speaking of the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, states "the tremendous piles of low- grade or `lean ore' that dot the countryside may either be considered an attractive feature in an otherwise monotonous landscape or as un- sightly, depending upon one's viewpoint." Such .a statement is equally applicable to the appearance of the open pits. The view of the Hull-Rust pit on the Mesabi Range in Mm- nesota to some degree inspires the same emotion of awe as the Grand Canyon. The local chambers of commerce consider the pit as a unique tourist attraction as measured by the 80,000 or so tourists who visit the Mesabi Range each summer. It is our viewpoint that the residents of the iron mining areas in Michigan and Minnesota do not consider the views of the pits and piles unsightly and it is obvious that visitors are drawn to those areas by the presence of these outstanding features. In Michigan the iron ore surface mining operations are scattered in remote areas and therefore are not readily seen by a viewer. During the active years of iron ore operations there is not much that can be done with the tailings basins, but when the operations have been complete it is our contention that the basins will revegetate naturally or will yield to seeding. Cleveland-Cliffs and other companies are at the present time en- gaged in research efforts to ascertain the types of and rate of revegeta- tion. It is of interest to point out that even in the active tailings basins, wild ducks nest and raise families each summer. The reaction to views of pits and rockpiles can be as varied as the techniques of photography which have been used to illustrate these features. On page 22 and 32 of the report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment," there are pictures of iron ore open pits. These have been taken and printed under conditions that portray the subject in its most favorable light. MINING PLAN REQUIREMENT One of the most objectionable features of S. 3132 is the requirement of a mining plan and the granting of a mining license. The prepara- tion of a mining plan in advance of mining will be most burdensome because of the extended life of an iron ore surface mining operation. The report "Surface Mining and Our Environment" comments as follows: "Another distinctive feature of open-pit mining is the length of time that mining is conducted" and "some open pits may be mined for many years-50 or more; in fact, a few have been in continuous opera- tion for more than a century." To illustrate this longevity, the famous Hull-Rust open pit in Minnesota was opened in 1895 and still can be considered an active operation. PAGENO="0177" 171 In Michigan the Empire Mine was originally opened in 1907 and operated until 1926 ; it was reopened in 1963 and is now a part of the present operation which has an estimated life in excess of 50 years. These properties are typical of most iron ore mines which last so long that their operations are altered and extended by advances in technology. No miner has more than a beginning knowledge of the ore body he is going to mine before mining commences. He gains most of that knowledge as mining progresses and exposes the ore body. Yesterday morning, I believe, Senator Hansen alluded to a concern that the proposed law would be too inflexible to cover the unknown conditions. During this same time the miner will be subjected to and influenced by advances in mining and beneficiating technology. The lack of relatively full knowledge of the ore body and the in- fluence of continuing technological change makes it difficult, even im- possible, to foresee the conditions which will be encountered during mining and the conditions which will exist at the completion of mining. Therefore, it is impossible to develop an adequate mining plan to be filed and approved before surface mining operations are com- menced that will fit actual conditions at the end of the operation. The requirement of a mining plan in advance of mining and of post- ing a performance bond during possibly 50 to 100 years of a mine's life is in our judgment entirely unsuited to the characteristics of this type of mining. The authority given to the Secretary of the Interior in the proposed legislation to establish regulations and from time to time to revise those regulations creates a very dangerous situation for an operation with a long life such as an iron ore mine. A mining company would not know when the regulations would be changed or what conditions its mine would face at the end of its life and therefore many uncertainties would be created concerning the profitability `of an operating mine and the calculated return on invest- ment on a new mine. In any event, the result of these regulations would be the addition of costs which would render the situation less competitive with foreign mines. Modern iron ore mining, treatment and pelletizing operations require very large investments which in the case of one or two such mines have exceeded $300 million. The heightened risk that unknown costs of large magnitude might occur as the result of these regulations could discourage investment in iron ore properties in the United States and even encourage do- mestic companies to invest in foreign iron ore ventures. It is our conclusion that the conditions created by iron ore mining in Michigan and Minnesota are not such as to require the kind of regulation proposed in S. 3132 ; that the longevity and changing technology of iron ore mining make it impossible to plan reclamation in advance which is reasonably adapted to the end conditions; and finally, that the prerogative of the Secretary of the Interior to estab- lish regulations for reclamation and to change them at any time im- poses unknown costs on a mine operator that will make him less com- petitive with foreign iron ores. 95-623-----68---12 PAGENO="0178" 172 Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the privilege of appearing before you. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Sundeen. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I would like to close our presentation here today by pointing out to you with all the emphasis I can command so that you fully understand the reasons why we object to this type of legislation. 1. The type of operations carried out by the iron ore mining industry are of a localized and extremely- long-lived operation totally unlike the coal mine and reclaim operation that characterizes modern-day mining technology seen in the eastern part of our country. 2. Iron ore mining operations today, particularly with their new lean ore and taconite breakthrough, do not and cannot lead them- selves to legislation such as proposed in S. 3132. 3. Such legislation would hamper and interfere with the ability of the iron ore mining industry to serve the Nation as it has historically done in the time of emergency. 4. The report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment" does not accurately reflect the mining industry. The Secretary's report "Surface Mining and Our Environment" in his statement on page 52, confirms the fact we wish to emphasize, that iron ore mining is of a localized type of long-lived duration when he says: Iron ore open pits extend over large areas and usually reach considerable depths. The Mesabi Range of Minnesota is an iron ore formation 120 miles long and about 3 miles wide. In the next 100 years the range could become a giant canal or lake. The minerals in the formation are chemically inert and the ter- rain is flat ; thus the mining operations cause little or no water pollution. Many of the pits have steep highwalls which, in places, are dangerous and impede the movement of wildlife and humans. The tremendous piles of low-grade, or "lean" ore that dot the countryside may either be considered an attractive feature in an otherwise monotonous landscape or as unsightly, depending on one's viewpoint. his statement is illustrative of iron ore mining operations and his emphasis on the fact that we cause little or no water pollution is an important point. Further, his emphasis on the bea~ity or lack of beauty of the low- grade or lean ore stockpiles is of special interest. These are a result of what we believe to be good mining practices and an important conservation policy but we wish to point out that they must be pre- served in an orderly fashion and segregated from other materials since they represent iron ore reserves of the future when economic and technology permit their use. Major iron ore deposits rarely show any sharp line of demarcation between presently economic iron ore and uneconomic iron ore. This is different from many other mineral deposits which show a sharp line of demarcation and which lend themselves to development and corn- pletion in a predictable manner. The iron ore mining industry has many mines-and I emphasize "many"-which had been mined for 40 or 50 ye~ars. These are now being reopened for the purpose of mining and upgrading the lean ores remaining. This is a characteristic of iron ore mining which we wish to strongly emphasize. We now see a completely new iron ore mining industry developing in the United States because of this important fact. For example, in PAGENO="0179" 173 Minnesota, we see rapidly developing the taconite industry which was most recently endorsed by the people of Minnesota when they voted to approve the "taconite" amendment to their State constitution. Eighty-seven percent of the people voting on the State constitution issue favored the issue designed to attract more mining development. The result has been to extend the iron ore mining industry in Minnesota beyond the foreseeable future. How can one make advance plans for reclamation to obtain permits to mine when we know the operation will continue for 50 to 100 years in the future? This `has also happened in other areas of the United State's as has been pointed out for Michigan. It has also happened in California, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. All of this comes from the utilization of material's that might have otherwise been lost to our country if we had been required to "reclaim" the mines, within the meaning of the bill, when they had originally become uneconomic. The cost of reopening the mines may have been prohibitive and the huge investments would never have been justified. `To further illustrate that iron ore mining is a localized and long- lived operation, let me briefly review some of the highlights in the history of our industry. Iron ore was first mined in Virginia in 1619, in New York and in New Jersey about 1750. Tn Pennsylvania, the Cornwall Mine was opened in 1740 and is still in continuing operation, 228 years later. This is an underground operation so it does not come under the pro- visions of S. 3132 but it does emphasize what we are trying to point out, the localized and long-lived aspects of the iron ore mining industry. An example pertinent to our discussion today is the world renowned Jlull-Rust-Mahoning mine located near H'ibbing, Minn. This mine, operated by several companies, was opened in 1895-73 years ago- as an underground mine. In 1905, it was opened as `a surface mining operation. Up to and including 1966, 500 million tons of iron ore had been removed from this mine. Today, even as the natural ores are still being removed, mining corn- panies are planning the development of a new taconite operation that would utilize the "taconite" in the bottom and in the walls of the Hull-Rust-Mahoning mine that will expand this man-made grand canyon. The fact that the Hull-Rust-Mahoning mine and others like it were on a standby basis and not "reclaimed," as may be required under this bill, was an important factor in the iron ore mining industry being able to provide iron ore for the Nation during World War I, World War II, in the Korean war and in our recent emergency. In the Second World War, we were able to increase our production from the Great Lakes area alone from 19 million tons in 1938 to 93 million tons in 1942. In the Korean war, we went from 69 million tons in 1949 to 94 million tons in 1951. Without the provisions that may exist in the proposed legislation, we were able to `meet the tremendous requirements for the steel indus- try during these emergencies and during `the present conflict. We sin- cerely hope that legislation will not be enacted now which would restrict our a'bility to supply the Nation's requirements in a future hour of need. I PAGENO="0180" 174 You have already heard some of the reasons why we feel that the report "Surface Mining and our Environment" in many respects does not present a representative picture of the ii on ore mining industry I refer to table 1 and table 2 of appendix 1. Copies are attached to my statement for your convenience. Under the column entitled "Iron Ore," we note that iron ore mining is s'ud to have disturbed 164,225 acres. Regrettably, in table 2 we are not told the land disturbed by iron ore mining that needs reclamation. In view of this, we endeavored to locate some of this acreage that may require restoration. Because of its proximity to our office, we started in Ohio where 4,000 acres `were said to have been disturbed. We did locate `the counties where the mining had been done but since no mining had been done since 1*24, the areas "disturbed" were now reforested or used for graz- ing land with one exception. We found several hundred acres of this land said to have been dis- turbed by iron ore mining, are now being ndned for coal `and are also included in the acreage said to be disturbed by coal. In Virginia, where 7,700 acres were said to have been disturbed, we were able to locate the counties `but except for some mining of "paint rock" or "pigment," we were unable to locate the 7,700 acres referred to in the report. If, as we are led to suspect, they included all dis- turbed land since iron ore mining in Virginia `began in 1619, this could be a close estimate but we believe it totally unrealistic. We found several hundred acres of this land, said to have been dis- disturbed, in Louisiana where another 50 acres were said to have been disturbed, and in Massachusetts where 1,100 acres, half as much as had been disturbed in Michigan, were reported as disturbed. We even went back in the records of the U.S. Department of the Interior but found no iron ore mined during the past 40 years attributed to these a rid several other States listed. Gentlemen, we oppose this legislation because: 1. The type `of operations carried out by the iron ore mining indus- try are of a localized `and extremely long-lived operation totally un- like the cast mine and reclaim operation that characterizes modern- day mining technology generally seen in the eastern part of our country. `~. Iron ore mining operations today, particularly with their new lean ore and taconite breakthrough do not and cannot lend themselves to legislation such as proposed in S. 3132. 3. Such legislation would hamper and interfere with the `ability of the iron ore mining industry to serve the Nation as it has historically done in the time of emergency. 4. The report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment," does not accurately reflect the mining industry. If `S. 3132 were to be recommended `by this committee, and subse- quently became the law, it would place an unnecessary economic bur- den of administrative costs and rehabilitation costs on `a society that is fast costing itself `out of `a competitive posture with the free world economy especially as far as iron ore is concerned. The conclusion `of damage from disturbed land `appears to be ex- aggerated and completely unwarranted especially since any related problems of air and water pollution to our environment are adequately comprehended in both existing Federal and State regulations. PAGENO="0181" 175 The unwarranted powers this bill gives to the Secretary of the In- tenor would necessitate a complete reconsideration of future plans as far as the iron ore mining industry is concerned We urge you to let us proceed in our plans for the future without additional Federal regulations and we aie certain the future will show that the problems of concern to the Secretary of the Interior are adequately covered by existing Federal and State regulations now in effect. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on this important legislation. (Information referred to follows:) PAGENO="0182" 176 - ~ © c~ ~N- 00 ~- - c~ ~ ~- r-oo c-~ c~ a 0 LC) c)~N- U, ~ - COC) NJ ~00-00~_-; C\~NI :88~ N- 00 ~0 N- ~b C) C)L~) C) N- 0) I.- C,, C) >- C) 0 0 C-, >- (0 cC U- 0 .0 .)~ 0~ `1- OO~c ~N `U, C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C)C) C) ,C) C)C)C)C)C)C)C)C)C)C) N-C) C) (Q N- N- N- 00CC N- (0 N- C) N-CO 0)U5 NJ 0~ N- V C,, z 0) cC 0) C) ,C)C)C)C)8C)C)C) 0) C)~C)N-'-N-~00 C)C) ,C)C)C) C', cC C,, cC (I) C) LU = CD LU C.) cC C,, C) cC 0~ C') >- C) C) I- `I, C) C) cC LU -J C) cC :~c~-~c~: :,~~::: un 1~i ~Ifl ~ cCcCcCcCC)~-C)2~~ PAGENO="0183" ~°°i::i i~ ~: 00 o c~ a° C,, 177 c~ N- ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ c~ c~ ~ - 000)0~ C')00~ N-CO N- ~ N- N- N- O~ N- CO COU~ ~ 00 28 8 ~88 CO N- ~ CO (0U) ~ CO~ *~O~ (0 o_, ~ (0 CO (0~ E 88~888 ~8~8 ~ c~ (0- - ~ c-~ C') ~ CO ~- N- Ni(o'~-~ H ~ ~888888888 ~ C)N- C')C') C')CO N- N- (0 :8 CO `C ~ `~ :~ ~ "C `C ~ ~ `~ ~ ,o-~= - ~ `00~~1 ~t~t ~ ~o o~ o ~ ~ PAGENO="0184" 178 TABLE 2-STATUS OF LAND DISTURBED BY STRIP AND SURFACE MINING IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF JAN 1 1965, BY STATE Land requir- Land not re- State log reclama- quiring rec- tion ~ lamation I LThousands of acresj I Land requir- Land not re- Total State ag reclama quirin~ rec land dis tion I lamation I turbed 2 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts_ - - - Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana 83. 0 6. 9 4. 7 16.6 107.9 40.2 10.1 3.5 143.5 13.5 (3) 30. 7 88. 7 27.6 35. 5 50. 0 79. 2 17.2 21.6 18. 1 25. 0 26.6 71.5 23.7 43. 7 19.6 50, 9 4. 2 27.7 5.8 66. 1 14.8 6.2 2. 2 45. 3 8.2 (3) 10.3 54.4 97.7 8.9 9.5 48.5 13.6 13.2 7. 1 15. 3 10.3 43.9 5.9 15.4 7. 3 Total land dis- turbed 2 133.9 Nebraska 16.8 12.1 28.9 11.1 Nevada 20.4 12.5 32.9 32. 4 New Hampshire _ 5. 1 3. 2 8. 3 22.4 NewJersey 21.0 12.8 33.8 174. 0 New Mexico 2. 0 4. 5 6. 5 55. 0 New York 50. 2 7. 5 57. 7 16.3 NorthCarolina---. 22.8 14.0 36.8 5. 7 North Dakota 22. 9 14. 0 36. 9 188.8 Ohio 171.6 105.1 276.7 21. 7 Oklahoma 22. 2 5. 2 27. 4 (3) Oregon 5.8 3.6 9.4 41. 0 Pennsylvania 229. 5 140. 7 370. 2 143. 1 Rhode Island. .. 2. 2 1. 4 3. 6 125.3 SouthCarolina___ 19.3 13.4 32.7 44. 4 South Dakota 25. 3 8. 9 34. 2 59. 5 Tennessee 62. 5 38. 4 100. 9 127. 7 Texas 136. 4 29. 9 166. 3 30.8 Utah 3.4 2.1 5.5 34. 8 Vermont 4. 2 2. 5 6. 7 25. 2 Virginia 37. 7 23. 1 60. 8 40. 3 Washington 5. 5 3. 3 8. 8 36. 9 West Virginia_ . 111. 4 84. 1 195. 5 115. 4 Wisconsin 27. 4 8. 2 35. 6 ~. ~ Wyoming 6. 4 4. 0 10. 4 26.9 Total 2,040.6 1,147.2 3,187.8 I Compiled from data supplied by Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2 Data compiled from reports submitted by the States on U.S. Department of the Interior form 6-1385X, from Soil Con- servation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, and estimates. 3 Less than 100 acres. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your statement. Senator Jorda~n. Senator JORD&N Thank you, Mr Chairman You three witnesses for the American Iron Ore Association, I must say, have made a very convincing case for your opposition to this legislation. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Senator JORDAN What, may I ask, economic use is made of these lands before you move in to remove the iron ore ~ I am speaking now of the Minnesota and Michigan areas about which you have testified for the most part. Mr. JOHNSON. Would you undertake that? Mr BOENTJTE The movement into this area was before I arrived in the area However, this area in Minnesota was originally opened up by those who were seeking timber Then, shortly after these people arrived it was recognized there was ~iron ore there I feiel that the people who directed exploration in the early days did a fantastic job in delimiting the ~ron ore areas, especially on the Me~abi Range To answer your question, maybe I can mention what use is being made of the area immediathly south and immediately north of the Mesabi Range Immediately south there are extremely large areas which `~re spruce and tamarack swamps, which have essentially no use because the area immediately. north begins to enter into different tvnes of vegetation, different types of area It is used for recreation It is used for timber cutting, logging Be c'~use of the climate in our area, farming is a very difficult industry There is some dairy farming There has been the beginning of some c'itt-le raising Really the area that we live in-if we could transport PAGENO="0185" 179 you people up there and let you see from an airplane the area south of this Mesabi Range and then to see the range and see the activity, the people living there, the industry that is there, the wealth that is being created, the people that are being supported, and fly north of there and see the recreational areas which are being undisturbed by our industry, but which are being supported by the people living there- Senator JORDAN. Let me clarify it. What I am leading up to is to get a contrast, if I can, between the economic uses of the area before mining was started, the value of the products taken out in the mining process, and the economic value of the land after the mines have removed the ore and turned the land back to its natural state or to whatever state in which it is used. I think this is important for the record. Mr. BOENTJE. The economic value of the area in which the Mesabi Range is located, I would say, would be similar to the area to the south of the range. This is a very difficult area to make a living in, but people do live there. There are some who exist on a slight amount of dairy farming, some pulpwood industry. The value of the land is relatively small. It certainly cannot be measured by the values of the land in southern Minnesota. On the Cuyuna Range, which is another important range, this gets into an agricultural area. However, again the quantities of land which are involved in the iron ore mining are relatively small. The value of the land in the surrounding area is relatively small. Farming productivity is rela- tively small. Senator JORDAN. Someone gave us a figure that 500 million tons of iron ore have been removed from this area. What is the economic value of that ? Do you have figures on that? Mr. JoHNSoN. I do have specific figures on the value of the iron ore if you will give me the broad sense, the 500 million tons, but we will take all of the iron ore mined from 1900 through 1967, Sena- tor Jordan. The value was $20,244,000,634. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. That is the value since 1900. Senator JORDAN. Since 1900. Mr. JOHNSON. Of iron ore mined in the United States. Senator JORDAN. Now I would like some testimony as to whether the economic value of the land surface has been diminished by the mining activity ; that is, the land after you are through with the mining, if you are through with it. Is it worth less or more than before you started mining, and, if less, how much less? Dr. SUNDEEN. Senator Jordan, perhaps I can comment by an illustration with respect to our Empire Mine in Michigan. The Em- pire Mine covers perhaps three-quarters of a square mile of area. The actual pit outlines will ultimately encompass about three-quarters of a square mile. Before this was stripped of trees and the very thin cover, it did have a forest growth that had some nominal value-hardwood timber which was second growth in character. I can't give you a precise number as to the value per acre of that timber, but I would venture a guess that it wasn't more than from $200 to $300 an acre in value. Cutover lands in Michigan are selling for PAGENO="0186" I 180 anywhere from $8 to $1~ an acre, lands which could grow timber but from which the timb~r h~s been harvested. Once the mine has been completed and we have removed all of the ore from it the exposure in the sidewalls and the bottom of the pit will be essentially barren rock and it will take a long time before there will be any soil developing in the floor. Ultimatedy these pits will fill up with water in any event, so the value after mining would only be in relation to recreational uses. Senator JORDAN. Or wildlife. Dr. SUNDEEN. Or wildlife or fish. Senator JORDAN. But you are starting with land that has a surface value of $8 to $10 after the trees are removed? Dr. SUNDEEN. Right. Our projections are that this mine will pro- duce somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 million tons of ore, in lower lake values roughly $15 a ton.. That is $~2.25 billion worth of material as delivered to the lower lakes. Senator JORDAN. The overall area has produced a wealth ocf over $20 billion ? Mr. JOHNSON. Tha~t is correct. Dr. SuNni~N. Right. Senator JORDAN. And the land after you remove the ore is worth but very little less than it was before you started your mining opera- tions. Dr. STJNDEEN. In some respects I think perhaps it may be worth more. It might make a real good fishing lake. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. That is all I have. Senator MBTGALF. Thank you, Senator Jordan. Senator Allott. Senator Au~orr. I have no questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator METOALF. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, I am grateful to you and to your colleagues for a very comprehensive presentation of the workings of your industry in both the large and the small mines and the problems that this legislation would raise. We are aware of some of the conditions in the Mesabi Range. I think all of us have been there. I have been up there on mine safety hearings, and it was my privilege to attend one of those party celebrations for my friend John Blatnik. I think you have sucdrnctly summarized the problems. Thank you very much for your appearance. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure to have been here. Senator METCALF. Senator Allott. Senator Aiiorr. Mr. Chairman, I think the next witness is to be Mr. John B. Rigg, Jr., executive secretary of the Colorado Mining Associa- tion. I hadn't been able to locate him in the room. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly happy to be able to introduce a man we ki~ow as Jack Rigg-I don't think very many people call him John-who for many years was an officer of the Colorado National Bank in Denver and whom I have known personally for a long time. Last year he was induced to accept t'he executive-secretaryship of the Colorado Mining Association and I only want to say that the con- vention of the Colorado Mining Association this year was, I think, the most successful meeting that people who are interested in mining business in this country have had in a long time. PAGENO="0187" 181 Under his leadership it has shown a new vitality and, Jack, I want to congratulate you on the part that you have played in that. I must say for the sake of the record, Mr. Chairman, as I just showed you, I have five committee meetings this morning and there were some questions which I had prepared to ask Mr. Rigg and I will stay as long as I can until I get called to the next meeting, but I don't think I will be able to stay through it. I have asked Senator Jordan if he will be so kind as to propound these questions to you, Jack, in the event I have to leave before you finish. It is nice to have you here. Senator METCALF. Mr. Rigg, you come under very distinguished auspices. We welcome you to the committee and you have a prepared statement. Go right ahead. STATEMENT OP J~OItN B. RIGG, COLORADO MINING ASSOCIATION Mr. RIGO. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Allott ; you are too kind. I appreciate it. I shall not read my entire statement. Senator METCALF. Thank you. Mr. Rmo. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am John B. Rigg, manager of the Colorado Mining Association, a volun- tary organization representing over 1,100 mineral operations and mineral fuel locations employing 16,000 persons and producing at an annual local market value of $366 million in Colorado. We appreciate the courtesy this committee extends in allowing us to present our thoughts on S. 3132 and the supporting data compiled prior to the introdu~tion of this legislation pertaining to the control of surface mining and reclamation of mined lands. We have reviewed the publication "Surface Mining and Our En- vironment," prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior, whidh presents an analysis of data on land disturbances. We were concerned about the Colorado figures so we obtained copies `of directives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service authorizing the compilation of figures. Also, we received copies of the directive from the Colorado State con- serva~hionist. These are attached as exhibits 1 and 2. We obtained the exact acreages cited as disturbed in each Colorado county (exhibit 4). We take exception to the Colorado figures compiled to support S. 3132 because the acreages cover the majority of our underground mm- ing operations. For example, Summit County supposedly has 1,208 acres disturbed by surface gold mining. Our figures indicate the county has had 287' acres disturbed by placer mining in `the streambeds `and on the benches ; all the rest is underground ithn'ing. Another example is the 350 acres of Clear Creek County disturbed by molybdenum mining. This is underground mining again. The discrepancy of the figures is not recited as criticism but shown to demonstrate the logh~al sequence of the directive from Washington (exhibit 1) which states on page 2: The aereages disturbed by mining since its beginning for each of the minerals should be estimated . . . This county report should be as reliable as possible without a field survey. A report compiled in the office that involves engineering data avail- able only by field survey is an insult to the men compiling the data and to the persons who are supposed to read the d'aita. PAGENO="0188" 182 I We believe Colorado is doing an excellent job of regulation on its surface min&l land and the attached resolut~on of the board of direc tors of the Colorado Mining Assoeu~tion (e~hibit 3) reaffirms our be hef in local control of mining We can handle our own problems The coal operators in Oolorado recla1med and reseeded 476 acres in 1967 disturbed by strip mining on a volunteer basis and the resultant vegetation is better cover for wildlife and better feed for cattle and sheep than adjacent range land left undisturbed. This volunteer program has reclaimed substantially all the land strip min&l for coal in the State. However, we cannot expect that $400 per acre be spent to fix up land costing $40 per acre so the choice of trees and seedlings and the grade and conthuring of the land should be based only on local conditions, not national directives. Sand and gravel operations in Colorado are usually near our metro politan centers and zoning bycourities or political subdivisions assure that these operations are neat and clean and that they do not present a hazard to the public Also, this assuies that these mineral resources are not preempted for other surface use In turn, the gravel operators have reclaimed the land for agriculture by distributing top soil over graded reject areas They have also stabilized the land for end uses such as parks, ponds, indus trial, home and business sites and as sanitary land fills Upgrading of the land following the production period has in creased the value of sand and gravel land many times its iaw acreage value and put it to `i~ better end use than would have been possible if the production period had not been assured We believe S 3132 section 3 (b) is not a statement of fact but is a condemnation of the mining industry of Colorado and we obj ect to its inclusio~t in the bill Pollution of water is covered by very sound practices of the Colorado Department of Health , land is improved for other uses and is not destroyed , we do not counteract efforts to con serve natural resources ; and we certainly do not destroy the property of citizens. We object to section 4 `is retroactive legislation We believe section 5 contemplates expenditures by the Federal and State agencies fir in excess of any amounts needed for a reasonable economic land stabiliza ton program We believe section 5 allows the Secretary of Interior to unnecessarily enter into the affairs of our St'ite Section 6 (a) puts persons opposed to mining on the `idvisory com mittee Section 7 (1) (A) does not protect mineral resource develop ment which we believe should be the basic criteria for any regulatory agency. Section 7(1) (C) (v) indicates that a State plan must contain criter~a ielating to the maintenance of `tccess through mined areas Does this mean the mine operator must open his property for a public road by a directive from a Federal employee or be liable as stated in section 7 ( 1 ) (F) for criminal penalities? Our position on S. 3132 is very simple : Problems of surface mining in Colorado are the problems of many years ago. Our current opera- tor~ are diligent, they recognize their responsibilities and they `ire reclaiming the lands Our undergroinid miners also are good citizens for they stabilize and maintain mine dumps and tailings ponds PAGENO="0189" 183 And this work, involving thousands of dollars, is done without Federal interference. We know that minerals are found in less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the earth's surface and that these resources are usually in the coldest, the hottest, and the most isolated, or the most densely populated areas. No property is at a location convenient for economical operation, for access, for beautification or for reclamation, because mineral deposits are simply where they are. We appreciate the nature of our industry and hope that you do also. If this committee follows its own previous objectives, it should encourage mining on both private property and public domain. You authorized the Public Land Law Review Commission to thoroughly investigate the mining industry and we are cooperating in that en- deavor. Why not wait until their recommendations are prepared and distributed before any new laws affecting mining are enacted ? And, contrary to the intent of S. 3132, insist that any legislation be based on a national minerals policy affirming `the fact that the United States must be self-sufficient in minerals. We are proud of `our ability in Colorado to produce metals sorely needed for national defense ; we are not receptive to legislation that prevents `self-reliance. Our support of the stait~ment by the American Mining Congress is wholehearted because they believe S. 3132 is not needed. Our opposition to this bill is firm because the bill condemns and restricts when it should enhance and encourage the mining industry. Tha~nk you. ( Information referred to follows:) EXHIBIT 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, Washin.gto~n, DXI., May 24, 1966. Advisory Intera-il. From : D. A. Williams, Administrator. Re study of surface and strip mining. NOTE: DEADLINE OF SEPTEMBER 1, i966 The Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 directed the Department of Agriculture to cooperate in the National study and survey of strip and surface mining in the United States. The purpose of this study is to present recom- mendations to the President, and he in turn to the Congress, for a long-range comprehensive program for reclamation of such areas. One of the immediate needs in the conduct of this study is to determine the extent of strip and surface mining activities in the United States. Knowing the acreage of these areas will be helpful to us for other uses also. Among these uses are to ass'ist Soil Conservation Districts in the development of their short- and long-term conservation programs and to supplement the information to be obtained in updating the Conservation Needs Inventory. Some of these acreage data have already been developed and transmitted to the Working Committee for the Strip and Surface Mine Study by the liaison representative appointed for this purpose by the State Governor. We know that some o'f you worked with the liaison representative on these data. For a number of States, however, data on surface mined areas are either unavailable or incom- plete. Some members of the Working Committee have discussed with us' here this fact and the manner in which we may `be able to assist in providing more adequate information. Accordingly, we `are requesting that you do `the following: 1. Contact the Governor's liaison representative (see Mr. Corgan's letter) and PAGENO="0190" 184 determine the extent to wMch the information requested on the attached form is available by counties~ 2. In those instances where the needed information has been transmitt&I to the Ohainnan of the Working Ooniniittee either of the following may be done: a. Arrange with the liaison representative to obtain the informiation for use in the State and transmission to this office, or b. Request this office to obtain the information from the Working Committee for transniisaion to you. 3. In States where the ~nformation is incomplete by counties, a. Discuss with the Governor's liaison representative our interest in these data and the effort we will make to olbtain them. b. Use the attached fO)rlfl to provide the information requested for each of the counties in which it is known that surface mining has been done. The State Conservation~st is requested to provide a list of counties in which surface mining has not occurred. The acreages ~Iisturbed by mining since its beginning for each of the minerals should be estimated. The estimates should represent the combined, and best informed, judgments of work unit staff and any other local information sources. This country report sthouid be as reliable as possible WIthout a field survey. All areas disiturbed by surface mining for these minerals, irrespective of present use or conditions of vegetative cover should be recorded. For example, building sites, cultivated fields, pastures, and wooded areas, formerly surface mined, should be included. One copy of each county report should be sent to D. M. Whitt by September 1, 1966. This Advisory may be discarded after the indicated action has been taken. D. A. WILLIAMS. ~ ExinnIT 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRIOULTUEE, SonS OONSERVAPION Srxavicu, Denver, clolo., June 14, 1966. Advisory Intera Colo-43 To : Work unit conservationists designated as county representatives. From : F. A. Mark, State conservationist SOS, Denver, Cob. Re Study of surface and strip mining. NOTE : DEADLINE DATE-AUGUST 1, 1966 We have been requested to assist in determining the extent of strip and surface mining activities in the United States. This information will be helpful in assisting soil conservation districts develop their short~ and long-term conserva- tion programs and to supplement information being ohtained to update the con- servation needs inventory. Use the attached form to provide the information requested. Two copies of the form are provided for each county and both should be returned to this office. If there is no activity in the county write "None" on the form and returil the copies. The acreages disturbed by mining since its beginning for each mineral involved should be estimated. The estimates should represent the combined, and best in- formed, judgments of work unit staffs and any other local information sources. Reports should be as reliable as possible without any field checking. All areas disturbed by surface mining irrespective of present use or conditions of vegetative cover should be recorded. For example, building sites, cultivated fields, pastures, and wooded areas that have been disturbed should be included. Minerals known to have been surface mined in Colorado include: coal, clays, gold, peat, feldspar, mica, perlite, pumice, sand and gravel, stone, uranium, and vermiculite-and possibly others. F. A. MAm~. PAGENO="0191" 185 ExHIBrr 3 RESOLUTION Whereas the CoLorado Mining Assoelation represents the men anti firms engaged in m~nera1 exti~a~4on from over 200 surface mines, q~aiTies and p1iaeer~ in Colorado ; and Whereas the State oi~ Oo1or~ado w~t'se1y and eonseienttou~s1y adininis~ers the recLamation of the sur~ace mined 1~nds by appropriate regu~aitions and agree- inents throng~h ~ts agenc~es and departments and by the zonhig regniatlions of its poliflical subdivisions ; and Whereas the Fedet~a1 Govermnent, through the Depairtnient of the Inter~or, proposes to regtrJiate mined land rec~wmatiion without reeognifikn of C~1omd'o's capability to regulate and adm~niister : Now, therefore be it Resolved by the board of d'ireotor8 of thi$ assocAaiion, That any necessary regulation of mined land reclamation should occur at the state level, should be adopited only after a careful technIcal and economIc evaiti~tion, and should be consistent with the encouragement of mineral development, the competitive economtos of miming operations and wIth the needs of other land uses. Further, all members of the State of Ooloradio delegation in Oongress be and are hereby urged to support continued state regulation of mined land recLamation. Adopted unanimously by the board of directors on April 19, 1968. JOHN B. RIOG, Man~ager. PAGENO="0192" EXHIBiT 4 TABULATION FROM REPORTS SUBMITTED (ACRES) COLORADO SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, 1966 STUDY OF SURFACE AND STRIP MINING County Clay Coal Stone Sand and Gold Iron Peat Beryl All Total Comment gravel other Adams 2,600 2,600 Alamosa 195 5 200 Arapahoe 900 900 Archuleta 2 50 52 Baca 20 70 90 Bent 10 40 5 555bentonite. Boulder 30 200 700 100 20 1,050 20-feldspar. Chaffee 750 320 100 326 200 1,696 200-feldspar. Cheyenne 1,200 1,200 Clear Creek 25 100 5,250 300 45 850 6,570 350-molybdenum; 150-feldspar; 300-uranium. Conejos 0 Costilla 15 20 40 7540-pumice. Crowley 32 32 Custer 15 15 Delta 20 20 Denver 0 Dolores 25 25 Douglas 35 10 28 5 20 98 20-feldspar. Eagle 600 750 500-gypsum; 100-silver and lead. Elbert 10 6 32 48 ElPaso 40 60 200 30 10 340 10-uranium. Fremont 500 800 45 20 10 275 1,650 100-gypsum; 100-feldspar; 15-mica. 30-vermiculite; 30-dolomite. 20 1 41 1-gypsum. 50 5,000 2,750 200 550 8,550 200-feldspar; 150-mica; 50-tungsten; 150-uranium. 50 50 Garfield 20 Gilpin Grand PAGENO="0193" 4. c~ ~ (00) (0 (`4 c~, - (0(0 ~ (0 (C) u~ C(~ ~ ~ (C) - - (`4~ (0 - C)) C'4 00 (`4 C') - - :;~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ 95-623-68-13 187 V(0 00 00 (`4 C'J('4 ? ~ CC) Q) (C) C) C) C') (`4CC) (C) ~ (0 00 00 (`4 PAGENO="0194" 1S8 Senator M*CALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Rigg. Senator Allott? Senator ALWTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Jack, I notice in the latter part of your statement a remark that you think that legislation should be based upon a national minerals policy affirming the fact that the United States must be self-sufficient in minerals. I am sorry I didn't have a chance to write this, because I would have written it in for you. You are aware, of course, that the bill offered by the senior Senator from Colorado to establish a national minerals policy has been lying dormant in the Congress now for some 7 or S years, and I think you are further aware that, although this was recently approved affirmatively by Dr. }Iibbard, who has just retired, this bill now languishes in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior awaiting his pleasure. Mr. Rioo. Yes, I am aware of this. Senator ALLOTT. How many acres have been disturbed by surface mining for oil shale in Rio Blanco County? Mr. Rioo. Although the Soil Conservation Service data that is at- tached states that 2,000 acres have been disturbed by oil shale mining, I don't think any have. I will give you 50 acres at the outside, but all of our oil shale mining is underground mining. Senator ALLorr. Do you know of any stripping of oil shale in Cob- rado? Ido not. Mr. RIGO. None that I know of. Senator ALLOTT. Exhibit 4 shows 640 acres disturbed by molyb- denum surface mining in Lake County. Is this correct? Mr. Rmo. No. This is the world's largest underground mine. Senator ALLOTT. And there is a development of molybdenum pro- posed on the East Range, and could you state generally the efforts that have gone on and the cooperation between the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to be assured that the tailings from that mine are adequately taken care of? Mr. Rioo. The background work they are doing on this new mobyb- denum deposit is costing millions of dollars just in the development of the capability to place the tails in an area where they will not be' unsightly and to prepare them in a manner so that they will never affect adversely the surrounding terrain. Senator ALLOTT. I notice a number of Colorado counties show on the exhibit that uranium mining has acreages disturbed. Is this sur- face mining? Mr. Rica. Again no. We checked this with the Soil Conservation people and it appears that these acreages that they claim are disturbed by surface uranium mining are discovery pits to meet the requirements' of the mining law. However, we in Colorado changed our law in 1961 so that you did not have to dig a discovery pit and not unnecessarily bother the' surface. Senator. ArL0TT. Are counties continuing to control land uses so that mining is encouraged? Mr. Rico. Yes. Basically the counties are doing a very good job and' they are also cooperating with the Bureau of Land Management, and' advisory committees, to rezone land. PAGENO="0195" 189 However, we do~ believe that the BLM is acting prematurely in some of their reclassifications and they should wait for the Public Land Law Review Commission report and in the meantime classify land only for multiple use. Senator. ALLorr. Does local reclassification have any hazards for the mining industry? Mr. RIGG. We think it does. You can have land withdrawn from mineral entry and then, if a miner makes a discovery in the land, he has ito get Federal approval for reelassification to allow mining, and we know of no instance in which this has been done. Senator ALLOTT. The delicate question always comes up between mining and the wilderness areas and I think my views on this have been well known but has anything been done about the wilderness areas in Colorado recently? Mr. Rico. Yes ; 230,000 acres of the San Juan primitive area and 560,000 acres of the upper Rio Grande primitive area are now being studied by the U.S. Forest Service for classification for wilderness. They are going to hold hearings this fall in various towns in Color- ado and we propose to make a statement at that time. Our statement will be based on the fact that the wilderness area program is contrary to what we believe is more important, this national minerals policy. Senator ALLOTT. Do you believe that wilderness areas are needed? Mr. RIGO. Yes, I do, but I think that they can and must be main- tamed with mining allowed so that we can have our self-sufficiency. Senator Ai~i~orr. You, of course, know the conGept of wilderness which is that, and I think I quote the statute, "the land must be and remain untrammeled by man" and so forth. Your emphasis, I gather, is that we should not lock up this land irrevocably without determin- ing the needs prior to that that this land might have for our national minerals and the development of our mineral resources in the country. Mr. Rioo. That is right. Senator ALLOTT. I want to thank you very much, Jack, for coming here. You have sat patiently through 2 days and we are happy to have you with us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RICO. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. No questions. Thank you. Senator METCALF. If there are no questions, Mr. Rigg, I too thank you for your appearance here and your presentation of the case of the mining interests of Colorado which are very much like those in Montana. Mr. Rioo. Thank you very much. Senator METCALF. The next witness is Mr. James L. Cox. We are pleased to have you before the committee, Mr. Cox. STATEMENT OF JAMES L. COX, GENERAL MANAGER, INTERNA.. TIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING PHOSPHATE COUNCIL OP FLORIDA; ACCOMPANIED flY ROBERT L. KOOB, DIVISION VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL MIN- ERALS & CHEMICAL CORP. Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. I am James L. Cox, general manager of Florida operations for International Minerals & PAGENO="0196" 190 Ohemioal Corp., and the current pre~i~[ent of the Florida Phosphate Council, Inc. Mr. Rcbert Koob, vice president of Internatiion~ü `Minerais & Chern- ical, and our Washington representative, is hei~e with me. The statement I would like to make is made in behalf of the Florida Phosphate Council, Inc., a trade association representing the 12 firms who either mine `or chemically process phosphate rock in Florida: Agi~ico Chemical Co. ; Armour Agricultural Chemical Co. ; Borden Chemical Co. ; Central Farmers Fertilizer Co./OentraJ- Phosphates, Inc. ; American Cyanamid Co. ; Farmland Industries~ Inc. ; W. IL Grace & Co., Agricultural Products Division ; Interiiati'onai Minerals & Chemical `Corp. ; Mobil Ohemical Co., Agricultural `Chemicals Di- vision ; Occidental Corp. of Florida ; F. S. Royster Guano Co. ; and Swift & Co. This membership includes most of the phosphate companies in Florida. `Mr. Koob, `I believe, has handed you some photographs for the corn- mittee's files. I am sorry I don't have very many copies, but they will perhaps be useful. Senator METCALF. This will be quite all right. `They are beautiful photographs and they will be included in the file of the committee for the consideration of the committee. Mr. `COx. Thank you. The principal `areas of operation are Polk and Hillsborough Counties in the central part of the `State and in Hamilton County in north Florida. Phosphate, one of Florida's greatest natural resources, is the basis for one of the `State's largest industries, contributing handsomely to the economic importance of the State and its people, providing jobs, pay- rolls, and business activities which add more than $200 million `a year to the economy of the State. In order to utilize this valuable mineral-one of the three major components in fertilizer and an important additive in animal feed- it rnust be recovered frorn beneath the earth's surface. Florida's phosphate deposits are found from 5 to 35 feet below the surface and the matrix-ore bearing body-usually measures between 5 and 30 feet in thickness. Due to the shallow depth involved, the uniform method of mining phosphate rock in this State is through the use of electric draglines in surface mining operation. Since the purpose of this hearing is to' collect information for your use in determining the advisability of invoking statutory meas- ures regarding reclamation of surface mined areas, the remainder of my remarks will be directed generally toward that subje~t. Since there are no State laws in Florida now governing reclama- tion of phosphate mining lands, I will attempt to describe some of the accomplishments of my industry which came about as a result of voluntary, self-disciplined action in this field. During the 30 or 40 years prior to 1961, reclamation and restora- tion of mined-over phosphate land had been undertaken from time to time by various companies, but usually with a specific project in mind. However, in 1961, members of the industry who were actively engaged in phosphate mining agreed that a more progressive approach to this matter should be developed. After a great deal of study, a joint state- ment of policy was approved, which stated: PAGENO="0197" 191 We are pledged to the planning of mining activities, where practical, so that the land involved shall help meet the esthetic and practical needs of the community. That declaration was a signal for the phosphate industry, col- lectively, and individually, to meet the challenge of land restoration. Thus began a concerted effort by the industry to formulate plans before mining, to make reclamation more feasible, to find better methods of reclamation, and to seek ways of making reclamation economical. Adhering to this self-governing policy, phosphate miners embarked on a widespread land reclamation effort that has earned the industry compliments from throughout the Nation, and brought eni~y from other surface miners in other parts of the country. The sincerity dis- played in carrying out this pledge is demonstrated by the dramatic results. During the 6-year period between 1961 and 1967 the phos- phate industry reclaimed or restored to beneficial use more than 15,000 acres of mined-over phosphate land. This figure represents reclama- tion or restoration of land equal to nearly 70 percent of the land mined during that entire period. These figures do not include hundreds of acres purchased and re- claimed by private developers, nor do they include large acreages donated or leased on nominal terms to the Audubon Society and other conservation groups. In many instances these tracts were left in rough condition pur- posely for the benefit of fish and wildlife propagation. Ducks and other waterfowl abound in the lakes and pit areas resulting from mining. This outstanding effort by the phosphate industry has not gone un- noticed. The New York Times on Sunday, March 5, 1967, identified the Florida phosphate industry's land reclamation program as an "in- dustry miracle" and proclaimed that the "phosphate companies in Polk County, Fla., mend their ways; reclaim blighted areas for recrea- tion: beautify land." The same article went on to say that the phosphate mining industry has pursued a program of land reclamation and landscape engineer- ing that possibly has had few, if any, equals in any other mining areas of the United States. Not only have community relations been greatly improved but the area also has become a pleasanter and more attractive place for both residents and visitors. In July 1967 the nationally known McGraw-Hill publication, Engi- neering and Mining Journal, devoted six pages and a color photo cover to the Florida phosphate industry reclamation effort. Engineering and Mining Journal labeled the industry's voluntary reclamation approach as "Mining's Green Thumb" and went into de- tail about preplanned mining, and said that reclaiming of phosphate ~t5 more economical, creates usable land from what once was ~on~idered~ useless swamp, and develops property for housing, recreation, con- servation, food production or forest products. The journal commented on the industry's tremendous economic con- tribution to the area and then noted what is not commonly appre- ciated, the .additionail dividends contributed by the indi~tstry in the PAGENO="0198" 192 I form of land for housing developments, for crops, for wildlife refuges, and for recreational activities. These added benefits are all possible because of a voluntary program of re claiming phosphate land after it has been mined Florida Trend magazine, one of the ranking business and profes- sional publications in the State, directed a segment of its January 1967 issue to the phosphate industry's conservation and reclamation move ment Referrmg to the mdustry reclamation, the publication reported this land conservation program has resulted in dramatic changes being made in the face of the earth in central Florida Scars Of mining-and there is no practical way to get the phosphate ore out of the ground except by digging-frecIuenlY exist only briefly. In some cases, the same dragline which digs the ore smooths the mounds of overburden as it moves along leaving attractive lakes surrounded by land which needs only bulldozing to be restored to use condition. It takes time. Phosphate companies cannot immediately reclaim all the land they mine, even if this were economicaliy feasible. The industry's system of conserving water requires that some of the land be used for settling areas, an important part of the water recirculation system. I submit to this committee that these are the findings of respected publications, following in-depth studies of the phosphate industry and its operations. We in the Florida phosphate industry firmly believe that the volun tary program of land reclamation which we have adopted and fol- lowed is exceptional in that it was fostered within the industry, is con ducted within the industry and, above all, has produced outstanding results. The success of this program demonstrates what can be accomplished when an industry tackles a problem at the grassroots level, as opposed to waiting for Government intervention Reclamation projects can be grouped `in three ba~ic categories : agri- cultural, recreational, and development The latter designation covers development of industrial, commercial and residential projects Due to the location of many of our mining operations-remote from population centers-a great deal of our reclaimed land has been de- voted to agricultural use. For example, experiments have revealed that citrus is exceptionally adaptable to reclaimed phosphate land and several thousand acres are now under cultivation. Secretary Udall's slides earlier this week showed such an orange grove in Polk County, Fla. Improved pasture also thrives well on reclaimed land and sizable acreages have been utilized in this manner Other areas are being uti lized for truck crops, grain crops-rye and oats-legumes, and large acreages have been placed under supervised timber management pro grams Recreation enthusiasts have reaped substantial benefit from the phosphate industry's land reclamation and restoration program which provides numerous picnic and park facilities throughout the area beveral phosphate pools have been developed into public beach areas, while some tracts have been left in rough condition for the hiker and nature lover to enjoy. PAGENO="0199" 193 The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, an official agency of the State of Florida, has reported that fresh water `bass and other species of fresh water game fish grow and reproduce at acceler- ated rates in the water areas resulting from mining. Fish and wildlife management under the direction of that commis~ sion is an important part of the cooperative program now underway between the phosphate industry and the public. Fish management programs have been instituted in 25 different pools and some 20 addi- tional pools are scheduled for stocking. Golf course development on reclaimed phosphate land has proven successful in several instances. Three courses in the area have utilized reclaimed land almost totally for 18-hole layouts and a fourth has expanded due to the availability of reclaimed land. Projects involving commercial, industrial, and residential develop- ment have and will continue to be one of the highest and best uses of reclaimed land, but this, of course, depends largely on the location of the land and its proximity to urban areas. Nonetheless, a number of residential developments have taken place on reclaimed land through- out the phosphate mining areas. Some have resulted from reclamation efforts by the companies involved and others through private develop- ment after purchase of the mined-over lands. A major example of reclamation for residential purposes is a 3,000- i~cre `tract near Lakeland in Polk County, Fla., which was formerly ~t marshy, swampy, unusable area and has now been mined and corn- pletely reclaimed. City planners have predioted that the highly de- sirable tract will provide homesites for an estimated 15,000 residents in the future. I could cite numerous other examples of low-lying, swampy areas that provided little benefit to anyone prior to mining that have been reclaimed to a useful condition following phosphate mining. How- ~ever, I will not take your time to elaborate `on these. In light of the progress and accomplishments which have resulted under the present voluntary system of reclamation, members of the Florida Phosphate Council can see no need for Federal land reclama- tion regulations. To enact legislation that would place the phosphate industry under such controls would be an unnecessary and wasteful expansion of Government control in the phosphate mining industry. Through this voluntary action, the phosphate industry has acknowl- edged the importance of reclaiming mined-over lands and restoring them to beneficial use. Our reclamation efforts are continuing and research is being done on more effective techniques. Through `this point, I have described `the tremendous progress which our industry has made in the field of reclamation. In so doing, I do not intend to imply that we have no problems, for that is not the case. We have one major operational problem, and a report covering reclamation in the Florida phosphate industry would be incomplete without describing it to you. It is a unique problem inherent in the phosphate rec ivery process. When the phosphate ore-bearing matrix is sent to the beneficiation plant, it consists basically of one-third sand or tailings, one-third colloidal clay particles, and one-third phosphate ore. PAGENO="0200" 194 In the beneficiation process the ore is separated fiorn the sand tailings and clays. The sand tailings do not have great moisture hold- ing capacity and may be readily used in reclamation projects. The ore, of course, is utilized to make salable products. The colloidal clays, however, create a very major problem. In order to conserve and reuse process water to the greatest extent, the suspended clays are circulated through a settling system and the better water is then withdrawn from the system for reuse. It is the ultimate disposal of these suspended clays which creates our difficulty. Many acres of land must be devoted to water recircula- tion systems and settling out the clays. However, there is an ionic attraction between the very small clay particles and the water in which they are suspended. This attraction causes the suspended materials to settle out very slowly. It usually takes 20, 30, or even 40 years after the area ceases to be used for water recirculation purposes for the suspended particles to become suffi- ciently consolidated to support even ordinary farm animals and equipment. Thus, such areas are not even candidates for reclamation for sev- oral decades. It is due to this problem that, at least according to present tech- nology, the phosphate industry can never reclaim 100 percent of the land mined. The process water must be conserved and reused. The colloidal clays must be settled out and deposited somewhere, and, it will be recalled, they constitute approximately one-third of the ore body. if some technological breakthrough could be found which would allow the suspended particles to be compacted into firm ground at a much more rapid rate, the phosphate industry could make even more significant strides in reclamation. It is precisely in this area that the Federal Government could be of tremendous assistance. Our industry would welcome a grant of Federal funds, or any other Federal assistance, in helping to solve this complex problem. If this were accom~ilished, industry and Government could work together in a constructive partnership which would allow us to produce even more notable reclamation results and better fulfill our steward- ship of the land. We have lately been working on this problem in a cooperative effort with the Bureau of Mines, but the results so far are quite meager due to lack of funds. In summation, the uniform Federal regulations as contemplated in the proposal now pending before you might be acceptable in some areas, but would be impossibly restrictive in others. We believe that tax funds could be most advantageously spent in assisting us with our technological pr~blem of colloidal clay disposal as I have described. However, if additional regulation is deemed neces- sary-and we do not believe it is-it can best be accomplished at State and local levels where specific solutions can be tailored to fit the unique problems of industry in the local area. In support of my presentation I would like to place in the record a number of photographic exhibits, complete with captions, which describe in detail the work being accomplished in land reclamation and restoration by the Florida phosphate industry. PAGENO="0201" 195 Senator MI~TOALF. The articles will be. printed ai~d th~ photographs kept in the committee files. ( The information referred to follows:) [From the New York Times, Mar. 5, 1967] INDUSTRY MIRACLE IN FLORIDA PHOSPHATE COMPANIES IN POLK COUNTY MEND THEIR WAYS, RECLAIM BLIGHTED AREAS FOR RECREATION, BEAUTIFY LAND (By 0. E. Wright) LAKELAND, Fr~A.-Each year, Polk County, which lies between Orlando and Tampa in central Florida, plays host to a million tourists. The principal attrac~ tions are Cypress Gardens, near Winter Haven ; the Bok Power at Lake Wales; the county's many lakes and unexcelled fresh-water fishing ; the largest citrus acreage of any county in the state, and the highest elevation in Florida-325 feet above sea level at Lake Wales and 215 feet here a4 Lakeland. This is also cattle and agricultural country, but, above all, it produces more . than .70 per cent of the nation's phosphate ore. Last year, this amounted to more than 2G million tons. Sixteen companies of national renown process phosphate here, but only eight of them mine the ore. These mining operations are largely concentrated in the western part of the county and along U.S. 60, which crosses the state from Tampa to Vero Beach. . $hort distances Major north-south highways alsQ pass through Polk County, including Inter- state 4, U.S. 17-92 and U.S. 98. All points in the county are within easy driving 4istance of both Orlando, which is in Orange County, and Tampa, which is in Jlillsborough County. At one time, the view that motorists had in passing through the phosphate region was blighted by huge mounds of the raw product. Then, in 1961, the phos- phate miners, through the Florida Phosphate Council, proclaimed this policy: "The phosphate mining companies `~ * * adopt as a policy the planning of mining activities * * * so that the land involved shall help meet the esthetic and practical needs of the community." Since that time, the phosphate-mining industry has pursued a program of land reclamation and landscape engineering that possibly has had few, if any, equals . in any other mining areas of the United States. Not only have community relations been greatly improved, but the area also has become a pleasanter and more attractive place for both residents and visitors. Meantime, another problem stemming from the processing of the ore-pollution of air and water-has been virtually overcome. Poflutio% controls The companies have spent some $30-million on research and equipment to minimize pollution. Operation of these control systems costs about $4-million a year~ Thousands of acres of mined-out land have. been reclaimed for recreation pur- poses. Extensive tracts have become public parks, while golf courses have been built on other restored acreage. Additional land has been used for planting pine trees, citrus groves, and field and truck crops, and for homesites. Reclamation has created hundreds of spring-fed lakes throughout the area, and three fish-management areas have been created by the Florida Game and Fresh- water Fish Commission. These contain 45 lakes, of which 25 have been stocked with large-mouth bass, channel bass and bream. So important has fresh-water fishing become in these management areas that the Fish Commission keeps a resident fish biologist on the job at all times to improve the angling. Last year, Polk County led the state, as it had in previous years, in the sale of fishing licenses. The management areas are: (1)----Saddle Creek Park (740 acres, including 500 acres of spring-fed lakes). This reclaimed area was donated to the county by the American tJyanamid Company. There is a bathing beach on a lake, picnic tables, riding trails and nature trails, and there are plans for a rifle range. Saddle Creek Is situated on U.S. 92 at a point east of Lakeland. PAGENO="0202" 196 (2)-Christina Park (1,100 acres) . This park is situated on Stwte Route 37 halfway between Lakeland and Mulberry, and has been leased to the state for $1 a year by the Mobil Chemical Company, a subsidiary of the Mobil Oil Corporation. Fishing, boating, picnicking and other outdoor activities have made this park one of the most popular recreation areas in C~ntral Florida. It has 250 acres of water in a dozen large pools. (3)-Pleasant Grove Fish Management Area (505 acres, with 31 pools, all rehabilitated phosphate pits) . This area, which lies on U.S. 60 at a point 20 miles. each of Tampa, is leased to the Game and Fresh-Water Fish Commission by the Agrico Chemical Company, a subsidiary of Continental Oil. According to the corn- mission, the most advanced fishing techniques are being used to manage the pools and to produce the best possible fishing. Other parks In addition to these fish-management areas, ether public parks have been cre- at&T. One of the first was Peace River Park, on the Peace River in Bartow. The :110 acres of this park were donated by Mobil's predecessor, the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation. The park Is operated by the county as a playground for residents and visitors. Water sports, including skiing, are among the activities. To the Florida Audubon Society, American Cyanamid has donated 300 acres of land east of Lakeland and has leased 13,000 acres of reserved property, some of which has been mined. This will be kept in its natural state for bird-watchers. Golf course Cyanamid has also `sold 825 acres of reclahned land at Sydney, 15 miles east of Tampa, for a private 18-hole golf course. The development will cost $500,000, of which $385,000 will be spent for a plush clubhouse. Also, a semi-private, 18-hole golf course has been creaited on land purchased from American Cyanamid. The property is off State Route 38A at a point near Lakeland. In addition to providing reclaimed land for public use the projects being car- ned out by various companies have provided many other noteworthy results. For example, Agrico Chemical now has 11 million pine trees on 45,000 acres. This is the largest planted forest in South Florida, and Agrico harvests 12,000 cords of wood from it each year. The wood is sold to pulp and paper mills. This company reaped a public relations benefit when it opened forests for hunting, fishing and camping. Some of the waters on Agrico's land yield bass up to 10 pounds each. Hunters find quail, wild turkey and wildcat. Grass piaated The International Minerals and Chemical Corporation covered 500 acres of ponds with phosphate tailings (clay and sand, and planted watermelon and grasses thereon. It plans to expand the project to 1,000 acres. The Agricultural Products Division of W. R. Grace & Co. will reclaim 1,165 acres of land adjacent to the town of Mulberry, which is unable to expand toward Lakeland to the north and to Bartow to the east. These three cities form what is known as the "golden triangle" of Polk County. This company has also aided the city of Auburndale with a unique project. l3nmined reserves adjacent to that city were formerly a breeding place for mosquitos. Grace cleared the undergrowth, restored the flow of fresh water through canals, and is maintaining the land so that the insects do not return. Needless to say, the city's residents and visitors are grateful. The Armour Agricultural ChemIcal Company did a similar mosquito-clearance job for Bartow. It cleared 160 acres on `the western edge of the city, part of it within the city limits. The tract has been reclaimed and will be used for residen- tial development. In the field of housing, American Cyanamid will reclaim 2,000 acres adjacent to Lakeland for development as homesites. Another 220 acres southeast of Lakeland are now being similarly developed. CITRuS GROVES The development of citrus groves has been another major result of land recla- mation. For example, phosphate companies have planted more than 5,500 acres of citrus in the Polk-Hillsborough area. The largest citrus grower among these PAGENO="0203" 197 concerns is the International Minerals and Chemical Cerporation, which has 2,OO~ acres under cultivation. The aim of the phosphate miners now is to reclaim one acre for each acre mined out, a process that is restoring the countryside to the attractiveness that the re- mainder o~ Polk County presents to the visitor. Only a short driving distance from the phosphate area is Winter Haven and its Cypress Gardens, which has already planned a multi-million-dollar expansion in anticipation of greater tourist volume from Disney World, a vast project soon to rise near Orlando. The Cypress Gardens Sheraton, a 165-unit motel opposite the entrance to Cypress Gardens, was opened last month. It has a rooftop convention hall seating 700, while another comrention hail will seat 400. Here in Lakeland, plans are being discussed for a civic auditorium that would be used for such varied purposes as sports, recreation and cultural entertainment. MINING'S GREEN THUMB-MINE PLAN ~`oa TOTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT-SIMUL- TANEOUS MINING-RECLAIMING OF PHOSPIIATE HOLDINGS Is MORE ECONOMICAL-. CREATES USABLE LAND FROM WHAT ONCE WAS CONSIDERED USELESS SWAMP, AND DEVELOPS PROPERTY FOR HOUSING, RECREATION, CONSERVATION, FOOD PRODUCTION OR FOREST PRODUCTS One of Florida's greatest assets-the richness of its phosphate deposits-con- tributes handsomely to the economic importance of the state and its people. Jobs, payrolls and business activities of phosphate mining add more than $250~mil1ion a year to Florida's economy. The industry also employs over 10,000 state resi- dents, who earn more `than $70-million annually. In addition, allied industries furnishing goods and services to the phosphate producers employ thousands of other workers earning many more millions of dollars. Phosphate shipments also help make Tampa the largest port between New Orleans and Norfolk, ranking it among the first six ports in the nation in freight car unloadings. In 1966, Florida's production of 21.0-million long tons of phos- phate rock accounted for about 28% of the global output of approximately 75- million long tons. From this state's total, 7-million long tons of phosphate rock were exported to foreign customers, a market vital to the future economic health of the Industry and the community around it. These are the dollar and cent values of the industry to the public. What is not commonly appreciated are the additional dividends contributed by the industry in the form of land for housing developments, for crops, for wildlife refuges, and for recreational activities. These added benefits are all possible because of a vol- untary program of reclaiming phosphate land after it has been mined. Coordinating this voluntary plan is the Land Use & Reclamation Committee, of the Florida Phosphate Council (FF0) , whose members are : Agrico Chemical Co. Div., Continental Oil Oo~ ; American Cyanamid Co. ; Armour Agricultural Chemi- cal Co. ; Borden Chemical `Co. ; Smith-Douglass Div. ; W. H. Grace & Co., Agri- cultural Products Div. ; Farmland Industries Inc. ; International Minerals & Chemical Corp. ; Mobil Chemical Co., Agricultural Chemicals Div. ; Occidental Agricultural Chemicals Corp. ; and F. S. Royster Guana Co. A non-profit trade organization of Florida phosphate rock processors, FPC is largely responsible for this pictorial review of what is being done with reclaimed land in the industry. The most sophisticated method of land restoration-simultaneous mining-re- claiming-~was developed in 1960 by American Cyanamid Co. This system evolved over many years, and was an outgrowth of a need to reduce reclaiming costs to a reasonable amount. Earlier attempts at land reclamation produced costs cx- ceeding $1,000 per acre, and this figure was considered uneconomical in this highly competitive plant food raw materials industry. Under the new method, all land mined, except that needed for waste colloidal clay settling and water conservation basins, can be restored immediately to a value that is equal or greater than its original worth. Essentially, land reclamation is made an integral part of mine planning and mine operations by deciding before exploitation starts what the ground should look like after the deposit is depleted. Since phosphate rock removal leaves pits which eventually become lakes, it may be desirable to plan for these lakes in a logical manner. Mine cuts are designed to accomplish this, and the engineering layout on the preceding page illustrates the method. PAGENO="0204" 198 The system involves the division of large tracts of mineable land in smaller segments, which are in turn subdivided in a series of smaller blocks. These blocks, and their sequence in mining, allow for the movement of the draglines and pipelines as mining progresses. Mine managers must keep in mind that the blocks are to be a unified tract of usable land when mining is completed, and take in consideration the mine depth, the overburden to mine depth ratio, the reached of the dragline, and the contour of adjacent property. NEW SYSTEM CUTS RECLAIMING COSTS 40 PERCENT Conventional mining employs cuts 200-ft wide (using draglines with 175-ft booms) up to 2,0004t long. Ovei~burden is cast in adjacent cuts, usually in high banks. By contrast, the simultaneous mining-reclaiming technique pivots short cuts around what will be a future lake, distrihuting overburden in previously mined cuts to about ground level. Bulldozers then have a relatively easy job of grading the overburden as planned. For example, the layout shows a plan which anticipates an overburden ratio of about 50%. In this case, cuts are designed for 250-ft widths and 400-ft lengths, backed by another 225-ft wide cut. The area thus reclaimed represents 310-ft in land measurement with a 310-ft lake. Note how the pipeline system (shown as a solid line) anticipates mining progress and only a minimum number of changes. Cyanamid's experience indicates that the cost for mining with simultaneous reclaiming is about on par with conventional methods, but has found that recla- mation costs are slashed by 40%. COMPANIES RECLAIM LANE VOLUNTARILY Mining companies represented in the Florida Phosphate Council voluntarily pledged that their mining will be conducted so "mined land will be reclaimed when possible and will meet the esthetic and practical needs of the community." It is not possIble to restore all land to the condition indicated in the illustra- tions. Large areas must be used as setting ponds for storage of clays, wastes from the beneficiation plant, and as part of the vital water recirculatlon system for process needs. However, once such areas become inactive, they may be used for a variety of agricultural purposes. As the phosphate area grows economically, with a larger population needing more usable land, the valu~ of most mined phosphate land will appreciate and make reclamation more attfactive. Even now, it is estimated that phosphate companies are currently reclaim- Ing average equal to 75% of that mined. In addition, much mined-over lands is in the hands of private investors who are reclaiming it themselves for home and buMness sites, as well as for agriculture. RECLAtMED LAND SERVING THE PUBLIC Reborn land (recIaim~d) is a bold idea which originacted from the phosphate con~panies with the aim of upgrading and advancing the general welfare of thb comInTuMty. The baste contribution of these comipaniies consists of m~ainta~ining a profitable operation which benefits the overall economy. However, of almost equal impoitan~e is the development of ~a1uahle 1a~d from property once left upturned and fallow after mining was completed. It is essentially an obli~atio~ fulfilled on a voluntary basi:s. No longer is scarred, useless wa~te~and the necessary aftermath of phosphate miming. Pr~of of this statement exists in the impressive array of recrelational areas available for like enjoyment of the public. Those ~arks and lakes were con- triibuted by the various phosphate mining oom~pai~ies from land that has been mined and then reclaimed for other uses. One of the ñn~t e~am~pie's of this program is a 315~acre traCt of land given to the Florida Audubon Society for use as a wildlife san~ctt~ar~. This donation by Amerk~an Oyanamlid Oo., established the largest reserve in the state owned out- ri~bt by the Siodety for the preserv~ti.omn of in~digenous birds, boaSts and fish. It is a big step toward conServing onr natural heritage. Outstanding among the many beautiful parks in e~istenee is Peace River Park, east of Bartow, and Saddle Creek Park, east of Lakeland, Fla. Peace River Park, turned over to the city of Bartow, and Saddle Creek Park, now a po~ultar beach, PAGENO="0205" 199 pIJCITJiC, and ~een~c traills area, were deeded l~o Polk Oeui~ty by krne~ican Cy1anam~d Co. The many lakes in the Saddle Creek Park make Lt an ide~a~ spot for the lich- h:ig enthusiast. A large puiblie recreational area south of T~akelancl, known as Christina Park, Is leased (rent free) to the community by Mo~bil ChemIcal Gb. This land was once mined hydraulically, but because otf the poor recovery methods then available, enough mineral value situ remains in the area to warrant mining it over some- time in the future. Until then, it will be used as a public park and, eventually, it will be mined, reclaimed, and afterwards made availa;b'le again for public use on a permanent basis. Just east oi~ Tampa, on a mined-over tract o~ land is the Pleasant Grove Fish Managemeut area, whiuh is under the supervision o4~ the F1or~da Game & Fresh Water Fish Oommission. This area, partially owned by Continental Oil Co. and American Cyanatinid Oo. is extremely popular. Education has been a recipient of the benefits of phosphate mining too. Armour Agrijeulturial Chemical Oo. deeded the Polk Ooiinty school board a piOce of prop- erty built-up from mineral exhausted land, on which an e1ementary s~hioel is presently located. In 196G, Armour Agricultural Chemical Oo. deeded the Florida State Road Dept. a tract of land along the Bartow city limits. This property will serve as a roadway connedting state Highways 60 and 555, and will allow travelers going `s'omth to bypass Bartow. More important, it keeps heavy truck traffic off city streets. Arn~ur has also reclaimed 1G9-acres within Bartow city limits, and will soon deed the pi~operty to a local development company that participated in the recla- niation project. This is land much needed by Bartow for residential building. Also con~pleted in 19~G is a new road built by International Minerals & Chemi- cal Corp. upon old tailing deposits left from one of i~s plants. Mter county en- gineers found the new road conformed to government specifications, the public road it replaced was closed. ]~spdcially noteworthy for its cultural value is the gift of a 10-acre site by Interi~ational Minerals & Chemical Corp. to the city of Baitow for a $1.O~mlllion civic center. Ground was broken for the start of this project in October 196I (to he opened in July) , and the ~ were just outside of Bartow-have now been incorporated within city limits. Bartow city manager and other officials plan a 40-acre recreational complex in this area, involving the civic ceniter, swim- ming pools, tennis courts, plus football and baseball fields. The additional 30~acres ne~ded to complete the complex are now owned by Mc~bil Chemk~ai Co., and a section of it is being mined. 1A~pieo Cheniicai Co. has some 45,000-acres of forest preserve, which are ac- ~iveiy managed and improved. Re~enfily, Agrico in cooperation with the Gulf Ridge Council of the Boyscouts of America, has made available more than 10,000-acres of forest area for hiking and ~amping. Five clamp grounds have been built along some 20 miles of marked hiking ti~ails. Agrko officials say the cam~sites are booked stolid every weekend. RECLAIMED LAND SERVING THE INDUSTRY On the profit side of the picture, diverse enterprises have been formed to take advantage of reclaimed phosphate land, and the products derived from the effort bring in important sums of money, which help pay taxes on the large land holdings retained by each company. Since Lakeland represents the hub of the citrus area, it is natural that re- claimed land in this section should be tested for growing orange and grapefruit crops. More than 5,500-acres of citrus groves are owned by the phosphate companies, and most of them are operated commercially by their own personnel. Reclaimed land is proving to be ideal ground for grove sites, and Mobil Chemical Co. leads in citrus plantings on reclaimed land, although Continental O~1 Co. also has substantial orange and grapefruit trees on restored mined-out property. Mobil alone has 825-acres under test in its Phosmico reclamation area. Approx- imately 325-acres of this total are in citrus plantings. Besides this, about 350- acres outside of this area are also planted with citrus trees. Feeding the needs of the groves for tree stock requires a nursery, and Mobil grows its own citrus trees for use in its expanded program for reclaimed land. PAGENO="0206" 200 I The 8,000 young trees being raised in the Phosmico nursery will plant more than 100-acres of grove. INTEREST IN CITRU5 GROWING INCREASES The interest in reclaimed land for citrus grove sites is increasing rapidly since initial experimental work is complete, and it has been shown that profitable yields can result from such plantings The largest citrus grower among the phosphate companies is now Interna tional Minerals & Chemical Corp with 2 000 acres in citrus cultivation but not necessarily on reclaimed land. One third of International Minerals large fruit acreage is already producing and it is expected that the balance will be bearing fruit within two to five yeais Future plans by International Minerals call for additional citrus plantings on reclaimed land. As a result of a special study conducted by its staff, IMC saves mature trees from land assigned for mining, severely cuts the trees back, and then transplants them to reclaimed land. In addition to saving the trees, experi- ence shows that the trees bear fruit much quicker than nursery stock. International Minerals says that all of its producing groves are yielding well above the state average of 200 or more boxes of oranges per acre. VARIETY OF COVER CROPS EVALUATED IMC's most extensive reclamation project has as its site the 1,000-acre Achan tract on which reclamation has been completed. Most of the area was occupied by settling areas and debris piles, bounded by Highway 37 on the east and State 640 on the south. A triangular area at the intersection of these two roads is being left as a possible wayside park location. Of the total acreage available about 120 acres of the higher and best drained ground are being reserved for citrus with some 80 acres to be planted in 19~l7 Both slash and sand pines are being planted with fiD acres being combined pasture and pine land. Another 35 acres are being planted exclusively to pines. One planting of sand pines is for Christmas trees. Another 180 acres will be planted with Argentina bahia, and Pangola grasses for pastures. Irrigation for the groves will be with pump and power units salvaged from an old grove, with the water being taken from the old Achan well. Portions of the Achan tract, during reclamation, have been leased for water- mellon crops. First step toward the reclamation, after the Achan washer was closed in 1961 and moved to its present location was the digging of six miles of ditches to begin draining the settling areas. The Aehan reclamation project is one of several where phosphate companies have earned land full-circle through mining, as well as use as an active settling area, removal from settling systems, reclamation, and return to active use for other purposes. Continental Oil Oo. planted 110 acres of citrus trees during the 1965-196~ season, and now has 115 acres plaiited on reclaimed land. Oonoco's citrus plant- ings will continue as suitable grove land is developed and the economics of citrus growing remainsi sound. Agrico Chemical Co. has recently reclaimed an old settling area comprising 400 acres. This is now leased to local truck farmers, and due to the high level of fertility, this crop land has proven very successful. w R Grace & Co has profited so well with its citrus crops that it has scheduled fruit-tree plantings of 120 acres annually for the next five years, and much of it will be located on reclaimed land. It already operates an additional 150-175 acres which consist largely of grapefruit plantings. Mobil is also expenmenting with other crops to determine how they will grow in reclaimed soil. All of this experimental work is being carried out in the Phos- mice reclamation area, with 12 acres planted in peaches and 1~1/~ acres in blackberries. Because of the universal settling pond problems s experience with cover crops should be of interest to many mine managers. This company now has 100 acres of pasture on old waste colloidal clay areas with bahia, Argentina bahia Pensacola bahia and Aeschynomene cover In addition three acres have been designated for planting with Okinawa lespedeza buffeigrass signaigrass arb peanuts and hernarthria atlissima grass and legume. Although it is too early to say which is the most satisfactory cover, tests made by mining corn- panies outside Florida indicate that buffeigrass is a auitable cover crop. I PAGENO="0207" 201 Other projects exist, but their inclusion would only duplicate what has been illusitrated in this article previously. Needless to say, phosphate companies are serving the community hnd are profiting from their efforts of reclaiming mined- out ianL Attesting to the importance placed on these many contributions of reborn land Is Bartow's annexation of at least 60 acres of International Minerals & Ohemical Oorp.'s land over the years. Reclaimed land is truly contributing to the communities in "phosphate land." Mr. Cox. Thank you for allowing me to appear. Senator METCALF. The photographic material which is not suscep- tible to reproduction in our hearing record will be kept for the corn- mittee's reference. The other materials you submitted will be printed as a part of your remarks. Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. Mr. Oox, what is the value of the phosphate in- dustry in dollars, since its inception in Florida ? Do you have that figure? Mr. Cox. I can approximate a figure, Senator Jordan. The inS. dustry has been active in Florida since about 1885. Of course it was very small in the early days. The present capital investment is some- thing over $500 million a year. There are over 10,000 people employed. The current contribution to the centrat Floi~ida economy is something over $200 million per year. Senator JORDAN. Annually? Mr. COx. Yes, sir ; annually. Senator JORDAN. In terms of total production you wouldn't have a figure ~ Could you supply such a figure to the committee? Mr. Cox. The total production last year was about- Senator JORDAN. No ; I am speaking of the industry and the total extraction from the Florida phosphate beds. Mr. Cox. I do not have that figure, sir. Senator JORDAN. Can you get it? Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. I wish you would. What I am trying to establish, as we go along here, is the economic value of the land before mining started, the economic value of the product removed, and the subse- quent value of the land after removal of the product mined. I think that is important as we develop the facts for this committee. Except for the trouble you have with your colloidal clays the value after mining would appear to be quite as good as it is before mining. Is that a fair statement? Mr. Cox. In some cases, Senator, the value is significantly higher. In central Florida even today with the Florida land boom on, rough lands in central Florida sell for $125 to $150 per acre. This is today's market price for phosphatic type lands prior to the discovery of phosphate. The value of the minerals from these lands is probably $60,000 to $70,000 per acre, $6 or $7 per ton times an average figure of about 10,000 tons per acre extracted. The clay ponds themselves have a value and have been sold re- cently. They have been tested in the marketplace at a value of some $50 per acre to private landowners who are willing to pay that now in anticipation of ultimate reclamation privately. Reclaimed lands in the rural areas have a value again of about $150 per acre. Reclaimed PAGENO="0208" 202 lands in the immediate environs of the communities have values of $1,500 or $2,000 per acre. Senator JORDAN. Of course the whole country has experienced rising land values. This is true throughout the whole country, more par~ ticularly so perhaps in your area down there. Mr. Cox. I was very jealous of someone who talked about $8-an~ acre land. Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. Senator METCALF. Mr. Cox, I think that everyone on the committee and everybne that is aware of the accomplishments of the phosphate industry commends you for your activity, your initiative in having this voluntary reclamation and restoration of the land. The work of the industry, as you have described it, is exactly what I think Secretary Udall and I conceive of what we would like to achieve by this legislation. Sometimes you have restored it to agri- cultural land. Sometimes you have given it to conservation organiza- tions. I serve on the Migratory Bird Oonservation Commission, which invests duck stamp money for additions to our water fowl refuges, and some of that land has been given to the refuge system. Sometimes it is used, as your pictures so eloquently show, for swimming pools, for recreation areas, for fish and lakes, boating areas, and I do think that you have done an outstanding job. You merit the commendation of all of us. I doubt if the passage of this legislation would affect you in any way whatsoever. I think you are doing the kind of thing that we are seeking to do in some other areas and had other industries and other mining companies been as forward looking as you are there wouldn't have been any legislation such as this proposed. I can see that you want to comment. Mr. Cox. Thank you, `Senator Metcalf, for the commendation. Thank you on behalf of the industry. We oppose the present proposed bill, not because we oppose land reclamation. Our record I think is clear. Our record speaks for that. Senator METCALF. It speaks for itself. Mr. Cox. We feel that some of the requirements of the bill are not necessary-the necessity for permits, the necessity for submission of detailed prepianning, the administrative routines that will be inherent in such a bill in implementing such a bill. These are the parts of the legislation that we opposed and oppose quite vigorously. We do not oppose the purpose of the bill. Senator METOALF. Certainly I am grateful for your appearance here 1 there is a great deal of persuasiveness in your presentation in -- ~ the record of your industry. you very much. Thank you. r METOALP. Now we will have Mr. Widner and Mr. Spurling of Missouri. STATEMENT OP S. R. WID~1ER AND J~OHN SPURLING OP MISSOURI Mr. WrDN~n. Gentlemen, on account of the duplication we are go- ing to throw our notes away. We will file a statement. We want to talk to you a little bit. PAGENO="0209" 203 Senator METCALF. Thank you very much. Mr. WIDNER. We represent a new area that is being opened up in western Missouri, 18,000 acres that will be mined by the GuH Oil Co., and we are sent here by the residents of that community. Senate bill 3132 will help us immeasurably because we will be at a standstill as we have been for 75 years because we cannot get any- thing done toward reclaiming that land. Senator Jordan has been want-~ ing to know what land is worth before and after. Before that land was worth $250 or $300 an acre. Land in that area is being abandoned as it is worked and being turned back, 50 percent of it, to the coun- ties and the rest is going in as wasteland and valued at $5 an acre~ I bought some at $35 an acre and right beside it I am putting in an irrigation deal that will cost $40,000. I operate about 4,000 acres there, and this will be worth about $40,000 and that land right be- side it that I bought for $35 will be worth $300 an acre. That is the before and after. I want to say `and I want to impress upon you that bill 3132 will help us wonderfully. Now, as to what is going to `happen to us in our neighborhood of 18,000, I want to say that 70,000 acres in Kansas. and 60,000 acres in Missouri have been mined and, contrary to what we heard here yesterday, none of it has been reclaimed. Well, let's say that a negligible part has been reclaimed `and the rest has been there for 5, 10, 15, or 75 years and will not be reclaimed unless something is done here. I would like to introduce at this time Mr. Spurling. He is also a farmer in that area. He has a statement he wants to read to you and then I want to make a few comments afterward, but if you want to ask us any questions we would welcome the~m. Senator METCALF. We will refrain from interrogating until after we hear from Mr. Spurling. Mr. SPURLING. Senator Metcalf and Senator Jordan, I am John Spurling of Fort Scott, Kans. I am chairman of the Crawford County Soil Conservation District, also chairman of the Southeast Kansas Reclamation Committee. I am also a farmer and a conservationist. In Kansas, approximately 70,000 acres have been disturbed by strip mining and according to statistics there are more than 1 million acres that can and `will be mined `for coalin the future. In the State of Missouri approximately 60,000 acres have been surface mined and likewise according to statistics more than 1 million acres will be mined. Thousands and thousands of acres have already been purchased or leased `by `mining companies. Strip mining in the United States has grown into a tremendously large business. Our natural resources of land and water are being depleted at a rate beyond imagination due almost entirely in some States to unabated strip and surface mining. In Kansas the `average size farm is 350 acres. The 70,000 acres that have already been mined represent 200 farmers who have been forced from the land. Now we all know that each farmer in the United States produces enough food for 38 people. In other words, for each 350 acres of land in Kan's'as that are destroyed by surface mining, 38 people must find food products from some other source, but with proper control and reclamation require-. ments we can have both farming and mining. 95-623---68------14 PAGENO="0210" 204 God put coal under the earth for man's use, and He also made avail- able large powerful machines to obtain this coal, but we do not believe Re meant complete destruction in the process. In Kansas and Missouri the coal companies' investments in tax- supported facilities are held to an absolute minimum. All attempts to impose a severance tax on coal has been beaten. How practical is it for the Federal Government to spend thousands of dollars for soil and water conservation practices when the same land so benefited by such practices will, within a few years, be completely destroyed by strip and surface mining? Should taxpayers have to pay to restore the affected area when the damage was done by one industry ? Must our natural resources suffer complete destruction for the profits of so few? We cannot and we must not continue on this disastrous course. We are running on a schedule that is approximately 80 years late in the enactment of reclamation laws, but there is no time like the present to begin. The mining companies state that without the minerals they mine we could not remain a powerful Nation This is true, but a hungry nation is not a powerful nation. The philosopher Seneca once said, "A hungry people listens not to reason or cares for justice or is bent by any prayers." Gentlemen, this coming population explosion and the food shortage that will invariably come cannot be taken lightly. In areas of over- population, starvation is already prevalent, and as our population soars, we too will face the same crisis. At present, thousands of acres of land are lying idle due to the feed grain program, the soil bank programs, and so forth, but even with these acres back in production our need for food will eventually sur- pass our ability to produce it. The land and water of the United States belongs to the people of the United States and its future generations who must be protected against the total destruction of our natural resources. Some of the States in our Union do have strip mining laws, and many do not. In Kansas a strip mining law was passed this year, but since the coal companies were the authors of the new law, the conserva tion people of Kansas are skeptical and the effectiveness of the new law remains in doubt. Some day in the coalfields of America, after the coal companies have left and taken their money with them and left a desolation of complete waste and destruction behind, welfare and not mining will provide income for the people who remain. Our Nation cannot face the future with the remnants of these horn- ble manmade scars across her face. We must eventually pay a stagger- ing price for dirt-cheap electricity and repair the damages caused by the huge strip machines. It is aboslutely not our intentions to cause a hardship to any com pany or put any coal company out of business, as almost everyone uses coal or a byproduct of coal in his everyday living. But if this land must be stripped it would seem to us, it should be restored to a condition that would permit the establishment of economically feasible conserva- tion practices and use of the land within its best capabilities for public and community needs. I PAGENO="0211" 205 The American population is growing rapidly ; estimates of the U.S. Bureau of Census indicate a population of 300 million by the year 2000. We have now surpassed the 200 million mark. We are running full steam ahead on a course between diminishing natural resources and an ever-increasing population. God gave us one creation and there will be no more, but it can be effectively diminished by industrial processes which include strip mm- ing for coal and similar operations. Under any enlightened philosophy the present occupants of the land hold it in trust for future genera- tions and are under a positive obligation to pass it on in a tolerable state. Who will pay for the reclamation ? We know, or we should know, that reclamation costs will be included in the price paid by the con- sumers. But if this is `done, society will have discharged its respon- sibility to the future. Recently one of the major coal companies in our area signed a con- tract with a Kansas power company for 12 million tons of coal to be. delivered over a period of 20 years. At 3,000 tons of coal per acre, a total of 4,000 acres must be mined to achieve this goal. We know this particular power company has a total of 199,625 customers. Figuring 200,000 `customers, which they could easily have in 20 years, and figuring reclamation costs at $300 per acre, this would amount to an increase of approximately-now get this-3 cents per customer per month, or 36 cents a year. We feel this will not cause a hardship to anyone. No doubt a powerful lobby will oppose this strip mining law but no lobby is so potent, however, as a lobby of embittered citizens bent on protecting the `beauty and prosperity of this Nation, and their tax money as well. The counterattack against a grave danger to our welfare can begin this session of the 90th Congress No more imperative business will come before this session than truly effective regtilations of strip mining. The coal companies advocate, "Leave us alone, we will take care of our own reclamation." Mr. Chairman, the coal companies in our area have done practically nothing since they began mining 75 or 80 years ago. An attempt at restora~tion has been made but the majority of the mined lands still lie in complete destruction They also advocate, "This is not the proper time to impose Federal legislation." Now, Mr Chairman, I advocate, "This is the time and this is the place " We must have Federal legislation, we must have rigid Federal legislation that will make the States shape up and get with it Some sources stress the spoilbaiiks will in time heal themselves. Now I have been on this earth more than 40 years. Some spoilbanks in our area were there 40 years before I came, and they have not healed themselves and they never will without help from the taxpayers. If you would like `to become sick at your stomachs, have your heart bleed for our future Americans, come into our area and watch the huge shovels rip, torture, and destroy the mother earth, God's greatest gift to man and the very thing which our existence entirely depends on You will wonder how civilized man can be so cruel and yet advocate PAGENO="0212" 206 what an asset they are to our society. With proper reclamation laws they can be an asset. After everything has been said by the mining interests and stripped of window dressing, all that is left is this, "Let us mine wherever the deposits are found and wherever we can, economically to us, reclaim the land we will do so to whatever extent we see fit. If we feel that it is not economical for us to reclaim, let us mine anyway and let some- one else at some other time bear the cost of whatever reclamation may be necessary." There are not two sides to this issue. Quite the contrary, there is only one, and that one is complete control and reclamation on the affected areas in all future strip and surface mining operations. Gentlemen, our future is at stake, it rests in your hands. Make it bright. Mr. Ohairman and members of the committee, thank you for the op- portunity to appear before you, testifying in behalf of the people of Kansas and Missouri, urgently requesting the passage of Senate bill 3132. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Spurling. Now you wish to make a statement, Mr. Widner? Mr. WIDNER. I would say this : That the `Secretary of the Interior and Vice President Hubert Humphrey were out to our country last year and they saw land that had been reclaimed and was raising 41 bushels of wheat and producing 300 pounds of `beef per acre. Now, we know that when it is properly done this land can be saved. We need the coal, `but we need the land. And we thank you, gentlemen, very much. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for your very eloquent and moving statement. `Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. You have made an effective presentation of the irate and aroused citizenry of people who come from an area that has been abused, in your statement, by the miners. Have you made such a statement before your respective State legis- latures and if so, how were you received? Mr. SPURLING. We might just as well not have been there. Mr. WIDNER. We are wasting our time until we get a bill like 3132 to back us. Mr. Srm~LINa. We have to have this, gentlemen. Senator JORDAN. Is there any regulation of strip mining in the State of Missouri? Mr. WIDNER. No. Senator JORDAN. No regulation at all? Mr. WIDNER. No. Senator JolmoN. And your law in Kansas is ineffective? Mr. SPTJRLING. We do not know. It will not take effect until 1969. But the coal companies were the authors of the law and consequently we are skeptical of the effectiveness of it. Senator JORDAN. Don't you have a government of the people in Kansas? Mr. SPtnu~INa. Yes. Mr. WIDNER. It doesn't work. It is theory only. Thank you. Senator METOALF. Thank you both. Mr. SPURLING. Thank you. PAGENO="0213" 207 Senator METCALF. Our next witness is Mr. Coyle, president of the Pr~ciscion Aerial Reclamation of Kentucky. Mr. Coyle, we are pleased to have you before us and you may go right ahead with your state. ment. STATEMERT OP WALTER A. COYLE, PRESIDENT, PRECISION AERIAL RECLAMATION Mr. COYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, I am Walter A. Coyle, president of Precision Aerial Reclamation, with headquarters .in Middlesboro, Ky. I have been responsible for the pioneering of air- craft in several new phases of various industry involving very low.. level mountain flying. I was called into eastern Kentucky from my home in Scottsdale, Ariz., in February of this year and ofFered more or less a challenge to seed with an airplane approximately 1,200 of the roughest strip and auger mine acreage that could be found in the mountainous terrain around Micidlesboro, Harlan, and Hazard, Ky. The feeling was, if the aircraft could complete this rough assignment successfully, it could be used in any of the mountainous Appalachian area. The test was not only satisfactory, as confirmed here with photo- ::g1~Phs and a letter of confirmation by Kentucky State Area Super- visor Herbie Johnson of MidcUesboro, Ky., but it far exceeded the coverage previously gotten by the outmoded methods of hand seeding and ground machinery. With the aircraft, even the face of the high wall received good cover- age of seed and fertilizer, as well as the lowest portions of the steep spills. I have been told it would have taken a ground crew of 40 to 50 people approximately 6 weeks to seed this acreage-but with one aircraft I successfully completed this 1,200 acres in 3 days. Since this time I have formed a company offering this aerial application service to the mine operators. In my association with these mine operators, I have met no one who is opposed to vegetating and r~claiming the stripped or augered out areas. In fact many of the operators have gone to additional expense beyond the requirements of their State laws to see that the best job possible would be done in the reclamation of their projects. In recent weeks I have been working in unison with the Surface Mine and Reclamation Association, headquartered in Pike County, Ky. Their chief objective is to erase the infamous image of the cur- rent surface miner to the general public and to make the general public aware of the new and modern methods the surface miner is using to reclaim the current acreage. As you well know, the ill feeling of the general public borders very closely to contempt for these mine operators even though they are endeavoring, in the most expedient manner possible, to return their acreage to green grass and tree covered hillsides. I feel that the current mine operators are being accused unjustly. I believe that this feeling of ill will and contempt is primarily brought about by the ever-present existence of the vast amount of orphan acreage that has been evident year after year for the residents of these States and the tourists visiting these States to observe. For those PAGENO="0214" 208 of you who do not know, orphan acreage is that acreage that was left over and abandoned before there was law or public opinion against such practice. I believe that the image of the whole surface mining industry, as well as the infamous image of the local State and Federal officials, who the public believes are allowing this to happen, will be greatly improved if not completely eliminated by the most expedient reclama tion possible of this orphan acreage. From a four-State aerial survey I have found that nature itself has made conèidera,ble progress in reclaiming much of this orphan land; however, in the past much of this natural vegetation would have been redisturbed by the necessities of having to build roads to get ground machinery and truckloads of ~ material on to these benches to reseed them. Now, with the introduction of the. tried, tested, and proven method of aircraft application, this natural vegetation can remain undisturbed and man can assist nature by adding grass seeds, tree seeds, and fert~- lizer to these orphan soil banks and return these Appalachian Moun- tains to the beauty nature originally had planned. Let us consider the time and cost involved in the project. First of all, with the use of aircraft this project would not take 20 years, as was previously suggested ; instead, I. believe with a sufficient appro- priation, and using the best aircraft available for this type of flying, piloted by highly skilled mountain pilots and supervised in a safe and orderly manner, the whole of the Appalachian region could be re- claimed, gentlemen, in less than 3 years. With the use of ground machinery there is no doubt that at least one-third of any appropriation for the Appalachian region would be spent on the building of roads to make these areas accessible. With the aircraft this expenditure is nonexistent. In the State of Kentucky, as an example, there are estimated to be some 70,000 acres of orphan land, approximately 40,000 of which has. been stripped and auger mined in the mountainous terrain of eastern Kentucky. The rest is area strip mined in central . and western Kentucky. I do not know the cost of grading these area strip mines back to the approximate contour of the surrounding terrain, but the seeding and fertilizing of this 70,000 acres could be done at a total cost of approxi- mately $35 per acre, and even less where the condition of the ground necessitates less fertilizer than some of the acid areas. As president of the Precision Aerial Reclamation Co., I wish to go on record as opposing the Surface Mining Reclamation Acts at issue here, inasmuch as I feel that Federal supervision of the mining indus- try is unnecessary, that the arrow of the whole problem points directly at the vast amount of orphan acreage existmg, and that, as an alter nate solution, instead of Federal supervision of the mining industry,. the Federal Government should make sufficient appropriation to re- claim this orphan acreage with necessary seed and fertilizers in the most expedient way possible. I would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that the only role the Federal Government should take is in the reclamation of this orphan acreage. PAGENO="0215" 209 I understand there has been some talk of an adjusted appropriation of $1 2 billion When this proposal will be offered for legislation, I do not know, but my company is concerned with some 700,000 acres of land needing treatment in the Appalachian region . right now. This 700,000 acres is approximately one-third of the total 2 million acres of land needing treatment throughout the United States. One-third of the $1.2 billion amounts to $400 million. If, as I have stated, this acreage can be reseeded and fertilized for approximately $35 per acre, which is a total of $25 million, and should. it cost another $25 million to do some grading that would probably be necessary on a percentage of this total acreage, we arrive at a total expenditure of only $50 million, which is a saving of $350 million of the proposed appropriation I would like to add here, Mr Chairman, that I believe the mtroduc- tion of any possible solution to this problem that can save the tax- payers $350 million merits considerable investigation. Neither the States nor the current operators should have to assume the obligations of the derelictions of the past. It is my opinion that the best, if not the only way to bring the Appalachian strip coal mining industry to a standard acceptable to the general public is to eliminate the ugly scar tissue of the orphan acreage in the Appalachian r~gion, and continue the present reclama- tion work on current acreage being disturbed by the surface mines throughout these States. This quite properly should be the oniy responsibility of the Federal Government I thank you gentlemen for giving me this time and opportunity to express my views on this most important issue before this committee. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Ooyle. Senator Jordan? Senator JORDAN. I have no questions. Thank you for your statement. Senator METCALF. Mr. Coyle, it is your contention that the Federal Government should not require the mining companies or the strip miners to make any plans or contribute to the reclamation of land in. the future ~ Is that your position ~ Mr COThE No, sir I have observed that, as I stated, the operators are taking care of their current acreage in the most expedient manner possible I believe that the whole reason for this hearing, the reason for the proposal of these acts, came from the pressure put on by the general public who have year after year observed this orphan acreage that nothing has been done about They have pulled the blinds downy so to speak, on what was being done on the current acreage because they have observed this orphan acreage so often that they haven't taken the time to look at what is being currently done Senator METCALF. So you feel that the only function of the Federal Government should be to go in and reclaim and restore or recondition land that has already been abused and abandoned and hire companies, preferably yourself, to seed this area? Mr COYLE That is correct to a point I believe that any appropria tion for this type of work should be put up for bid and I very affirma- tively would on it, yes. Senator METCALF You have helped us here this morning in describ ing a method of reseeding and reclamation that certainly the committee PAGENO="0216" I 210 is glad to hear about, glad to know about, and glad to know about its success. Thank you very much. Mr. ComE. Thank you, sir. (The letter referred to follows:) AERIAL SEEDING OF CONTOUR STRIP MINE LAND IN SOUTHEASTERN KENTUCKY-1968 During late February and early March 1968, aerial seeding of contour strip mined land in Kentucky, in counties Øf Bell, Harlan, and Leslie, was undertaken by Allen Ooyle. Mr. .Ooyle used a mature of Sericea Lespedeza, Korean Lespedeza, Kentucky 31 Fescue, and Perennial Rye Grass, along with Black Locust tree seed. Prior to the flight, one foot square cardboard was smeared with grease and placed randomly .011 the bench and over the outsiope. Immediately after the aerial seeding, a ground spot check was made to determine the extent of coverage ob- tamed. All squares had an adequate amount of seed of each species sown. A follow-up inspection was made in late April to check germination. The Peren- nial Rye Grass, Korean Lespedeza, and Kentucky 31 Fescue bad begun germina- tion and, was from 1/2 to 1 inch high. The Sericea Lespedeza and Black Locust seed are not expected to germinate until around July b968. From observations and `inspections made to date, I feel that an adequate cover of grasses, legumes, and trees will be found over the entire disturbed areas aerial seeded by Mr. `Ooyle. HERBIE JoHNsON, Area ~Supervisor, Kentucky Division of Reclamation. A~pril 25, 1968. Senator METCALF. Mr. Lewis Prater of the Idaho Bureau of Mines. Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. May I personally welcome Mr. Lewis Prater, who is here representing the Governor of Idaho. 1 have had copies o,f the `Governor's testimony and I know Mr. Prater will make a good state- ment for his State. Senator METCALF. I am glad to hear you as a ropresentative of my neighbor, a representative of two of the members of this committee. `Thank you very much. STATE1VIEI~IT O~ LEWIS PRATER, IDAHO' BIJREAU OP 1VIThTES, REPRESENTING THE GOVERNOR OP IDAHO Mr. Pi~&Tsi~. Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. My name is Lewis Prater and I present the statement prepared for the Idaho Bureau of Mines by our director, Dr. Rolland R. Reid. To begin, we wish to express our gratification that Federal agencies Thave come to recognize the desirability for surface mining and mined land reclamation practices tailored to the individual situation and needs within each of the States. At the same time, we note that the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968 sets up sweeping changes in both the regulation of surface mining practices and mined land reclamation requirements. Mining operations on private, State, and Federal lands are to be covered. Many of these lands are already controlled under overlapping jurisdictions involving several State and Federal agencies. Conflicting and over- lapping responsibilities are common. S. 3132, if enacted, would com- pound existing difficulties just described. The Public Land Law Review Commission is currently reviewing the laws and administrative regulations and practices applicable to PAGENO="0217" 211 the public lands. When this task is done, major recommendations for changes to eliminate conflicting laws and to improve public land administration will no doubt be made. It would seem judicious to~ defer action on S. 3132 until the work of the Public Land Law Re- view Commission is complete. Moreover, the time limits contemplated for action by the several States appear to be unduly short. A number of Western States are beginning to study questions of mining practices on the State lands, and Idaho is among them. The problems involved are substantial and will require more than 1 or 2 years for their solution. Cooperative efforts among the States are contemplated, involving initially the mining industry, the universities, and through the Federation of Rocky Mountain States. Hasty action within the States, forced by quickly passed Federal legislation itself not too thoroughly studied, may well lead to poor legislation injurious~ to the mining industry and thereby injurious to the whole of society,. which is strongly dependent on minerals for its general well-being. It is clear that regulation of surface mining practices and reclama- tion of surface-mined land in each State is primarily the responsibility of that State. The Federal Government, to the extent that it is inter- ested in these matters, might well convey its interest to the States by means of a congressional resolution urging and encouraging each State to undertake the necessary studies and to enact in due course the necessary legislation. Or it might go a bit further and make some matching funds available to the States, to help with the costly and time-consuming studies that must be carried out before good legisla- tion can be enacted. Many of the proposed regulations and laws brought forward so far suffer from ambiguous terms and concepts that need to be brought into clear definition ; such clear definition in many instances can only be ac- complished through extensive research programs. When the work of the Public Land Law Review Commission is complete and the States have had sufficient time to carry out studies and enact good regulations for surface mining practices and land reclamation, then it will be time for the Federal Government, through the Congress, to look at the van- ous State situations. At that time, a judgment can be made whether legislation of the sort represented by S. 3132 is still necessary, if so~ then it can be taken up again. Should the judgment of the Congress be that it is proper at this time to enact legislation of the type represented by S. 3132 then we would~ wish to participate in efforts designed to modify or amend several parts of the bill in an attempt to make it more workable in our view. To illustrate the direction such work might go, we will comment below on a few difficulties that we see in S. 3132 in its present form. Section 3 (a) does not go far enough. While stating that surface mm- ing is essential to the economy of the Nation, it should go further and' state that because of its importance to the Nation, surface mining is to be actively encouraged in all possible ways to be consistent with the well being of the Nation. Section 2(b) defines reclamation as reconditioning or restoration. What degree of such reconditioning or restoration is contemplated ~ Much ambiguity seems to exist here. Section 2(d) defines a surface mine very broadly. Falling within this definition, and mentioned just to illustrate the breadth of the definition, are barrow pits used by State highway departments in road construc- PAGENO="0218" I 212 I tion from which minerals are extracted by surface mining methods for use in highway construction Is this intended ~ Section 7 Each State being competent to conduct its own affairs with respect to regulations of mining within its own bounds, the Secretary should not have sole discretion to decide whether a particular set of State laws and regulations is sufficiently stringent At the very least, some provision for judicial appeal should be provided in case substan tial disagreement arises. The requirements set out for the State elan seem so severe that many mining operations might not become possible Moreover, the requirement that criminal penalties be required for non performance seems indefensible Many additional comments are possi ble here, but in the interests of space will be reserved for a later time Section 8 Two or 3 years are not sufficient for the development of a good State plan Five years would be more realistic The Secre tary should not have sole power to issue regulations for a State Pro vision should be made for judicial appeal in every case in which sub stantial conflict arises No individual has the capability to arrive at the best judgments in all such cases See especially section 8 (d) in this regard. Section 9 suffers from the same difficulties as section 8, especially :nS to the need for judicial appeal provisions in case of conflicts. Section 11. This provides that the Secretary may issue such regula- tions as are deemed necessary to carry out the act. No specific pro- vision is made in this section for hearings or judicial appeal from bad regulations. Section 13 Here, as previously, it seems indefensible to set up criminal penalties for cases of nonperformance The precedent, if any, is not known to us. Economic (civil) penalties would seem to be sufficient Generally, the tenor of this proposed law seems to be highly re- strictive and even punitive, designed more to prevent mining than to encourage it, and thus not in keeping with the necessity to encourage mining in all ways possible and consistent with the well being of society. This difficulty no doubt grows out of the fact that this pro- posed law was written by agency people all with views on one side of the question. It would be better to hold hearings on the content of such a law before it is written so that all interested parties could make their views and needs known. Only after such hearings should the law be written and then only by neutral persons who conduct the hearings. Finally, it is much better that this be done in the several States and not at the Federal level at all. In closing a few comments on S. 3126 are appropriate. Title I gives equal authority to Interior and Agriculture, which is sure to lead to difficult administrative problems. It suffers additionally from all of the problems raised with respect to S. 3132 and we view it in the same way as we do S 3132, namely, any action on it should be held in abey- ance until the outcome of the Public Land Law Review Commission's work The remainder of the bill appears to be reasonably workable Thank you very much. Senator METCALF Thank you very much, Mr Prater Senator Jordan? I PAGENO="0219" 213 Senator JORDAN. Thank you for a constructive statement. You know ~the Public Land Law Review Commission was in our State last fall for part of 3 days and as a member of `that Review Commission I note that we are going very extensively into the same problems that are covered by this legislation and we do expect to have some recommenda- tions in this regard. I know the Public Land Law Review Commission had been in most of the States where surface mining is engaged in and they did make a particular inspection trip over areas in Idaho where surface mm- irig is now going forward. Thanks for a good statement. I appreciate having you here. Mr. PRATER. Thank you very much. Senator METCALF. Mr. Prater, you mentioned that the introduction ~of a bill is only a preliminary matter and when you say it is better to hold hearings, that is what we are doing. I concur with my dis- tiriguished colleague from Idaho that we are grateful for your sugges- tions, your criticism, and constructive points of view as to modifications and changes in this legislation. Mr. PRATER. We made them because we think they would be more workable in our case. Senator METCALF. Thank you for your statement. Mr. PRATER. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Our next witness is Mr. Richard Bowers. Mr. Bowers? We will pass him over for the time. Mr. Edward K. Davison. STATEM'ENT OP EDWARD K. DAVISON, DAVISON SAND & GRAVEL CO., NEW KENSINGTON, PA. Mr. DAVISON. Mr. Chairman, I have here publications which we have already submitted for the use of the committee. Senator METOALF. Thank you. . Mr. DAVISON. They have been mailed also to the offices of the mem- bers of the committee and perhaps you might want to hold these up there while I testify. Senator METCALF. Please. We will be delighted to have them. Mr. DAVISON. As I say, these are already in your individual offices also. Senator METCALF. Just a moment. I wish to make an announcement. Mr. Davison will be the last witness this morning. Immediately after recess we will get to the representatives of the Idaho phosphate industry and we will recess until 1 :30. Go ahead, Mr. Davison. Mr. DAVISON. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jordan, I am Edward K. Davison, President of Davison Sand and Gravel Co. of New Kensington, Pa. I appear on behalf of the National Sand and Gravel Association, whose member companies produce the major por- tion of commercial production in the United States. Our testimony is directed to the proposed Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968, S. 3132, introduced by Senator Jackson. Sand and gravel, along with crushed stone and blast furnace slag, are the major constitutents in portland cement, concrete mixtures, asphaltic mixtures, base courses and surface treatments for all types of highways, engineering structures, buildings and homes. PAGENO="0220" 214 Sin,ce :~~954 sand and gravel has been the largest of the mining in- dustries in terms of tons produced. That tonnage is now very close to ~ billion tons a year, of which about 75 percent is produced by corn- mercial operations. These construction aggregates are low-value heavy-loading corn- modities which must be produced as near as possible to the sites of major construction activity. It is vital to the economics of our expand- ing urban areas and the construction of the many required structural facilities of these areas that hauling costs be kept low. This has resulted over the years in the concentration of sources of production in and near urban areas. This has further resulted, par- ticularly since World War II, in the preemption of sand- and gravel- bearing reserve lands by other uses and in widespread restrictions by local authorities which preclude the mining of reserve lands even though they may have been owned for years by producers. The New York City, Los Angeles, Detroit, Denver, and Washington metropolitan areas are among some of the most critical areas in which preemption and restrictions are now or soon will be causing substantial increases in construction costs. In 1955 a study by the National Sand & Gravel Association indicated that over half of the operations in a significant sample were carried on in areas subject to regulation by zoning authorities and we have reason to believe that this situation may now apply to two-thirds or more of all operations. Some of the leading member companies of our association have carried on reclamation programs since the early 1920's. A brochure on one of the finest of such endeavors by a leading producer is among the publications which we have submitted and also sent to your offices and which you have at hand there now. In 1955 the association, recognizing the growing seriousness of the situation, embarked on a reclamation research program, which still continues to convince both our industry and the land-planning pro- fession that the public interest requires: 1. The orderly, economic, and full development of sand and gravel resources, and 2. The restoration of worked-out lai~ds to afteruses amenable and suitable to the surrounding environment. We have promoted, we believe with significant success, the multiple- use concept of land planning-~deve1opment of the mineral values followed by return of the land to uses such as recreation, residential, institutional, industrial, and commercjal sites, and waste disposal sites. In connection with waste disposal, it is now widely recognized that this is becoming a critical element of environmental control. It is possible to get three uses out of certain sai~d and gravel operations- extraction, filling with solid waste materials, and building sites or recreation sites. One of the major efforts of the program of the National Sand & Gravel Association has been the sponsorship of research at the graduate level by the Department of Landscape Architecture of the University of Illinois, under the very able chairxnan'ship of Prof. William G. Games. The first three completed research reports are part of the material which we have submitted to your committee. One of them, although PAGENO="0221" 215 done by a graduate student, received a professional award from the American Society of Landscape Architects, and drew praise from Mr. Laur&nee S. Rockefeller when he stated: I was interested to learn of this leadership effort by industry and look forward to sharing it with my associates on the Citizens Advisory Committee on Recreation and Natural Beauty. A fourth research report in the University of Illinois project will be published soon. The fifth is to be initiated this September, with a publication deadline of June 1970. Entitled "The Recreation Potential of Sand and Gravel Sites," it has `drawn the interest of the TJ.S~ Department of the Interior and the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We are pleased to say that Mr. L. Boyd Finch, staff assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Mineral Resources, Department of the Interior, and Dr. D. M. Whitt, Director of Plant Sciences Division of the Soil Conservation Service, both of whom are in the room this morning, have agree~d to serve on the National Saud & Gravel A~sociation's Ad- visory Committee to provide guidance and technidai consultation on this particular project. Another of the exhibits submitted for the record is a book entitled "Site Utilization and Rehabilitation Practices for Sand and Gravel Operations." It was pre~arod as a handbook and guide for the indu~stry anid for landscape architects by Mr. Kenneth L. Schellie of Schellie Associates, a division of Clyde E. Williams & Associates Inc., of Indianapolis, md. Mr. Schellie has been planning and landscape consultant to our association and to a number of member companies over the past 7 years. This publication w~s the recipient of a Merit Award from the Soil Conservation Society of America. Another phase of the education and research program of the Na- tional Sand & Gravel Association is a forthcoming publication jointly sponsored by the association and the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and funded by the association. It will cover the following subject matter: ( a) Interpretations implementation of soil survey map data in ref- erence to prospecting and exploration of deposits ; and ( b) An explanation of the soil survey information and how it can assist producers in the revegetation and reclamation of operations. I have risked, Mr. Chairman, being unduly lengthy in these matters because I want to emphasize for the record that the restoration of worked-out sand and gravel lands to suitable afteruses has found wide acceptance and performance in the sand and gravel industry. For example, our association's most recent land-use survey drew responses covering `1965 operations from companies which produced about 25 percent of commercial tonnage at that time. The acreage re- ported by the respondents as being returned to useful purposes was 52 percent of reported worked-out acreage for the year concerned. Because of time elements involved in operations and planned restora- tions of varying types, we feel that a percentage figure of this nature is to be regarded more as an indicator of a trend rather than an exact number. Further, three land-use surveys and a strata depth survey which we have conducted lead us to believe that the acreage disturbed by sand and gravel operations as reported in Interior's publication, "Surface PAGENO="0222" 216 Mining and Our Environment" may be two or more times than that~ calculated by th~ association Whatever the case may be, the National Sand & Gravel Association~ and a great majority of responsible operators in this industry are corn mitted, both of their own. volition and by local statutes and regula- tions, and in some cases State law, to planned afteruses of sand and~ gravel lands. With the widespread and still growing extent of local government: and State government regulation of land use in sand and gravel ex- traction and with the growing acceptance of good multiple-use plan- ning by the industry, we respectfully submit that Federal intrusion into this area will serve only to complicate matters. There could be a real possibility under Federal law of stifling flexibility and imagination in planning afteruses if an attempt is made to set up guides and criteria burdened with specific numbers and dimen- sions We particularly object to the possibility of coming under two, and in certain circumstances even three, sets of regulations and bond- ing requirements. If the Congress does see fit to pass such a law, we suggest that it can be improved and made more workable by incorporating certain amend ments which we are offering First, we suggest that the Federal administering agency and the States be empowered to decline jurisdiction where appropriate studies and hearings establish that reclamation is being adequately regu- lated by local jurisdictions or is being accomplished in practice We presently have no specific wording to suggest on this score but would hope to be granted an opportunity to discuss it with the committee's staff. We would welcome the opportunity to bring into such discussion personnel from the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture with whom we have had excellent cooperation in the past. For our other proposed amendments we have drafted suggested language which I shall touch on only briefly here. They are attached' I believe to the statement in your hands. Briefly we are offeHng: 1 Clarification of section 2 (e) , the definitions section, to make it clear that the act applies only to lands mined subsequent to enactment. 2. Several changes in section 7, which sets forth the required features for State plans: a. That the plan shall recognize the element of protecting the availability of mineral reserves in fulfillment of the congression~1 finding expressed in section 3 (a) on the economic significance of mineral extraction by surface mining. b. That modification of reclamation plans as deemed desirable because of unanticipated geologic, economic or land use factors be permitted. C. That operation and reclamation shall be subject to only one source of regulatory authority. 3. A section to create a Federal Surface Mining Board of Review which would hold hearings on disapproved State plans and individual aggrievances of mining producers. 4. A section providing for judicial review so that any final order issued by the `suggested Board of Review would be subject to judicial' I PAGENO="0223" 217 review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the State or mine affected is located. These two sections on a Board of Review and judicial review follow similar provisions in the Federal Mine Safety Act. For the past 13 years it has been one of the foremost policies of the National Sand and Gravel Association, under the direction of its board of directors, to sponsor and fund an education and research program in the cause of sound land-use. I have discussed part of this program here and members of this committee have been furnished with some of the products of the program. It is from this background that I express the hope that our testimony reflects a high degree of constructive criticism. Thank you, sir. (The suggested amendments referred to follow:) THE NATIONAL SAND AND GRAVEL AsSoCIATION RECOMMI~DS TH1~ FOLLOWING~ SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING S. 3132 Amend See. 2(e) by deleting the word "concluded" on page 2, line 19, and sub- stituting tbere~or the word "conducted." Amend Sec. 4 ~y de1e~ing the words "and the ;s'ur~ace mined area thereof'~ On page 4, lines 16 and 17. Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) by deleting the word "and" under subsection (F) , and `by adding sub~eetion (0) on page ~, line 6 as follows : "(G) provide that any surface mining operation and the reclamation of surface mined areas shall be subjek,t to n~t more than one source of regulatory authority." Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) (A) by eliminating the semi-~o1on after the word "En. vironment" oil page 7, line 18, and adding the fo1k~wing words : "and ~reserve~ and protect the availability of mining resources for the present `and future ;" Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) (`B) by adding the following words after the word "plan" On page 7, line 19 : ", either written or graphic," Amend Sec. 7(a)(1) (B) by adding the fol1o'wing wca~ds after the s'emi~eoion on page 7, line 24 : "provided that modifications of such mining plans may be~ filed with, and approved by, the state agency, from time to time, when such modificati'ons are commien,surate with the purposes' oif this Act ;" Amend Sec. 7(a) (1),(C) by eliminating the words "relating specifically" on page 8, lines 1 and 2, and substituting therefor "where `a~p1icaiAe" Amend `See. 7(a) (1) (D) by adding the following Worda after the semi.colon on page 8, l'ine 15 : "pI~o'vMed that such reclamation plans `may 1e modified or changed from time to time to reflect discovery of unanticipated geological, eco- nomic or other condithns ;" Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) (F) by deleting the words "criminal and" on page 8,. line 22. New Sec. 7(c) " (c) In the event that the Secretary does not approve a plan submitted by a state in acc)ordan'ce with this section, or in the event of the with-. clrawal of (the Secretary's approval in accordance with subsection (hi) above, such state ~nay appeal the Secretary's decision to the Pederal Surface Mining Reelam:ation Board of Review, in accordance with Sec. 13 and 14 of this Act" New Sec. 8(f) " (f) A mine o,perator aggrieved by any decision of the `Secretary made pursuant to this section, s'hall be entitled to review ~f the Federal `Surfaca Mining Reclamation Board of Review In accordance with Sec. 13 and 14 `of this. Act." SEQ. 13 (`a) An `agency is hereby created to be known as the Federal `Surface Minin'g Reclamation Board of Review, which shall be composed of five members who `shall be appointed by the Pres'ident, by and with the advice laud consent of the Senate. (h) The terms of office `of members, `o'f the Board shall be five years, except that the terms of office of the members first appointed shall commence on the effective date of this `section and shall expire one at the end of one year, one a~t the end' of two y~ars, one at the end of three years, one `at the end `of four years' and' one at the e'nd of five years, as designated by the President at the time of appoint- ment. A `member `appointed to fill a vacancy caused `by the death, res'ign~ation, or removal of a member prior to the expiration of t'he tetm for which he wan PAGENO="0224" 218 appointed s~a11 be api~ointed ~ cn~1y for the ren~aiinder od~ such unexpired term. The members of the Board may be removed by the President for inefficiency. neglect of duty, or malfeanance in office. (c) Each member of the Board shall be compensated at the rate of $75 for each day of actual service (including each day he is traveling on official business) and shall, notwithstanding the Travel E~pense Act of 1949, be fully reimbursed for traveling, subsistence, and other related expenses. The 13oard, at all times, shall consist of two persons who by reason of previous training and experience may reasonably be said to represent the viewpoint of surface mine operators, two persons who by reason of previous training and experience may reasonably be said to represent the viewpoint of conservation interests, and one person, who shall be Chairman of the Board, who shall be a graduate engineer, forester, landscape archit~ct, or attorney, with experience in the surface mining indnstry, aa~d who shall not, within one year of his appointment as a member of the Board, have had a pecuniary interest in, or `have been regnlarly employed or engaged in, or have been an officer or employee of the Department of the Interior. (d) The prir~eipal office of the Board `shall be in the District of Columbia. Whenever the Board deems that the convenience of the public or of the parties may be promoted, or delay or expenses may be minimized, it may hold hearings or con~1hict other proceedings a~ any other place. The Board shall have an official seall which shall be judicially noticed and which shall be preserved in the cu'sto'd~y of the secretary of the Board. (e) The Board shall, wtthou't regard to the civil service laws, appoint and prescribe the duties of a secretary of the Board and such legal counsel as it deems necessary. Subject to the civil service laws, the Board shall appoint such other employees as it deems necessary in exercising its powers and duties. The compensation of all employees appointed by the Board shall be fixed in accoi~d- ance with the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. (f) Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum, and official actions of the Board shall be taken only on the affirmative vote of at. least three members; but a special panel composed of one or more mumbers, upon order `of the Board, shall ~ondbct any hearing provided for in section 14 and `submit the transcript of `such hearing to the entire Board for its action thereon. Every official act of the Board shall be entered of record, and its hearings and records thereof shall be open `to the public. (g) The Board is authorized to make such rule's as are necessary for the orderly transaction of its proceedings, which shall include requirements for a'deqi~ate notice of hearings to all parties. (h) Any member of the Board may sign and Issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and documents, and administer oaths. Witnesses summoned before the Board shall be paid `the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. (i) The Board may order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceed- ing pending before it, at any stage of such proceeding. Reasonable notice must first be given in writing by the party or his attorney proposing to take such deposition to the opposite party or his attorney of record, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose, and to produce books, papers, or documents, in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify and produce like documentary evidence before the Board, as pro- vided in subsection (h) . Witnesses whose depositions are taken under this sub- section, and the persons taking such deposition shall be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the lJnited States. (j ) In the case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena `served upon, any perSon un'der this section, the Federal district court for any `district in which such person is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by the United States, and after notice to such person to appear and give testimony before the Board or to appear and produce document's before the Board, or bcth; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt there~of. (k) The Board `shall submit annually to the Congress as `soon as practicable after the beginning of each regular session, a full report of its activities during the preceding calendar year. Such report shall include, either in summary or detailed form, information regarding the cases heard by it and the disposition of each. PAGENO="0225" 219 "REVIBW BY BOARD SEC. 14. (a) A state or an operator notified of an order of the Secretary made pursuant to Sec. 7 or Sec. 8 may ap~1y to the Federal Surface Mining Reclamation Board of Review for annulment or revIsion of such order. (b) The state or operator shall ~e designated as the applicant in such pro- ceeding, and the application shall recite the order complained of and other facts sufficient to advise the Board of the nature of the proceeding. The application may allege : the Secretary's failure to `approve a state plan, or his withdrawal of such approval, is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable within the intent and spirit of Sec. 7 of this Act ; that the state plan suhmitted to the Secretary substantially complies with the provIsion of Sec. 7 and should be approved ; that the state, in administering a plan previously approved ~y the Secretary, has complied sub- stantially with it and has enforced it adequately, and a revision of the state's previously approved plan Is not `appropriate or necessary to effectuate the pur- poses of this Act ; that denial or revocation of a permit made by the Secretary pursuant to Sec. 8 is artitrary, capricious, or unreasonable ; or that the action of the Secretary in denying or revoking such permit is not supported by a failure of the applicant to comply with the spirit and intent of this Act or the regulations issued l~y the Secretary pursuant to Sec. 8. The Secretary shall be the respondent in such proceedIng, and the applicant shall send a copy of such application by registered mail or by certified mail to the Secretary at Washington, District of Colun~bia. (c) Immediately upon the filing of such an application the Board shall fix the time for a prompt hearing thereof. (d) Pending such hearing the applicant may file with the Board a written re- guest that the Board grant such temporary relief from such order as the Board may deem just and proper. Such temporary relief may be granted by the Board only after a `hearing by the Board at which both the applicant and the `respondent were afforded an opportunity to be heard, and only if respondent was given ample notice of the filing of applicant's request and of the time and place of the hearing thereon as fixed by the Board. (e) The Board shall not be bound by any previous findings of fact by the respondent. Evidence relating to the action complained of and relating to the questions raised `by the allegations of the pleadings or other questions pertinent in the proceeding may be offered by both parties to the proceeding. If the respondent claims that the action complained of is `suhstantially in compliance with Sec. 7 or eec. 8 of this Act, as the case may be, the burden of proving such claim shall be upon the respondent, and the respondent shall present his evidence first to prove such claim. (f) If the Board finds that the allegations of the applicant, as described in Sec. 14 (b) are correct, the Board shall make an order, consistent with its findings, revising or annulling the act of the respondent under review, or shall `order the respondent to take action in accordance with its findings. If the Board finds that the allegations of the applicant are not correct, the Board shall make an order denying such application. (g) Each finding and order made by the Board shall be in writing. It shall show the date on which it is made, and Shall bear `the signatures of the members 4:~f the Board who concur therein. Upon making `a finding and order the Board shall cause a true copy thereof to be sent by registered mail or `by certified mail 130 all parties or their attorneys of record. The Board shall cause each such finding and `order to be `entered on its official record, together with any written opinion prepared by any members in support of, `or `dissenting from, any such finding or order. (h) In view of the urgent need for prompt `decision `of `matters `submitted to the l3oard under this section, all action which the Board is required to take under `this `section `shall be taken as rapidly as practicable, consistent with adequate consideration of the issues' involved." "JUDICIAL RRVIEW Sno. 15. (a) Any final order issued by the Board under Section 14 : shall be subject to judicial review by the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the state or mine affected is located, upon the filing in such court of a notice of appe~d by the Secretary, or th'e state or operator aggrieved by such ~flnal order, within thirty days from the date of the making of such final order. (b) The party making such appeal shall forthwith send a co'py of such notice 95-62'3-68-15 PAGENO="0226" I 220 of appeal, by registered mail or by certified mail, to the other party and to the Board. Upon rece~pt o~f smth copy of a notice of appeai the Board ehail promptly certify and file iii s~ich court a complete transcript of the record upon which the order complained o~ was made. The costs of such transcript shall be paid by the party making the appeal. (c) The cmirt shall hear such appeal on the record mane be~ore the Board, and shall permit argumeat, oral or written or both, by both parties. The court shall permit such pleadlng~ in adthtion to the pleadii~gs before the Board, as it deems to be required or as provided for in the Rules of Oivil ProcedUre governing appeals in such dourt. (id) Upon such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the United States court of appeals may, after due notice to and hearing of the parties to the appeal, issue all necessary and appro~ priate process to postpone the effective date of the final order of the Board or to grant such other relief as may be appropriate pending final determination of the appeal. (e) The United States court of appeals may affirm, annul, or revise the final order of the Board, or it may remand the proceeding to the Board for such further action as it directs. The findings of the Board as to facts, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. (f) The decision of a United States court of appeals on an appeal from the Board shall be final, subject only to review by the Supreme Court as provided in se~ctton 1254 of title 28 of the United States Code." Sections 13 through 16 of the present Act (S. 3132) should be renumbered respectively: 13 becomes 16; 14 becomes 17; 15 becomes 18, and 16 becomes 19. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Davison. Se~nator Jordan? Senator JO1mAN. Thank you, Mr. Davison. I expect your industry is by far the 1arge~t in point of location of sites throughout the country. Every community has a sand and gravel operation. Mr. DAVISON. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. You are more widespread than any other indus- tries that have had witnesses that have appeared before us. I am pleased to see thwt you are doing some work in reclamation and research and retsoration on your own behalf. I just hope that it continues because there is so much to be done and such a broad area that requires work to be done, spread out as you are in many communities in every State. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator METCALF. I certainly concur, Mr. Davison, with Senator Jordan's commendation. These are most impressive documents. Mr. DAvISoN. Thank you, sir. Senator METCALF. The work that you have done demonstrates imagi- nation and it is heartening to know that that is being done by your industry. I also thank you for a rather comprehensive suggestion for amend- ments in the event this legislation is passed. I think that most of us in the Congress are committed to the principle of judicial review and we write it into bills that are sent up from the administration without it, I will confess that I was one of the authors of the Mine Safety Act and we put in that Review Board. Just now I think we should go into an intervening board which would be necessary in some of these cases and I do want to ask you a question. I wonder if the initial judicial PAGENO="0227" 221 review should not take place in the local district court rather than in the court of appeals? Mr. DAVISON. I would concur that this is probably more convenient for the operators. Senator METCALF. It isn't such a problem for many of the people. You go up into New York City and the U.S. district court is on one side of the street and the circut court of appeals is on the other, but in Idaho and Montana it is a lot easier to go over to Butte or Helena or down to Boise than it is to go to San Francisco and we very seldom have the court sitting even as far north as Seattle. So that in most of these cases the law questions can be decided at the local level. I am convinced that there should be judicial review. but I am thinking of probably local review. Mr. DAVISON. We have no particular feeling on it. We simply fol- lowed the Mine Safety Act in that regard. Senator METOALF. Thank you very much for a very helpful statement and my commendation to your industry. Mr. DAVISON. Thank you. Senator METCALF. This will be the last witness this morning and the committee will reconvene after the recess at 1 :30. The first wit- nesses are Mr. Emigh, Mr. Power, and Mr. Olsen, who will be fol- lowed by Mr. Leirfallom and then we are going to move Mr. Zeigler at the request of Senator McGovern up to be the third witness. ( Whereupon, at 12 :05 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 1 :30 p.m., the same day.) AFTER RECESS ( The committee reconvened at 1 :30 p.m., Senator Lee Metcalf presiding.) Senator METCALF. The committee will be in order. I had hoped that our two distinguished colleagues from Idaho, who are members of the committee, would be here to introduce our next speaker. Senator Church had asked me to call him when Dr. Emi~th, Mr. Power, and Mr. Olsen came on and Senator Jordan, I know, wanted to be here. However, I regret that they are not here. I know that they are do- tamed on business. I know that both Senator Church and Senator Jordan had a meeting ~cheduled because they were unable to attend the meeting of the Northwest rivers and hai~bors group, which I just left. I am pleased to introduce and old friend, a friend who appeared at hearings before the Interior Committee of the House when I was a member over there and who has appeared several times since I have been in the Senate. Dr. Emigh, and your group, thank you very much. Senator Church is here now. Senater CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to be delayed. Senator METCALF. You are recognized. Senator CHURCH. I just wanted to say that, because I have been chairing another committee hearing, which is occurring simultane- ously, one of the problems we have here in the Senate, I haven't been PAGENO="0228" 222 able to attend this hearing up until now, but I do look forward to this testimony. The phosphate industry is of great importance to the economy of our State and we want to make certain that any regulation o'f the industry is realistic, both in terms of protecting the public interest in a proper way and permitting the industry to mine without unreasonable im- pediment. I think that the testimony of these gentlemen will be very helpful to the committee in placing this matter in perspective and in giving us some guidelines as we consider the possibility of legislative action in that field. Senator METCALF. Senator Jordan. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I add that these gentlemen have waited patiently. They have been here every minute of the hearing since it started yesterday morning. I am glad we are get- ting to them and I know that their testimony will be very mu~h worth- while and a contribution to our record on this important matter. Don Emigh, whom I have known for many, many years, is chairman of the Phosphate Lands Conference. Ott Power is with the Minera:l Development Department of Food Machinery. Dennis Olsen is counsel for the Phosphste Lands Conference. I understand, Mr. Chairman, they will appear as a panel and Dr. Don Emigh will lead off. STATLMEtNT OP G. DONALD EMIGH, CHAIRMAN, PHOSPHATE LANDS CONFERENCE, ACCOMPANIED BY 0. A. POWER, MINERAL BEVEL- OPMENT DEPARTMENT, FOOD MACHINERY & CHEMICAL CORP., AND DENNIS W. OLSON, COUNSEL FOR PHOSPHATE LANDS CON- PEREN~E Mr. EMIGH. Thank you, Senators. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is G. Don- aid Emigh. I appear as chairman of the Phosphate Lands Conference, an ad hoc group formed in 1966 and composed of western phosphate rock producers. These producers, by the way, are in the States of Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. With me for this presentation, being made on behalf of the Phos- phate Lands Conference, are Mr. 0. A. Power, on my left, represent- ing another company in our conference, and Mr. Dennis M. Olsen, on my right, counsel for our conference. After a few brief opening remarks, I will call on Mr. Power and Mr. Olsen for additional, more detailed, comments. Most of us engaged in mining western phosphate do so by sur- face mining methods. The vast majority of the western phosphate de- posits are under the administration of the Departmei~t of the In- tenor and are available for development and production through leases from the Department of the Int~rior. In May 1966, the D~partm.ent of the Interior published in the Federal Register new proposed regulations covering federally leased phosphate deposits the purpose of which was to provide for mined land reciamation~ Those of us mining western phosphate were concerned over many provisions of these proposed regulations which, among other things, we felt went far beyond mined land reclamation. PAGENO="0229" 223 Accordingly, `the Phosphate Lands Oonference was formed for the purpose of working with Interior to develop regulations to ac- complish the objective of mined land reclamation without the oner- ous problems of Interior's proposals of May 1966, which, at least, we in the western phosphate industry see from our side. Because we feel that the peculiarities of western phosphate mm- ing and western phosphate deposits are of extreme importance in the consideration of S. 3182 and S. 3126, Mr. Power will devote the first portion of his comments to this stthjeot. In addition, he will comment on the past activities of the confer- ence relative to mined land reclamation which form a further basis for our comments on the provisions of S. 3132 and S. 3126. Mr. Olsen's comments will then be directed specifically to the pro- visions of 5. 3132 and S. 3126 in the light of the background infor- mation provided by Mr. Power. Because we three are making a joint presentation, perhaps it might be in order for questions to be with- held until the three of us are finished ; however, we would be very happy to answer questions at any time. In Closing my brief presentation to you, we of the Phosphate Lands Conference believe that no laws or regulations are needed to force mined land reclamation on western phosphate producers because these producers are already implementing this reclamation. We also believe that any such laws or regulations should only be adopted after the findings of the Public Land Law Review Commission are available. Should it develop, however, that legislation is to be enacted at this time, then we hope that our constructive comments presented to you. here will receive careful consideration. Our next presentation is by Mr. 0. A. Power, who will talk about, as I mentioned, the way our western phosphate physically occurs and the problems that it causes and then he will comment on the 2-year history of our Phosphate Lands Conference. Senator METCALF. Thank you. Mr. Power. Mr. POWER. Dr. Emigh has touched briefly on the Phosphate Lands Conference. In my presentation I should like first to discuss the unique features of the western phosphate deposits. I will then briefly review the past activities of the Phosphate Lands Conference. Our corn- ments on both these subjects provide the background for understand- ing our specific comments relative toS. 3126 and S. 3132. UNIQtm OHARAOTERISTICS OF WESTERN PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS About 200 million years ago western phosphate was deposited from an inland sea stretching from the Gulf of Mexico northward into Montana. The phosphate was deposited in only a small area of that sea, and the deposition was related to the chemistry of the sea and its temperature. At that time the phosphate was flat lying, as are all other phosphate deposits now being mined in the world with the possible exception of Russia. After the sea evaporated, mother nature sprinkled hundreds of feet of other rocks on top of the phosphate for the next few million PAGENO="0230" 224 years. Then came the great upheaval and the Rocky Mountains were born. Since all this disturbance came after the phosphate was de- posited, the phosphate also was distuthed, resulting in tremendous faulting, folding, and erosion, Therefore, our mining problems are truly unique as illustrated in ex~hibit A submitted herewith. To further illustrate I have drawn a typical cross section of the geology of the phosphate as it now occurs at the Gay Mine located 32 miles northeast of Pocatello, Idaho, a copy of which is submitted herewith as exhibit B. Western phosphate, because it is covered with more ovethurden than any other in the Western Hemisphere, is much more difficult and costly to drill. Furthermore, our overburden consists of hard rocks. Normally, around the world the overburden is a soft silica sand. Additionally, our topography is mountainous rather than flat. Some people think that we have mountains of phosphate and we just start digging. This is far from the truth. Fnding the economic ore body is difficult and costly. This leads me to discuss our methods of exploration-finding the economic ore body. First, we walk or "jeep" the area. We hunt for marker beds-the rex chert above or the limestone below. We then prepare geologic maps putting all the geologic factors on paper. Then we drill for information to add to that map. This means we drill holes miles apart jull'ing cores from beneath the surface. These core samples let the skilled geologist slowly build a geologic picture which then pinpoints the target area. I would like to call your attention to the enlarged drawing on your left and I will explain this in a little detail. To give you some idea of the scale let's assume that this is perhaps 2 miles by 3 miles. In the Idaho phosphate the well's limestone is phosphatic. This is a phosphate bed. In exhibit A, which you have, we saw originally that we had a flat deposit. Then came the Rocky Mountains and as a result we have all of this faulting and in many cases erosional channels which have taken away the phosphate and redeposited i~hat we called the Salt Lake formation. You have heard much discussion about Sei~ate bill 3132 and the requirement for advance planning in exploration and mining. This is the reason that I have drawn this for you. The phosphoria is generally soft and does not outcrop. It is covered by d~bris from the hills above. Therefore, we hunt for this bed below or this bed above which we call n~arker beds. After finding these and suspecting the occurrence of phosphate we then apply for a lease from the Federal Government. We do not really know whether phosphate exists until we have trenched and drilled. In our drilling let's assume that we drill the hole here where the thickness of the chert is excessive. This means that this is not economic. We would pull over this way trying to find the ore or if it were below the ore and drill into the well's formation, we then move up. If you will erase this cross sec- tion here from your mind for a moment I would like to point out that we will not find this same sort of stru'dture back a quarter of mile or a half mile or a mile. It will be completely different. Senator CHrmoH. May I just ask at that point, it follows that, since the ore lays in different patterns, you cannot know where you are going twine until you have drilled exploratory holes? PAGENO="0231" 225 Mr. POWER. That is correct. Senator CHURcH. And even after you have drilled the initial holes you don't have sufficient information at that point to plot out and plan for a general mining operation until you have gone ahead and drilled the other holes that confirm the location of the balance of the ore that willbe involved in the total operation? Mr. POWER. That is correct. Senator CHURCH. Thank you. Mr. POWER. Therefore, exploration is difficult and requires free~ dom of movement with each day's work dictating the next day's work. The first drill hole dictates the location of the second and so on. The next step after exploration is development of the ore body- providing you have found ore. We now settle down to determine the number of tons of ore, the tons of overburden and the mining cost estimates. Grade of ore is most important as this affects our plant operations. Mining methods and equipment are studied and alternate plans are prepared. But we still have, even at this point, unknown mining factors. Mining is the next step. It is impossible to drill the entire property enough to set up a complete mining plan. So we take a panel-a small area usually less than 10 acres. We drill again in more detail, then remove the overburden and extract the ore. It is only at this point and in this panel within the mine that we know fairly well what is going to happen. Even then unexpected faults or folds can make us alter our plans. Because of the geology I have just described the Phosphate Lands Conference contends that mining regulations must take into considera- tion the complexities of our mining conditions. FAST ACTIVITIES OF THE PHOSPhATE LANDS CONPDE}~NOE RELATIVE TO MINED LAND RECLAMATION Let us now turn our attention to the past activities of the Phosphate Lands Conference relative to mined land reclamation. As has been mentioned, most of the western phosphate is on the public domain administered by the Department of the Interior. On May 7, 1966, the western phosphate industry was shocked to see the Department of the Interior publish proposed regulations for the reclamation of federally owned phosphate lands which ignored the unique geologic conditions I have just described. It appeared that the authors hftd never been west and certainly were not skilled in mining. These regulations were `impractical and in the final analysis could have put the western phosphate `industry out of business. The western phosphate producers immediately `banded together for the purpose of forming the Phosphate Lands `Conference and to jointly ask for time to comment on the proposed regulations. Within 6 months we prepared and submitted to the Department of the Interior comments illustrating the problems and failings of the proposed regulations together with proposed regulations ~h'ich we felt ac~hieved the desired results of mined land reclamation without the unnecessary interference of the Federal Government in our meth- ods of prospecting and mining. PAGENO="0232" 226 We felt that the Government's proposed regulations, under the guise of reclamation, unnecessarily took away freedom of action as normally enjoyed under our free enterprise system. So, `we were not argumg with the objectives of mined land reclamation-it was the proposed method to whioli we objected. In December of 1966 when the conference submitted its proposed regulations, a copy of which is submitted as exhibit D, the Depart~ ment promised that it would study the proposal and comment back probably in January of 1967. There was never any official response except that on July 20, 1967 we were shocked again to find a new and even more restrictive set proposed regulations published by the Department of the Interior which completely ignored our prior comments and our proposed regulations. Once more in Deëember of 1967 we journeyed to Washington to again meet with the Depai±ment of the Interior. Our regulations were resubmitted, together with our explanation o~f the problems posed by the `July 20 regulations, and we have heard nothing further. Our second meeting, incidentally, was largely with a new group of people who apparently had no knowledge of our prior discussions with, and presentations to, the Department of the Interior. Since we are now discussing Senate iills 3126 and 3132, it is per- haps not timely to review for you the Department of the Interior's proposed regulations. However, our comments on the Department of the Interior's proposed regulations of July 20, 1967, are set forth in e~hibit E, which is submitted herewith. The significant point to make is that we believe that we have in good faith attempted to work out solutions to the problem of achieving mined land reclamation, but that our good faith efforts and our com- ments and proposals have `been largely ignored by the Department of the Interior. That we should be so ignored is of great concern t. us. In such circumstances we can only look to the Congress for assistance. I am sure you will find that we miners are good citizens. We don't go around tearing up the earth for the sheer joy of being destructive. We believe, and I am sure you share the `belief, that the products of mining have made significant contributions to our society. The car you drive, the television set you enjoy, yes, even the fishhook used by the sportsman, all are products of mining. Mining is a diffioult profession. The good Lord gave us our minerals, but he failed to include a set of inst~uctions with each property. All proposed regulations to date assum~ that in advance of exploration and mining the entire leased acreage~ we can predetermin&- 1. The precise location of the proposed mining operation. 2. The area where the overburden will be stored. 3. The amount of surface that will be disturbed. 4. The nature of the excavation. 5. The size of the piles of removed overburden and their loca- tion and design. All of this for the entire leased area. Now, we can do this on each panel within the mine, not the entire mine. We must make our plans step by step. And, in our proposed regulations we say exactly that. But the Department of the Interior wants more. They want to tell us where to drill, where to build roads, the size and types of equip- ment to be used for exploration, development, and extractive opera- PAGENO="0233" 227 tions, and on and on. Our competitive way of life just won't permit us to have a partner with full and final authority unless he shares the economic risks with us. We judge our equipment, our facilities-all of our activities-on dollars spent and whether or not we can stay in business. So it is not whether we will reclaim or beautify. We will. We have said so. It is not whether ; it is how. So, please, will someone who' doesn't want to take away our rights, read and understand or, at least, acknowledge our proposed regu- lations. The difficulties of mining and reclamation go hand in hand. Resitor- ing the land in our case is much more difficult than restoring the land on a fiat deposit. We don't have rivers adjacent to our mines. Our average rainfall is very low and the water in the summertime is at a premium in the mine areas. We don't pollute waiters. We don't form acid waters-phosphate and other components of the phosphate are not soluble in water. Last, one must consider the alternate uses of our desert lands and what those uses contribute to our States and Nation. For the most part, we are located in isolated areas away from the eyes of the tourist. No one can say the mining areas are scenic, or at least few can call a sagebrush hill scenic. Since we have been reseeding for 2 years, we do not destroy food for deer. The less than 2,000 acres western phosphate mining has disturbed over its entire history would. not feed 100 head of deer. The western phosphate industry is important to our Nation and particularly important to the economy of our Western States. We submit herewith, as exhibit F, a report which illustrates the economic significance of the western phosphate industry. As pointed out in the brochure, phosphate has many uses from fertilizers to pharmaceu- ticals. We have contributed millions of dollars of cash flow to the people of our States in the form of payrolls, taxes, supplies, purchase of power and railroad freight, et cetera. In 1967 our anual payroll was $122 million, our plant investment directly related to western phosphate was in excess of $654 million over the Nation, and out of this we have disturbed in the past 20 years, 1,781 acres, all of which will eventually be reseeded. We will cooperate with our Government in its efforts to beautify America. We simply want to keep the ~ freedoms necessary for us to survive in a competitive industry. ~ ~ Senator METCALF. May I interrupt at this~ time before Mr. Olsen starts ~ Mr. L. Boyd Finch is in the audience and representing the Sec- retary of the Interior. I wonder if, Mr. Finch, you `would not see that these regulations are acknowledged and if you choose, the record will be open for you to make the necessary comments on them. I feel that the phosphate industry is entitled to an acknowledgement and some feeling on the part of the Department of the Interior as far as the regulations are concerned. Will you relay that suggestion to the Secretary? Mr. FIN0H. I will, Mr. Chairman. I would add that I think it has been acknowledged in official conferences with the representatives pres- ent here. today. PAGENO="0234" 228 Senator METCALF. Will you make whatever acknowledgement has been made a part of the record ~ Senator CHURCH. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be helpful if we were to go a step further, with your permission. It seems to me that a very strong case has been made here by the western in- dustry, the burden of which is that the original regulations which were proposed by the Department simply failed to take into account the realities of phosphate mining in the West. There seems to be some grounds for believing that the regulations were drafted with the situ- ation in Florida and in other places in mind where the mining prob- lems are entirely different. This is what occasioned the alarm in the western industry. A case has been stated here showing that the pro. posed regulations by the Department simply didn't fit the conditions of mining in the West. So I think that it is not only necessary that this case be acknowl- edged by the Department, but I think it is necessary for the Depart- ment to reply point by point to the case that has been made, in specifics, so that this committee will have an opportunity to weigh the argu- ments of the western industry against whatever counterargument in f act exists point by point. That will give this committee the basis for making an appraisal of the situation and I certainly think the industry is entitled to a rejoinder on that basis when they make their case in this detail. Senator METCALF. I hope that Mr. Finch will relay that to the Secretary. Mr. FINCH. I shall. (The exhibits previously referred to follow:) PAGENO="0235" 229 - "~ ~ - ~:-~--- -~-- ~ -- ~ N - EXHIBIT B - Typical Cross Section at the Gay Mine EXHIBIT C - Cross Section of Typical Mining Panel PAGENO="0236" 230 EXHIBIT D-FROPOSED PHOSPHATE REGULATIONS, SUBMITTED BY THE PHOSPHATE LANDS CONFERENCE SECTLON 3160.0-5 DEFINITIONS As used in this part: (a) "Authorized officer" means the manager of the Land Office for the land district in which the lands of a given lease or permit are located. ( b) "Cross country travel" means vehicular travel on lease or permit premises other than on a road. (c) "Director" means the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the Associate Director or an Assistant Director. (d) "Development drill holes" means holes drilled on lease premises to deter- mine the attitude, extent and phosphatic content of phosphate ore bodies exclud- ing such holes drilled on a phosphate mine panel in conjunction with the extraction of phosphate after mining operations have commenced on such panel. (e) "Development operations" means the activities performed on lease prem- ises to determine the attitude, extent and phosphatic content of phosphate ore bodies excluding such activities conducted on a phosphate mine panel in con- junction with the extraction of phosphate after mining operations have com- mencecl on such panel. (f) "Development roads" means roads constructed on lease premises to deter- mine the attitude, extent and phosphatic content of phosphate ore bodies exciud- ing such roads constructed on a phosphate mine panel in conjunction with the extraction of phosphate after mining operations have been commenced on such panel. (g) "Development trenches" means trenches excavated on lease premises to determine the attitude, extent and phosphatic content of phosphate ore bodies excluding such trenches excavated on a phosphate mine panel in conjunction with the extraction of phosphate after mining operations have commenced on such panel. (h) "Lease premises" means lands included in a phosphate lease issued pur- suant to these regulations. (i) "Mine" means an area of land included in a lease or leases issued pursuant to these regulations consisting of one or more phosphate mine panels from which phophate is extracted including the pits, overburden disposal areas, phosphate ore stockpiles and roads involved in the extraction of phosphate exclusive of prospecting and development roads and trenches and other excavations con- structed for the purpose of locating phosphate ore bodies and determining the attitude, extent and phosphatic content and mineability thereof. The boundaries Of a mine shall be determined by the Lessee in its discretion. (j ) "Mined area" means surface of land from which overburden or phosphatic material has been removed other than by drilling. (k) "Mining operations" means the activities performed on lease premises in the extraction of phosphate, including the excavating of pits, removal of phos- phate, disposal of overburden, and the construction of haulage roads but exclu- sive of development roads, development trenches, drill holes and other develop- ment operations. (1) "Off-site" means the land area on lease or permit premises exclusive of overburden disposal areas, mined areas, phosphate ore stockpiles and roads. (m) "On-site" means the land area on lease or permit premises included in overburden disposal areas, mined areas, phosphate ore stockpiles and roads. (n) "Overburden" means material extracted by Lessee which is not a part of the material ultimately removed from the lease premises and marketed by Lessee, exclusive of phosphate ore stockpiles. (o) "Overburden disposal area" means land surface on lease premises upon which overburden is piled or planned to be piled. (p) "Prospecting drill holes" means holes drilled on permit premises to locate phosphate ore bodies and to determine the workability thereof. (q) "Prospecting operations" means activities performed on permit premises to locate phosphate ore bodies and to determine the workability thereof. (r) "Prospecting roads" means roads constructed on permit premises to locate phosphate ore bodies and to determine the workability thereof. (s) "Prospecting trenches" means trenches constructed on permit premLses to locate phosphate ore bodies and to determine the workability thereof. (t) "Peak" means a projecting point of overburden. (u) "Permit premises" means lands included in a phosphate prospecting per- mit issued pursuant to th&se regulations. PAGENO="0237" 231 (v) "Phosphate mine panel" means. that portion of a mine designated by Lessee as a panel of a mine on the map submitted pursuant to Section 3161.4-2 herein. (w) "Phosphate ore stockpile" means phosphatic materials extracted during mining operations and retained on the lease premises for future rather than immediate use. (x) "Pit" means an exca'cration created or to be created by the extraction of phosphate or overburden during mining operations, (y) "Ridge" means a lengthened elevation of overburden. (z) "Road" means a way constructed on the lease or permit premises for the passage of vehicles. (aa ) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior or hi~ authorized representative. SECTION 3161.4-1 GENERAL Objectives. It is the policy of the Department to encourage the exploration and development of phosphate deposits of the public lands and at the same time to minimize damages to other resources and aesthetic values, both on-site and off-site, of the lands containing such deposits and all adjacent lands. In furtherance of this policy, each Lessee and Permittee under any new lease or permit hereafter entered into will be required to conduct prospecting, develop- mont and mining operations on the lease or permit premises, as the case may be, in accordance with the multiple use and conservation practices required by Sections 3161.4-5, 3161.4-6, 3161.4-7, 3161.4-8 and 3161.4-9 of these regulations. SECTION 3161.4-2 SUBMISsIONS BY LESSEE PRIOR TO MINING OPERATIONS : MAPS, DIAGRAMS, CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLANS (a) Any Lessee desiring to extract phosphate from lands hereafter leased pursuant to these regulations, shall submit to the authorized officer prior to corn- mencing mining operations on a given phosphate mine panel which Lessee desfres to extract phosphate the following: (1) A map of the phosphate mine panel on which Lessee desires to con- duct mining operations which sets forth with respect to said panel the following: (i) The location of existing roads and anticipated access and main haulage roads planned to be constructed in conducting the mining opera- tions. (ii) The approximate boundaries of the lands to be utilized in the process of extracting the phosphate including overburden dispoaal areas, phosphate ore stockpile areas and in the case of surface mining, the area from which the phosphate and overburden is to be removed. (iii) The approximate location and, ifknown, the names of all streams, creeks, or bodies of water within the area where mining operations shall take place. (iv) The approximate location of buildings and utility lines within the area where mining operations shall take place. (v) The drainage adjacent to the area where the surface is being Ut!- lized by mining operations. (2) Diagrams showing the planned location and design of pits, phosphate ore stockpiles and overburden piles which will be constructed in the course of the mining operations on said panel. (3) A conservation and reclamation plan setting forth the action which the Lessee intends to take to comply with the provisions of Sections 3161.4-5 and 3161.4-6 herein as to the mining operations conducted on such phosphate mine panel including the following: (i) Designation of the planned overburden piles setting forth the man- ner in which it is planned they will be prepared so as to minimize erosion. (ii) Designation of measures to be taken to prevent hazardous silta- tion of streams and lakes. (iii) The roads which the Lessee plans to abandon and cross-ditch. (iv) The revegetation activities which the Lessee plans to conduct. PAGENO="0238" 232 SECTION 8101.4-3 ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN: APPEAL BY LESSEE (ak) Ui~on determination by the authorized officer that a conservation and rec1ai~ation plan or any amended plan submitted by Lessee pursuant to Section 3161.4-2 meets the requirements of Sections 3161.4-5 and 3161.4-6, said officer shall deliver to the Lessee in writing a notice of acceptance of the conservation and reclamation plan and thereafter said plan shall govern and determine the nature and extent of the conservation and reclamation obligations of Lessee for compliance with the provisions of Sections 3161.4-5 and 3161.4-6. ~ (b) Upon determination b~ the authorized officer that a conservation and reclamation plan or amended plan referred to in Section 3161.4-2 herein fails to fulfill the requirements of Sections 3161.4-5 and 3161.4-6 of these regulations, he shall deliver to the Leesee in writing a notice of rejection of the conservation and reclamation plan and shall set forth in said notice of rejection the manner in which the plain fails to fulfill `said requirements and shall stipulate the cor- rective requirements necessary to comply with `said regulations. Upon receipt of said notice of rejection the Lessee may submit amended plans. T~pon further determination by the authorized officer that an am'ended plan `does not fulfill the requirements of the regulations, he shall `deliver to the Lessee in writing a notice of rejection of the amended conservation and reclamation plan, and shall set forth in said notice of rejection the manner in which such amended plan fails to fulfill said requirements and shall `stipulate the requirements iTeceesary to comply with said regulations. (0) The authorized officer shall deliver to t'he Lessee within thirty (30) days after the receipt of any conservation and reclamation plan or amended conserva- tion and reclamation plan the notice of rejection or notice of acceplance of said plan as the case may `be, provided, however, that if the authorized officer fails to deliver a notice of acceptance or notice of rejection within said time period, the plan submitted shall be deemed to comply with the regulations, and Lessee may commence and conduct his mining operation~s on the phosphate mine panel covered `by such plan as if a notice of acceptance of said plan had been redeived from the authorized officer. (d) Lessee may at any time after the receipt of a notice of rejection of a conservatioan and reclamation plan or amended conservation and reclamation plan deliver to the authorized officer in writing a notice of intent to appeal `the determination of the authori~ed officer that a given plan or amended plan does not meet the requirements of the regulations, whereupon the au- thorized officer shall within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of said notice of intent to appeal, issue and deliver to the Lessee a written do- cision formally rejecting the said plan or amended plan, whIch decision shall sht ~orth in detail the reasons for such rejection and the factual findings upon which such rejection is based together with the action which must be taken by the Lessee in order to comply with said regulations. Lessee may then appeal such decision as herethaifter provided. SECTION 8161.4-4 CHANGES IN APPROVED PLAN; ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF SUP- PLEMENTAL PLAN; APPEAL BY LE5SEIO EMERGENCY PROCEDURES (a) In the event that circumstances arise which the Lessee believes require a change in an approved conservation and reclamation plan, including any amended conservation and reclamation plan, then the Lessee may submit to the authorized officer a supplemental plan setting forth the proposed changes and stating the reasons therefor. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a supplemental conservation and reclamation plan or any amended supplemental plan submitted by Lessee meets the requirements of Sections 3a61,.4-5 and 3161.4-6 herein, said officer shall deliver to the Le~see in writing a notice of acceptance of said supplemental plan and thereafter said supplemental plan shall govern and determine the nature and extent of the conservation and rec- lamation obligations of the Lessee for compliance with the provisions~ of Sections 8161.4-5 and 3161.4-6. ~(b) Upon determination by the authotized officer that a supplemental con- servation and reclamation plan fails to fulfill the requirements of Sections 3161.4-5 and 3161.4-6 of these regulations, he shall deliver to the Lessee in writing a notice of rejection of the supplemental conservation and reclamation plan and shall set forth in said notice of rejection the manner in which said plan fails to fulfill said requirements and shall stipulate the corrective require- ments necessary to comply with said reguiationsc Upon receipt of said notice of PAGENO="0239" 233 rejection the Lessee may submit amended supplemental plans. Upon further determ.inatlon by the authorized officer that an amended supplemental plan does not fulfill the requirements of the regulations, he shall deliver to the Lessee in writing a notice of rejection of amended supplemental plan and shall set forth in said notice of rejection the manner in which such amended supplemental plan fails to fulfill said requirements and shall stipulate the requirements necessary to comply with said regulations. (C) The authorized officer shall deliver to the Lessee within thirty (30) days after the receipt of any supplemental conservation and reclamation plan or amended supplemental conservation and reclamation plan to notice of rejection 01' notice of acceptance of said plan as the case may be, provided, however, that if the authorized officer fails to deliver a notice of acceptance or notice of rejection within said time period, the supplemental plan submitted shall be deemed to comply with the regulations and Lessee may commence and conduct or continue, as the case may be, his mining operations as if a notice of acceptance of said plan had been received from the authorized officer. (4) Lessee may at any time after receipt of a notice of rejection of any supplemental conservation and reclamation plan or amended supplemental con. servation and reclamation plan deliver to the authorized officer in writing a notice of intent to appeal the determination of the authorized officer that a given supplemental plan or amended supplemental plan does not meet the requirements of the regulations whereupon the authorized officer shall within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of said notice of intent to appeal, issue and deliver to the Lessee a written decision formally rejecting the said supplemental plan or amended supplemental plan which decision shall set forth in detail the reason for such rejection and the actual findings upon which such rejection is based together with the action which must be taken by the Lessee in order th comply with said regulations. Lessee may then appeal such decision as hereinafter provided. (6) The lessee shall not conduct mining operations with respect to a phos~ phate mine panel which is covered by an approved conservation and reclamation plan which are contrary to such plan until the supplemental conservation and reclamation plan or amended supplemental conservation and reclamation plan has been accepted as provided in these regulations, except that if Lessee deter- mines that unforseen events or unexpected conditions require immediate changes of an approved conservation and reclamation plan or any approved amended or supplemental plan, the Lessee may continue mining operations in ac- cordance with the procedures dictated by the changed conditions pending sub- mission and approval of a supplemental plan even though such operations do not (comply with the approved plan, provided, however, that nothing herein stated shall be construed to excuse the Lessee from performing mining operations in a good and miner-like manner and in accordance with the requirements of Sections 3161.4-5 and 3i6i.4-~6. SECTION 3161.4-5 CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION REQtJIREMENT5 (a) Every Permittee or Lessee who conducts prospecting, development or mining operations on permit or lease premises shall perform the following land conservation and reclamation activities: (1) Ridges of overburden shall be leveled in such manner as to have a minimum width of ten feet at the top. (2) Peaks of overburden shall be leveled In such a manner as to have a minimum width of fifteen feet at the top. (3) Overburden piles which have been deposited in such a manner as to be fiat on top shall be prepared to minimize erosion from water which is deposited on top of such overburden piles. (4) Where water run-off from overburden piles, phosphate ore stock- piles or mined areas results in stream or lake siltation in excess of that which normally results from run-off and which creates a hazard to wildlife, stock, or humans using said water, Lessee shall prepare the overburden piles, phosphate ore stockpiles, mined areas and adjacent off-site premises as necessary to reduce the siltation to non-hazardous levels. (5) Roads which are abandoned will be cross-ditched insofar as necessary to avoid erosion gullies. (6) Prospecting and development drill holes shall be plugged so as to eliminate hazard to humans or animals. PAGENO="0240" I 234 (7) Abanctoneu overburden piles shall be topped, to the extent that such overburden is reasonably available from the pit, with that type of over- burden which is conducive to the control of erosion or the growth of the vegetation which Lessee elects to plant thereon. ( 8) Lessee shall conduct . revegetation activities on the mined areas, over- lurden piles, and abandoned roads in accordance with the provisions of Sections 31G1.4-6 and 31G1.4-7. (b) The authorized officer may direct that a given road or portion thereof not be cross-ditched or revegetated and upon such request the Lessee shall be excused from performing such activities as to such road or portion thereof. ( c) Leases and prospecting permits entered into pursuant to these regula- tions and conservation and reclamation plans shall contain no terms requiring performance by Lessee of conservation and reclamation activities in addition to those set forth in these regulations and all requirements as to conservation and reclamation activities shall be reasonably construed to further the policy of the department to encourage the exploration and development of the phosphate deposits on public lands as well as the reclamation and conservation of the lease and permit premises. . 5ECTION 1 3 61. 4-6 REvEGETATION ~ ( a ) Lessee shall plant on the roads, mined areas, and overburden piles vege- tatlon species comparable to the vegetation which was growing on the area occupied by the road, mined areas, or overburden piles prior to the prospecting, development and mining operations. ( b) No planting shall be required on any road, mined area, or overburden pile, or portions thereof, where planting would not be practicable or reasonable because the soil is composed of sand, gravel, shale, stone or other materials to such an extent as to inhibit plant growth or if the climatic conditions are such that planting has little likelihood of being successful. (0) No planting shall be required to be made with respect to any of the following: (1 ) On any mined area or overburden pile proposed to be used in the mining operations for haulage roads, so long as such roads are not abandoned. (2 ) On any mined area or overburden pile where pools or lakes may be formed by rainfall or drainage run-off from the adjoining lands. (3) On any phosphate ore stockpile. (4) On any prospecting or development trench which will become a part of any pit or overburden disposal area. (5) On any road which Lessee intends to use in its mining operations so long as said road has not been abandoned. (6) Oh any mined area consisting of exposed rock which will not support vegetation. SECTION 3101 .4-7 CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES : STANDARDS, COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION All ~ conservation and reclamation activities required to be conducted ~ under Sections 3161.4-5 and 3161.4-6 shall be performed in a good and workman-like manner with all resonable diligence and as to a given prospecting or development road or trench within one year after abandonment thereof. The conservation and reclamation activity as to a. given phosphate mine shall be commenced within one year after mining operations have permanently ceased as to such panel, provided however, that in the event that during the course of mining operations on a given phosphate mine panel, the Lessee permanently ceases disposing of over- burden on a given overburden pile or permanently ceases removing phosphate from a given pit, or permanently ceases using a given road, then the conserva- tion and reclamation activities to be conducted hereunder as to such pit, road, or overburden pile, shall be commenced within one year after such termination despite the fact that all operations as to the phosphate mine panel which includes such pit, road or overburden pile have not permanently ceased. It shall be pre- sumed that the Lessee has permanently ceased mining operations as to a given overburden pile or pit if no substantial amount of overburden has been placed on the overburden pile in question or if no phosphate or associated or related min- erals have been removed from the pit in question, as the case may be, for a period of ten (10) years unless within said time Lessee in good faith advises the authorized officer that such operations have in fact not permanently ceased PAGENO="0241" 235 and that the Lessee intends to resume mining operations with respect to such pile or pit. SECTION 3161.4-10 DECISION OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER REQUIRING OOMPLIANCE; TIRtE PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE Lessee shall not conduct cross country travel, construct roads, drill holes, or make excavations which are not in accordance with good and miner-like prospect- ing, development and mining operations. SECTION 3161.4-9 COMPLIANCE WITH WATER POLLUTION, WATEI~ USE, MINING SAFETY STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Lessee shall conduct all prospecting, development and mining operations in accordance with all applicable statutes and reasonable regulations pertaining to water pollution, water use, and mining safety in effect as of the date of the lease. SECTION 3 161.4-10 DECISION OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE; TIME PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE With respect to leases and permits which are subject to the provisions of Sections 3161.4-5, 3161.4-G, 31~1.4-7 and 3161.4-8, in the event that the author- ized officer determines that the Lessee is not conducting prospecting, develop- ment or mining operations in acCordance with the provisions of said Sections, said officer shall, prior to the commencement of any action under Section 3165.2 of these regulations, issue a decision setting forth the manner in which the Lessee is failing to comply with the provisions of said sections, the action which should be taken by the Lessee to rectify such a failure and to comply with said regula- tions together with the time period within which such action should be taken. The time period designated shall be long enough to allow the Lessee in the exer- else of reasonable diligence to rectify any failure to' comply as designated in said decision. In the event that the Lessee takes such action as is necessary to comply with said regulations within the time period designated by said officer or witnin the time period designated in any decision rendered on appeal, the Lesser shall not proceed with action pursuant to Section 3165.2 as to any failure designated. SECTION 3161.5-1 RIGHT OF APPEAL; HEARING Any Lessee may appeal any decision issued pursuant to the regulations contained in this part. Such an appeal shall be governed by the regulations set forth in Part 1840 except as modified by Sections 3161.5-2 and 3161.5-3. Hear- ings conducted pursuant to such appeal shall be governed by Part 1850. SECTION 3161.5-2 DECISION ON APPEAL: DESIGNATION OF TIME PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE Any decision `of the director or secretary requiring the Lessee to perform certain acts relative to his prospecting, development, mining, conservation or reclamation operations shall specify the time period within which such action should be taken, and the time period designated shall be long euough to allow the Lessee, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, to perform the required acts. SECTION 3 161.5-3 DECISION MADE EFFECTIVE DURING APPEAL: RIGHT TO JUDIOL&L REVIEW Any decision requiring the Lessee to perform or refrain from performing certain acts relative to his prospecting, development, mining, conservation or reclamation operations shall be considered a final decision so as to be' agency action subject to judicial review under Section 10 (c) of the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946 (60 Stat. 237) , if it has been made effective pending a decision on appeal. EXHIBIT E SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF PHOSPHATE LANDS CONFERENCE (Response to proposed rulemaking published July 20, 1967, relating to reclama- tion of surface mixed lands) 95-623----68---16 PAGENO="0242" ` 236 I. INTRODUCTION The Conference desires to cooperate with the Department in formulating regula- tions to accomplish adequate mined land reclamation. The proposed regulations iii certain respects are impractical and unsuited to western phosphate explora- tioll mid mining. II. EEsuM~ OF OBJECTIONS A. Requiring the submission of a plan for operation prior to commeneing exploration opeartions, is impractical because at this stage no one knows enough about the ore body to determine whether, where, or how mining opera- tions will be undertaken. B. Vesting authority in the "appropriate officer" to control exploration activi- ties which in western phosphate mining include almost exclusively the digging of comparatively small trenches and drilling of exploration holesi is' impractical because the location of these holes and trenches must be governed by~ geologic conditions. Submission of an exploration operations plan for approval is un- necessary in order to bring about reclamation of the land affected. C. Vesting the authorized officer with authority to control not only reclamation activity but also mining methods results in unnecessary interference with mining operations. D. The "appropriate `officer" should be a person who possesses geological and engineering training and who has had mining experience. E. The regulations provide for an "open ended" contract thus allowing the De- partment to change unilaterally the obligations and hence increase the mining costs of a holder. ~1. All anticipated supplemental regulations should be presented and reviewed before the present proposed regulations are adopted. G. The regulations do not contain limitations and standards as to what a holder may be required to do to achieve the objectives of the regulations, and thus a holder is subjected to the unfettered discretion of the "appropriate officer". LET. The regulations do not establish guidelines for reclamation on a local, regional and industry basis. I. The holder with an "open end" lease or permit may not be able to obtain bonding or financing. ;r. The Department should not be able to exclude an area from development after a holder has paid for a lease on the basis of being able to develop all economically available phosphate on the premises. K. The regulations do not provide for coordination among various federal and State agencies which have overlapping jurisdiction. L. The Department should not be allowed to in effect cancel all leases of a given lessee if a bond Is forfeited as to one of his leases. M. The appeal section lacks provisions for impartial hearings and fails to specify the procedure and basis for appeal. 0. There are no time limits Within which the Department must act on proposed plans submitted by a holder. P. Several terms are undefined, ambiguous and uncertain of meaning. m. PROPOSED ACTION Enclosed are proposed regulations which substantially avoid the problems Eet forth above but which nevertheless provide for adequate declamation of federally owned western phosphate lands. The Conference suggests that the time for submittiing comments be extended to allow time for a cooperative effort to establish satisfactory regulations pertaining to mined land reclamation. The `Conference also raises a question as to whether or not sweeping changes at this time are premature in view of the activities of the Public Land Law Review Commission. STATEMENT OF THE PHOSPHATE LANDS CONFERENCE By proposed rule making published in the Federal Register of Thursday, July 20, 1967, the Secretary of the Interior proposed to add a new part to Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations relating to `the protection and reclamation of surfaced mined lands. Interested parties have been invited to submit written comments by `October 20, 1967. This statement is prepared in accordance there- svith. PAGENO="0243" 237 I. INTEODUOTXON The publishing of the proposed rules can~e as a surprise to the Phosphate Lands Conference in view of the fact that representatives of the Conference had met with representatives of the Department in December of 1966 to discuss the proposed rule making for the reclamation of phosphate land and had under- ~tood that the Department would be in contact with the industry relative to the proposals discussed at the December meetings before further action was taken by the Department Nevertheless, since receiving notice of the publication of the proposed rules, the members of the Conference have met to consider the newly proposed regulations. The purpose of this statement is to highlight the problems that would be encountered by the western phosphate mining industry and the United States if the proposed regulations were adopted in their present form. The Conference is in accord with the policy that the exploration for and mining of phosphate should be conducted in a manner consistent with reasonable land conservation practices and renews its offer to cooperate with the Depar~ent in formnlating regulations which would accomplish this objective. II. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS Notwithstanding the agreement of all members of the Conference that phos- phate mining operations should be conducted in accordance with reasonable conservation practices, they find that the proposed regulations in certain re- spects are impractical and unsuited to western phosphate exploration and mm- ing. In `this regard, the Conference submits the following analysis of the proposed regulations: A~. submission of plan for operation prior to commencing ecopioratory, develop- meat, or ewtractive operations While the Phosphate Lands Conference, as indicated in the proposed regula- tions submitted to the Department by it dated November 16, 1966, believes that the most feasible approach to the reclamation of surfaee-mined land is to have a plan for reclamation submitted and approved, it is virtually impossible to have such a plan submitted and approved before exploration i~ commenead. Prior to exploration, no one knows what extracting operations will be con- ducted, if any, on the lands in ~uesffon. Large areas c~ntaining phosphate deposits are classified as subject to the leasing previsions of the Mineral Leasing Act notwithstanding almost a total lack of knowledge ~xf the extent, attitude, quantity, ~ua1ity, mineahility or workability of the deposits. At the time of the commencement of exploration activities neither the United States nor the holder possesses any appreciable knowledge about the nature of the mineral deposits on the leased lands. For example, it is impossible to dnter- mine- (a) The precise location of the proposed mining operation. ( b ) The area where the overburden will be stored. (C) The amount of surface that will be disturbed. (d) The nature of the excavation that will be necessary in order to obtain the ore. (e) The size of the piles of removed overburden and their location and design. (/) The nature and extent of erosion problems, if any. (g) What livestock operations might be interfered with. (h) What streams, if any, will be interfered with. (i) What crops, including foliage, timber, etc. will be disturbed and the extent thereof. (j) Size and types of equipment to be utilized for exploration, develop~ ment, or extractive operations. (Ic) Capacity, character, standards of construction, size and location of structures and facilities to be built. (1) The method of handling, storing and using explosives and fire. It is impossible at the time of the commencement of exploration activities to determine what steps will have to be taken in order to remove the ore and thus obtain the objective of "encouraging the exploration and development of the phosphate deposits of the public lands" and at the same time comply with the objectives of the proposed regulations. Consequently, it would not only be im- ipossible to describe these operations, but, in addition, it wonld be in~possible to determine what reclamation activities would be needed. PAGENO="0244" 238 Although it must be recognized that unexpected situations may arise at anytime during the course of mining which would alter the factors referred to above. an effort should be made to arrive at the most opportune time for the determina- tion of the activities to be undertaken in furtherance of mining according to good and miner-like practices and with a view to conserving the other resources. It is suggested that the most opportune time to make such a determination ~ is after the lease has been signed and sometime ~hort1y before mining commences into given area. B. Authority to control e~vploration a~etivities Exploration activities performed in western phosphate mining which would disturb the surface consist largely of digging comparatively small trenches and drilling exploration holes. The proposed regulations require the holder to present to the Department a plan of his operations including where roads will be built, etc., and further grant to the Department the authority to designate changes in these plans and thus control where holes will be drilled and trenches dug. In phosphate exploration or mining, it is impossible to "control" the location of drill holes. The location of a given hole is determined by geologic conditions. In the process of exploration, the lessee must be allowed to drill where his train- irig and experience in the light of geologic conditions indicate he should. In most instances he does not know where his next drill hole should be until he has com- pleted his last drill hole-and the time lapse may be a matter of hours. This is true both as to exploration conducted to determine the presence of phosphate under a phosphate prospecting permit and as to exploration done after the grant- ing of the lease for the purpose of determining how the ore body lies and its phosphate content. Since it is impossible to plot in advance the location of drill holes, if the Department is to dictate the location of such drill holes, it would be necessary to either have a representative from the Department on the scene when the drilling was taking place or to have the lessee oltain permission to drill each hole. It is submitted that either procedure is impractical and in fact un- necessary inasmuch as the location of such holes is determined by geologic condi- tions, and the lessee for economic reasons will not drill any more holes than is necessary. Reclamation of the areas affected by exploration activities could be accomplished without the submission of a plan of operation prior to commencing the exploration a etivities by establishing the requirements for such reclamation in the regulations. ci. Authority to control methods of ecetraeting phosphate The proposed regulations contemplate that the holder shall, prior to corn- mencing exploration, development, or extracting operations, present to the De- partment a description of the proposed methods of operating and that the Dapartrnent may designate the changes in such plans that it deems necessary. "Method of Operation" is defined in the proposed regulations as ~rj~ method or manner by which a cut or open pit is made, the overburden is placed or handled, water is controlled or affected and other acts performed by the operator in the process of exploring or uncovering and removing a mineral deposit." (~23.3 (e)) The regulations further provide that this description shall include but not be limited to: ( a ) Proposed roads or vehicular trails to the area. ( b) Size and types of equipment to be utilized for exploration, develop- mont or extractive operations. ( c) Capacity, character, standards of construction, size and location of structures and facilities to be built. (a) The method of handling, storing and using explosives and fire, and the safety precautions to be taken during such use. (e) Measures to be taken to avoid damage to property or improvements, roads, trails and water courses. (1) Measures to be taken to prevent or control fire, soil erosion, water pollution, damage to fish and wildlife, and hazards to public health and safety. (U) Proposed manner and time of performance of work to reclaim areas disturbed by holders operation. The problem of presenting this type of information before exploration com- mences has already been discussed herein. Furthermore, the determination of the size and type of equipment that will be used may change from day to day and from hour to hour. It Is submltted.that to allow the federal government through PAGENO="0245" 239 some unknown "appropriate offleer" to control not only the reclamation activi- ties but also the actual methods of mining, creates an onerous and unnecessary burden on the person engaging in the mining activity. 11). Definition oj' "appropriate officer" The definition of "appropriate officer" is vague and meaningless. Will he be an officer of the B.L.M., the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the U.S.G.S. ? It is sug- gested that the definition should be specific enough to allow industry to know who the officer will be in the various areas of operation. The regulations should further specify that the "appropriate officer" will possess geological and engi- neering training and that he will have had experience in mining. B. The open end contract The proposed regulations provide: "Permits, licenses, leases, or other contracts will require the holder thereof to conduct his operations in accordance with previously approved plans and ap- plicable departmental regulations." (~ 23.2(b)). "The appropriate departmental officer, after reviewing the informatioii and plans submitted by a holder pursnaiit to tJie requirements of this p~trt, shall mdi- cute to the holder any changes, additions `or `ameuchnents necessary to conform to the objectives of the regulations in this part and in other $upplementai depart- mental regulations." (~ 23.5(a) . (Emphasis added.) "Permission for the holder of a permit, license, lease, or other contract to eperate shall not be approved by the appropriate departmental officer if he deter- mines that plans of operation and reclamation which will achieve the purposes ~of these regulations or other $upplementca departmental regulations have not been formulated." (~ 23.6(a)). (Emphasis added.) "The appropriate departnienjtal `officer shall have the right to enter upon the lands under any permit, license, lease or other contract at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the provisions of these regula- tio'ns, terms of the approved `laud reclamation plan or a~j other applicable de- portmental regulotions are `or have `been complied with. "If it is determined through inspection of `the premises that a holder has failed to comply with any provisions of the `regulations in this part, the terms of his approved operating plan or any other appliooble departmental regulations a no- tice of non-compliance shall be served upon the holder." § 23.9(a) (b) ). (Em- phasis added.) From the foregoing it is apparent that the Department, simply by the adoption of supplemental regulations, may require a h~lder to perform activities not con- templated by the present regulations or any approved mining and reclamation plan. This p'e'rmits the Department to change the terms of its agreements at any time and thus allows the Department to require additional activities of a holder that were not contemplated at the time that the lease or permit or other agreement was signed. Thus the holder would `be hound `by the terms of any agreement, but the Department could make changes at will. The holder would never know just WT'hat costs might be added as' a `result of the changes. It would seem that as to miUeral leases such a procedure is contrary to the intent of the provisions of 30 U. SO. § 212, which provide that the terms of a lease are `subject to readjuistment at the end of each twenty (20) year period s'u'ec'eedling the date of the lenee- F. Uontcmplated supplemental regulations The proposed regulations in several places advert to supplemental department regulations. The nature and purpose of such supplemental regulations can only be left to conjecture. However, if the Department intends to adopt supplemental regulations, it is suggested that it would be more feasible to watt until the specific supplemental regulations are available ~or review before adopting the general regulations as proposed. a. Ambiguities and absense of limitations or standards governing what the lessee may be required to do The proposed regulations are ambiguous as to what a holder may be required to do. Section 23.7 appears to set forth what the responsibilities of a holder are, but it appears from other sections that a holder may be vequired to perform activities in addition to those listed in this section, (For example, see ~ 23.4(c) and 23.4 (d).) Furthermore, there ttre some rather board general statements that `are unqualified by other provisions of the' regulations. For example, § 23.2 (b) provides: "The holder will also be required to take prescribed steps to reclaim PAGENO="0246" 240 such land." The term "prescribed steps" is nowhere defined or tied into the regulations pertaining to what a holder may be required to do. The discussion above relative to the adoption of supplemental regulations requiring additional activities also emphasizes the fact that there may be no, limits as to what an operator may be required to do. In addition, broad power is given to the departmental officer to designate mining and reclamation activities without any standards or guidelines as to' when such activities may be required by the appropriate officer. For example, the proposed regulations provide: "Unless it is determined by the appropriate departmental officer that environ- mental conditions of an area to be mined are such that regrading and backfilling Is not reasonable or practicable, the holder shall submit a plan showing the pro- posed methods of regrading of areas of land affected by an operation." (~ 28.4(c)) The regulations are silent `as to what environmental conditions would justify a determination by the appropriate officer that regracling and backfilling is or is not reasonable or practicable. Nothing is said as to whether or not economic factors must be considered in this regard. The regulations advert to soil preparation prior to repIanting, (~ 23.4 (d) (1) ), and require the holder to indicate the types and mixtures of shrubs, trees, or tree seedlings that the operator proposes to be planted, (`~ 23.4 (d) (2) ) , but there are no guidelines or standards to govern or limit what may be required. The terms- "reasonable" and "practicable" are used, but in this context are absolutely mean- ingless inasmuch as the discretion as to what is "reasonable" and "practicable" is left to the "appropriate officer". It is submitted that there is often wide divergence of opinion as to what is reasonable and practicable depending on the viewpoint, ex- perience, and training of the person expressing his opinion. To fill up the pits- from which phosphate has been extracted in most instances would require the up- hill hauling of millions of tons of earth at a cost that would make the mining oper- ation unfeasi-ble. It is submitted that the "appropriate officer" should not be in a. position to require such activity without being subject to some limiting guidelines. In addition, to allow such "appropriate officer" such broad authority is tanta- mount to a delegation of the rule making power to a subordinate official of an ad- ministrative agency. The granting of such power would violate the rule making requirements of the Federal Administrative Procedures Act and the estabished policy of the Department permitting public participation in the rule making process. Should the requirements set forth by the "appropriate officer" be reasonable, there would be no onerous burden placed upon the holder. However, such an as- sumption cannot be made and the "appropriate officer" could after a holder had expended considerable time and effort in establishing a mining operation, impose conditions without the consent of the holder or the benefit of the rule making proc- ess that would be so onerous as to make the mining operation unprofitable and result in a total loss of invested capital. A subordinate officer could also establish practices inconsistent with the policies and objectives of the Department as set forth in the regulations. H. The regulations sho~Zd establish guideline$ on a ZocaZ, regionaZ, and industry basis and should contain a standard of reasonableness As noted above, the regulations, as proposed, grant broad authority to the "ap- propriate officer" to determine not only the reclamation but also the mining pro- cedures of a holder. Final determination as to what may be required is left to the almost unfettered discretion of the "appropriate officer". It is suggested that sup- plemental regulations should be adopted on a local and regional basis establishing guidelines as to what reclamation activities may be required by an "appropriate officer" with respect to a given industry in a given locality-thus providing some protection to the holder from the whims of unfettered discretion. Furthermore, the regulations should establish an overall standard of reason- ableness `to protect the holder from unreasonable demands. 1. Effect on financing of operatio~a and obtaining bonds A holder, particularly a small operator, may not be able to finance his' mining operation or obtain a bond If lending or bonding institutions decide that there- are excessive risks of losing a lease through inability to meet governmental requirements which may change without any control of the lessee. J. E~vclusion of Zarnd area from permission to operate Seetion 23.0, of ~ regulations provides that the "appropriate departme~ntal ~o~ce~r" thay exclude land area from permission to operate if he determines "that PAGENO="0247" 241 any part of the area of land described in a request for permission to operate is~ such that previous experience with operations under similar conditions shows that substantial deposition of sediment in stream beds, landslides, or water pollution cannot feasibly be avoided * * *," The regulations contain no definition of "substantial deposition of sediment'~ or "water pollution". This, of course, jeopardizes substantial investments repre~ sented in rental and royalty payments and plant construction. There are no~ guidelines to govern the actions of the "appropriate departmental officer" and~ thus these investments are risked and may be lost through the exercise of unfet~ tered discretion of the said departmental officer. K. Coordination aiinong Federal agencies and problem of conflicting FederaZ a'n4~ S'tate autl?,ority The proposed regulations appear to apply to lands now under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service with respect to management of surface use. Such dual con- trol by the two departments is almost sure to lead to conflicts resulting in a situ- ation where the holder does not know what instructions to abide by. The regulaions as; they pertain to mining safety, and in establishing general practices relating to; minimizing the polluting of the waters of springs, streams,~ wells or reservoirs invade the province and jurisdictio;nbf other federal agencies and the several states. The control of water pollution is largely a state `activity. In addition to the various regulatory statutes of each state, Congress has enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.O.A. § 4G6. The abatement program of that act indicates the sensitivity of Congress about displacement of functions traditionally belonging to the states. The act established a Federal Water Pollution ControL Administration which has been established as a separate bureau in the Depart- ment of the Interior and provides for cooperation with state water pollution con~ trol agencies and encouragement of uniform state laws, an establishment by the states of water quality standards, together with grants for research. Only if it shall be determined after hearing that a state has not submitted a plan approved~ by the agency or if there is failure to comply with the requirements of the plan then, and only then, can that administration take affirmative steps to control and~ abate `water pollution. Safety regulation is imposed by o;ther state and federal laws and regulations. For example, the United States Bureau of Mines now makes regular safety inspections of the phosphate mining operations on federal leases. Furthermore, the proposed regullations would duplicate in the "appropriate officer" the conservation responsibilities historically performed by the Regional Mining Supervisor of the U.S.G.S. The regulations should contain provisions for avoiding conflicts among the various federal and state agencies. L. Eflw~tdown of afl operations e~po~ forfeiture of bond The effect of § 23.6(e) is to allow the Department to completely close down. a holder's operations on all its permits and leases throughout the United States if the "appropriate officer" concludes that a given bond should be forfeited. Thus, if the "appropriate officer" concludes that re-vegetation has not been prop- erly concluded, the Department can refuse to grant permission to conduct exploratory, development, or extractive operations on federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Department resulting in a closing down of all a holder's opera- tions. It is submitted that this would be tantamount to a cancellation of a holder's leases and that such authority far exceeds any authority given in the applicable statutes and is contrary to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. ~ 188. The provision for appeal In the proposed regulations fails to; specify the proce~ dares to be followed for such appeals and the basis upon which an adverse dcci- sion may be reversed. As to departmental appeals, a holder should be entitled to a hearing before an examiner who is completely independent of the Depart- ment of the Interior and who would be authorized and required to make findinga of fact in each case. The regulations should grant a holder `the right to appeal any directive, order, or decision to the appropriate courts. It is further suggested? that any decision of the Department should be considered to be a final agency action subject to judicial review under § 10c of the Administrative Procedures- Act if it is made effective pending a departmental appeal of the decision. PAGENO="0248" I 242 icr. Absence of time limSts The regulations contain no time 1im~ts within which the Department must act on proposed plans submitted by a holder. A holder must be able to program his plans for his operation and extensive delays may result in a failure of the enterprise with resulting loss of investment. Time limits should be set forth within whith the departmental officer would be required to a~4~ on plans si~bmitted to him. 0. Ambiguity of terms The regulations use several terms Which are ambiguous and uncertain of mean- ing. Examples of these (some of which have been heretofore noted) include: "prescrIbed steps", "water pollution", "stream pollution", "substantial deposition ~of sediment", "on site", "off site", "damage to lands", "damage to other resources- such as scenic, recreational and ecological values", "appropriate departmental officer", and "refnse". I]:T. PROPOSALS FOR REGULATIONS As previously noted the Phosphate Lands Conference, pursuant to meetings held with the Department after the publication of the proposed regulations of May 7, 1966, prepared and pres~nted to the Department in November of 19O~, proposed regulations for the reclamation of federally owned western phosphate lands. These proposed regulations taken into consideration the peculiarities of western phos- phate mining, protect the operator from unrealistic demands by administration . authorities, but nevertheless provide for satisfactory reclamation of the land. The Conference resubmits these industry proposed regulations herewith as Exhibit "A" and requests that they be given serious consideration. IV. ACTIVITIES OF OTHER FEDERALLY SPONSORED GROUPS The Public Land Law Review Commission is currently reviewing the laws, regulations, and problems involving public lands including phosphate lands. It is anticipated that a substantial amount of data will be obtiained and that ulti- mutely legislation and enabling regulations will be adopted which will set forth the wishes of the people through their duly elected representative's. In addition various western phosphate mining companies have entered into a cooperative study with the United States Forest Service to develop method's for rehabilitat- ing mined areas. In view of the availability of this inforn~ation in the not too distant fnture, the Conference again suggests that perhaps it is premature to attempt to make sweeping changes at this time. v. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME As demonstrated by its past efforts, the Conference is desirious of cooperating with the Department to achieve the objective of adequate mined land reclama- tion. It is suggested that the time for submission of comments, suggestions, and objections be extended to allow the Conference time to meet with representatives of the Department to discuss and analyze the problems and d~termine the best approach for establishing a workable program. Furthermore, it i's only because of the pa~t activities pursuant to the pro- posed departmental regu]iadons of May 7, 1966, that the Phosphate Lands Con- ference has been able to organize its members and present a detailed analysis of the July 20, 1967, regulations together with iudustry proposed regulations within the time period allowed. The Conference believes tbttt other segments of, the mining industry working on leasable minerals are also amenable to the objective of adequate mined land reclamation. If these segments of the industry are to make a positive contribution rel'~tive to proposed regulations, it would appear that further time for presentation and discussion of ideas would `be required. The Conference suggests that consideration be given to withdrawing the present propose'd regulations pending the development of proposals on a pra~tical and cooperaitive basis. We sincerely believe that the coopei~ative effort will suc- ceed an'd that this approach will be a credit to all iifterested parties. Senator Mirrc~r. Thank you very muoh. Thank you, Senator. Go ~ahead, Dr. Emigh. PAGENO="0249" 243 Mr. EMWH. Thank you, very much Mr. Chairman. Our next witness is Dennis M. Olsen, counsel for the Phosphate Lands Conference, and in case you are concerned over the fact that his comments go from page 13 to 36 he is just going to review them briefly and pick up high points. Mr. Olsen. Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Dr. Emigh, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jordan, Senator Church, we appreciate the opportunity of being here today and, as Dr. Emigh has indicated, I do not intend to read my state- ment at length. As he has pointed out, the objective of my particular presentation is to present an analysis of the proposed regulations. Our written statement sets forth in outline form some of these objections and problems that we see in the proposed legislation with specific references to the provisions of the bill which will substantiate our claims. How- ever, today I will merely summarize those claims without reviewing the specific provisions at length. Firstly, we note that both bills recognize that the regulation of surface mining must take into consideration the conditions existing in a given locality as they pertain to the mining characteristics and minerals involved. The conference endorses this approach and in recognition of this situation aserts that the proposed legislation should contain provisions which will insure that these important factors, together with the importance of the utilization of mineral resources, be given proper con- sideration in the regulation of surface mining for the purpose of achieving mined land reclamation. I think that I should emphasize again that the real basis for a lot of the objections that we are `submitting here today is the regula- tions that we have already seen and had to deal with and anticipate from the Department of the interior. Going on to some other matters which we note with respect to those particular bills, we note that neither bill establishes any standards which define or limit in any detail the activities which may be required or prohibited under the auspices of the Department of the interior. Consequently under these bills the Secretary is supposed to establish regulations to control erosion, flooding, and pollution of water. He is to prevent air pollution. He is to prepare regulations to require revegetation back filling, replacement of soil, and the like. But nothing is said in the bills as to how much, or when this; type of activity is appropriate. The term~ "appropriate" establishes no stan~1ard whatsoever and this is the only term that is used in the bill to establish any standard. What is "appropriate" is apparently to be determined solely by the judgment of the Secretary of the interior. Thus, under regulations promulgated pursuant to this act, a land- owner could be precluded from extracting the minerals from his land if the mining activities even slightly impaired the natural beauty of the land under circumstances wherein the mining and reclamation activities required by these regulations to preclude the impairment. of beauty would be so expensive as to make the extraction uneconomic. Of course, the same applies with respect to any of the other listed burdens in Senate 3132. PAGENO="0250" 244 Both bills, and as we understood it-this hearing was to deal with all bills before the committee-both bills; that is, S. 3132 and S. 3126, oonteiruplate that baekfilling of pits oould be re4uir~d even though a pit was in a remote arid region on a mountain under circumstanees which would require the uphill hauling of millions of tons of earth, despite the fact that there was prosphate ore in the bottom of the pit which advancements in mining technology or future domestic need would make it economically feasible to extract. We would like to draw ~ttention to the specific provisions of the bill which so provide and we would draw the committee's attention to section 101 (a) of 3126 which provides for backfihling, and section 7(A) (1) (c) of 3132 which also provides for baokfilling. Senator METCALF. Now, Mr. Olsen, you know that this committee and this group is not going to require the filling of these pits. I come from a State where we are developing one of the largest copper mining ~open pit operations in the Uiiited States. Ultimately it will rival the Bingham pit. it may be at times that it would be necessary to back- fill a small pit or even a small sand and gravel operation. I don't know. But nobody, no one in the whole United States from the Secretary of the Interior right on down, contemplates the requirement of back~ filling an open mine put. I haven~t had a chance to read some of your suggestions. If you are fearful that there is ambiguity I hope that you will submit spe- cific language as counsel for this group to be assured that that will not be required. There has to be some latitude, but it is an affront to this committee to come in and say that as reasonable men you think that we are going to require that the pits on the Mesahi Range and the Bingham, Utah, and Butte, Mont., be filled. Mr. OLSEN. Sir, we are most pleased to hear that a's your views and ~)s `the views of this committee. We are also very pleased to hear this ~1s the views of the Secretary of the Interior. We know that if and `when we ever had a lawsuit o'~rcr a situation like this we would cer- tainly want to refer to your comments which are in the record, but our problem is that there is nothing in the bill whidh would prohibit a requirement for backfilling, not a thing. Now, we know that this committee as it is now composed may not require this. We know that our present Secretary of the Interior may not require this. What we do not know is if there are many people in the United States who believe that these pits should be backfilled. So we feel that, in order for us to have someprotection, for us to be assured ~LS to whether or not we invest money in the phosphate operations in Idaho, there should be some kind of a standard set in this bill which would restrict unnecessary and unreasonable backfihling. That is all we are asking. Senator CHURCH. Will you prepare some language that would seem to you to give you this sort of statutory protection ? I agree with you that the term "uppropriate" is so broad and wide `as to be practically meaningless, but I think that it would be helpful to the committee to have some language submitted that would establish reasonable limita- tions here against what might possibly be arbitrary and capricious dis-. cretionary `action on the part of some future Secretary. I concur that a law ought to establish the necessary criteria within those reasonable guidelines within which the discretion must be exer- PAGENO="0251" 245 cised, but simply to raise the question and not to submit specific language isn't doing the whole job I think you can do for the industry. It would be helpful for us to have specific language to look at when the time comes to consider this legislation in executive session. Mr. OLsEN. Thank you, Senator, and we will be most pleased to do this. This is what we have been attempting to do with the Depart- ment for some 2 years in working out something that was feasible ~nd most certainly we are ready, willing, `and anxious to work with this `committee. Senator C'HUROII. To do the same with this committee. Mr. OLSEN. Yes, `sir. In view `of the position of this committee rela- tive to backfilling I will not go into any more detail as to the impact of backfihling on our western phosphate land's, but let us just say that it would create a tremendous impact on our industry and on the land- owners who hope to develop their lands and use them for phosphate mining. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the scope or intent pro- visions of the bill which give us any help either. The scope and intent provisions of the bill simply state that the regulations shall prevent or eliminate the burdens of mining upon the land and we respectfully submit that if you prevent them or eliminate them as required by the bill you eliminate mining. So here again we `are without any standard and we are working with an unworkable situation and `again we would be glad to work with the committee in this respect. As a matter of fact, we `would suggest that the purpose clauses state clearly that the purpose is to prevent where reasonably possible, or to reduce the adverse effects of mining but not to absolutely eliminate any ~alleged adverse effects. We feel that there should be no inconsistency or ambiguity in this regard and here again we would be pleased to work with the committee in drafting sudh legislation. Senator CHURCH. Do you know of any kind of mining, Mr. Olsen, that does not, in fact, impose some burden upon the mine? Mr. OLSEN. We don't know, Senator Church, `and for that reason, when we noted that this proposed legislation `has `as its purpose that oh- jective to eliminate these burdens, we were concerned. We `should also like to point out that, despite some `statements that `we have heard here, `already, relative to these `bills, under the provi- sions `of S. 3132 the law could have `a retroactive application requiring us to reclaim `lands that have `already `been mined. We have detailed the provisions of the `bill which `make this very `clear but the fact is if you read the bill it does have retroactive ap- plication. I think that we can all understand the effect on the miner if we add `a cost to his mining operation after he `has mined and sold his product. It creates another impossible situation. We believe that both `acts should stipulate that only those portions of `a surface mine which `are opened up and the waste disposal areas resulting therefrom after the effective date of the `act or of the State plan or Federal regulations would be subject to those regulations. We feel this is only reasonable `under the circumstances. Senator CHURCH. May I ask at this point, Mr. Olsen, if you have ~any `simil'ar fears concerning the proposed regulations of the De- partment itself? I PAGENO="0252" 246 Mr. OLSEN. These are the same problems, Senator, that we have en- countered with `both sets of regulations that have been published thus far, the possibility of retroactivity. Senator CHtmdu. You mean you have the possibility of retroactivity. Mr. OLSEN. I beg your pardon ; not on retroactivity. I do not believe the regulations have presented that problem. I can refer to our corn- ments but it is my recollection that that is not a problem that we have encountered. Senator CHURCH. As you see it, it is a possible problem in connec- tion with the proposed bill. Mr. OLSEN. Yes, sir. We would also like to draw to the committee's attention that there is extremely broad discretion given to the Secre- tary under both bills. Several sections of S. 3132 allow the Secretary to act or make determinations based solely on `his judgment or based upon what the Secretary "deems necessary," resulting in the Secretary again having unfettered discretion which may preclude any effective' judicial review of these actions. Then we list some six or seven ex- amples of actions `being `subject only to the discretion and the judgment of the Secretary. In the past the Department of the Interior, for example, has taken the position, which in some instances has been upheld by the courts, that certain actions of the Secretary are not subject to judicial review. Furthermore, when judicial review was permitted, statements in legislation or regulations pertaining thereto which granted the Secre- tary the authority to act based solely on his judgment made the rever- sal of any such actions almost impossible to obtain. Legislation on the matter should specifically provide that any action of the Secretary is subject to judicial review and that the jud~rrnent of the Secretary is not to be the sole criteria in determining whether or not he has acted properly. Continuing with my prepared statement, both bills `not only stipu- late that certain reclamation activities should be required, but also provide for the regulation and control of the extraction or mining methods as well, and we cite there the sections which so provide. The phosphate ` lands conference asserts that adequate reclamation of western phosphate lands can be achieved without outside interfer- ence with extraction methods. Due to the peculiarities of the western phos'nhate beds~ which we have drawn attention to here, extraction plans often have to be changed with practically no notice. Delays and other problems incumbent in submitting and obtaining approval of extracting methods would create an onerous and unnecessary burden on the person engaging in the mining activity. Overburden and ore must be removed as part of the mining opera- tion. In western phosphate mining the method used in doing this is irrelevant from the standpoint of reclamation of the land. The eco- nomics of the operation and. the variations in mining conditions require that the operator be allowed to utilize the extraction methods dictated by these conditions and not by a party having no economic responsibility for the success of the operation. PAGENO="0253" 247 CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND OTHER JtJDICIAL REMEDIES Both bills provide for criminal as well as civil penalties for failure to comply with regulations. In view of the day-to-day problems which often compel immediate changes in mining plans and in view of the &~xtent of control over mining activities contemplated by the bills, the mining operator is placed in a very tenuous position when he cannot change his mining plans without being subject to criminal and civil penalties even if the change in plans results in no appreciable damage. A civil penalty based on probable damages resulting from viola- tion would be understandable. It is difficult to justify the assessing of civil and criminal penalties regardless of damage. S. 3132, in addition to providing for civil and criminal penalties, also permits a civil action to be commenced in a Federal district court for a restraining order or injunction or other appropriate remedy to: Prevent a person from engaging in sprface mining operations without a permit from the Secretary, or in violation of the terms and conditions of such permit. To prevent a person from placing in commerce the products of a surface mine produced in violation of an approved State plan. Or to enforce a right of entry. The remedy preventing a person from putting his products into commerce could result in the closing down of a total operation, in- eluding not just a mine but all the plants dependent upon the mine. No restriction is placed on the use of this power. It is available with respect to the slightest violation, regardless of whether or not any actual damage results or is apt to result from the prohibited action. If such a remedy is to be available at all, it should only be permitted when substantial irreparable harm is apt to occur. We would like to direct our comment now to the problem of coordi- nation among the Federal agencies and conflicting Federal and State authority. S. 3126 is to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. Both these Secretaries have equal an- thority. This creates a tremendous problem because one Secretary can countermand what the other Secretary says and if you have a problem and you want to challenge the decision you must appeal it through the agencies of both Secretaries. To us this is an unreasonable and unrealistic approach to solving the problem of mined land reclamation. We would also like to note that S. 3132 does not have any provisions for appealing within the Department a decision, nor does it have any provision for appealing the decision of the Secretary of the Interior. We believe that it is only proper that there be provision for appeals in both respects. Senator CHURCH. Do you think in the absence of language the Uni- form Administrative Procedure Act would apply? Mr. OLSEN. Well, I think, Senator, that it very probably would, but we know that in the past, in dealing with the Department, it has taken the view in many instances that its interdepartmental decisions and its final decisions are not subject to review. So, to obviate any possible upholding of this position, we think the bill should specifically pro- vide for the review, and we have made some other comments relative to review which I will not read into the record at this time. PAGENO="0254" 248 As has been noted, both bills provide for regulation by the States, and while the Phosphate Lands Conference believes that the Western States can amply handle the problems of reclamation of surface mm- ing, we submit that, if legislation is to be adopted to allow the States this authority only if they meet Federal standards, then there ought to be some kind of a guideline or standard governing the action of the Secretary in his determination of whether or not a State is meeting the Federal requirement. Now if you might turn quickly to the last portion of our comments, I would like to mention that our foregoing comments have been di- rected primarily to a critique of the provisions in the two bills. In some instances the comments have indicated provisions which might be included in the act. The following constitute additional pro- visions which the conference respectfully suggests be considered for possible inclusion in the proposed legislation, at least as it may per- tam to western phosphate mining. To a large extent, these suggestions are made with a view to pre- venting the adoption of provisions which have been included in proposed regulations publis~hed by the Department of the Interior. These provisions, if included in future regulations pursuant to any legislation, would present real problems to the western phosphate mining indrustry while doing little to enhance the achievement of the reclamation of western phosphate lands. Both sets of regulations that we have encountered thus far have required the submission of a mining and a reclamation plan before we can even start exploring. Now in our statement we have noted the things that we don't know before exploration, perhaps the most significant one being that we don't even know whether there is going to be a mine, let alone where it is going to be, how big it is going to be and what kind of over- burden disposal area we are going to have. It is absolutely impossible for us to submit an exploration plan or a m1nin~ plan at this stage and we feel that any legislation should prevent this type of a provision from being in the regulations as they pertain to the western phosphate industry. Furthermore, the regulations that we have encountered thus far have provided that the Department should have the authority to control our exploration activities. In this respect we note that our exploration activities consist of drilling holes and we don't know where the next hole is going to be until we have drilled the last hole. The geologic conditions must dictate where we drill and it is im- possible for anyone to say, "Well, you are going to drill over here," when in fact your conditions indicate you must drill some other place. Another problem we have had has been open-ended regulations which allow the Secretary to come in after we have started our opera- tion and change the requirements and this again is a very difficult problem. In conclusion the conference asserts that unless some specific stand- ards and limitations are placed in any legislation pertaining to mined land reclamation, the Congress will, in effect, have abdicated to the administrative branch its responsibility for establishing policy. PAGENO="0255" 249 Pursuant to the unfettered authority which would be given under the present provisions of these bills, a Secretary could insist upon. regulations which would have all the problems for the western phos- phate industry which the industry has already encountered in the two sets of proposed regulations published by the Department of the Interior. There must be some guidelines limiting the authority of the administrating agency. The conference again expresses its appreciation for this opportunity to comment on S. 3132 and S. 3126. While the conference believes that adequate reclamation of surface mined western phosphate lands could be accomplished without Federal intervention, nevertheless, the conference offers its cooperation in working together with the corn- mittee to draft proposals and changes in the proposed bills which would retain the idea of treating the problems of mined land reclama- tion on a localized basis, but which would nevertheless establish stand- ards and guidelines to define the power of the administrating agency to impose requirements on the industry, either by Federal or State regulations. We have already commented about the activity of the Public Land Law Review Commission and we suggest it might be wise to with- hold any finai consideration of any legislation until this data is available. Thank you. (The full statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. OLSEN, COUNSEL FOE PHOSPHATE LANDS CONFERENCE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION IN CONTEXT OF WESTERN PHOSPHATE MINING The Phosphate Lands Ooi~farence expresses its appreciation to the Committee on Interior and InsuLar Affairs for this opportull~ty to present its views per- taming to Senate Bills 3132 and 3126. As is apparent from Mr. Power's cemments, the Phosphate Lands Conference has been involved in the matter o~f mined land reclamation in the context o!f western phosphate surface mining for ain~ost two years-mostly in conjunction with the promulgation by the Department o~ the Interior uf proposed regulations fo~ the reclamation of federally owned surface mined lands. During this period of time, the Conference, as it has done today, has pointed out to the Department the peculiarities of western phosphate mining and has emphasized the need of certain protective provisions in regulations or legislation pertaining to western phosphate surface mining. It is in the context of these r~onditions and this background of past activities that `this state~nent `is given. The Conference reiterates its desire to cooperate in achieving the objective of adequate mined land reclamation. While the Conference believes that the reclamation of western phosphate lands can be achieved without federal legis- lation or regulation, nevertheless, the Conference respectfully asserts that if there is to he federal intervention, then the regulation and legislation ought to balance the importance of the utilization of mineral resources with the im- portance of reclamation in order to assure that both objectives are reasonably achieved in an orderly and fair manner. REVIEW OF PROvISIONs OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION A. Impossibility of establishing nationwide uniform regulations Both bills recognize that the regulation of surface mining must tak~e into con- sideration the conditions existing in a given locality as they pertain to the mm- ing characteristics and minerals involved. The Conference endorses this approach, and in recogidtion of this situation asserts that the proposed legislation should contain provisions which will insure that these important factors together with the importance of the utilization of mineral resources be given proper considera- tion in the regulation of surface mining for the purpose of achieving mined land reclamation. PAGENO="0256" 250 B. Need for ~ta~uZards csta~bIishing limits as to what may be requireá~ or pro- lvi bited Neither bill establishes any standards which define or limit in any detail the activities which may be required er prohibited. S 3132 previde~ that regulation-Whether under federal or state auspices~- must "promote an appropriate relationship between the extent of regulation and reclamation that is required and the need to preserve and protect the environ- ment." The state plan (or the federal regulations in the event that such become necessary) must contain under section 7 (a) (1) (C) criteria relating specifi cally to: Control of erosion, flooding, and pollution of water, The isolation of toxic materials, Prevention of air pollution by dust or burning refuse piles or otherwise The reclamation of surface mined areas by revegetation i eplacement of soil or other means The maintenance of access through mined areas, The prevention of land or rook slides, The protection of ~flsh and wildlife in their habitat, The prevention of hazards to public health and safety. The term appropriate establishes no standard whatsoever What is appro priate" is apparently to be determined solely by the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior. (~ 7(a)(1)) Thus under regulations promulgated pursuant to the act a land owiier could be precluded from extracting the minerals from his land if the mining activities even slightly impaired the natural teauty of the land under the circumstaiices wherein the mining or reclamation activities required by these regulations to preclude the impairment of the beauty would be so expensive as to make the ex- traction uneconomic. Of course, the same applies with respect to any of the other h~ted burdens in S 3132 These burdens are set forth in section 3 (b) as follows: ( The) destroying or diminishing (of) the availability of land for coinmer cia] , industrial, recreational, agricultural, and forestry purposes, by causing ero~ion and landslides by contributing to floods and pollution of waters by destroying fish and wildlife habitat and impairing natural beauty, by counteract- ing efforts to conserve soil, water, and other natural resources, by destroying or impairing the property of citizens and by creating hazards dangerous to life and property S 1126 provides that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior in estab hsbing federal standards and mining and reclamation requirements shall con sider requirements which will reasonably assure the attainment of the following objectives ~. ~ * grading drainage backfilhng plantings, revegetation and any other measures or practices deemed by the Secretaries after consultation with appropriate advisory committees to be necessary to carry out the pur poses of this Act (~ 101 (a) and 101(b)) Both bills contemplate that the backfllling of pits could be required even thou~h a pit was in a remote arid region high on a mountain under circum stances which would require the uphill hauling of millions of tons of earth-and despite the fact that there was phosphate ore in t~ie bottom of the pit which advancements in mining technology or future domestic need would make it eco nomically feasible to extract The impact of such backfilling on western phosphate mining is tremendous. As illustrated in the report attached to Mr Power s statement the increased mining cost resulting from backfilling would eliminate a marketing area of west em phosphate fertilizer which now provides one third of the total sales of western producers and which will, in the fifture, provide an estimated 50 percent or more of such sales. The loss of this marketing area to western phosphate pro- ducers could mean the loss of over 5,000 jobs and 40 million dollars in annual payroll-plus a substantial loss in tax revenue to cities counties and states in the western phosphate producing area. The impact would also be felt severely by the private land owner who would be unable to reap the benefit of his investment in the land if the cost of reclama tion was so high as to preclude its development In effect thene bills would allow the taking of his land by the prevention of its use The unfettered discretion granted to the secretaries to set requirements for mining and reclamation which could result in a loss of use of the land also raises a serious question as to whether PAGENO="0257" 251 the taking of the land in this manner would meet the requirements of due process of law. U. 1S~oope of the in~tent md purpose of the bills In the absence of any specific standards `limiting what may ~e required or prohibited, the provisions in the bills relative to purpose and intent `become even more significant as the anticipated interpretation of the proposed `acts in the courts and otherwise is contemplated. S. 3182 is ambiguous as to the intent `and purpose of the act with `respect to what may be required of the mining operator in his mining and reclamation act!- vities. Section 3(c) provides that the purpose of the act is to prevent and eliminate certain burdens and adverse affects. These burdens and adverse affects are set forth in section 3(b) as follows: "(The) destroying or diminishing (of) the availability of land for commercial, industrial, recreational, agricultural, and forestry purposes, by causing erosion and land slides, by contributing to floods and pollution of waters, by destroying fish and wildlife habitat and impairing natural beauty, by counteracting efforts to conserve soil, water, and other natural resources, by destroying or impairing the property of citizens, and by creating hazards dangerous to life and property." Section 3 (c) indicates that these adverse affects are to be prevented or elxim4,. nated by controlling the mining operations and by specifying certain reclamation activities. The extent of the control over mining methods is nowhere defined, described, ~r limited. Reclamation is defined as "reconditioning or restoration of an area of land or water, or both, that has been adversely affected `by `surface mining operation." (~2(b)) It would thus appear that anything which affected the above mentioned attri- butes of the land must be prevented and elSmi~ated-implying either than an operator would not be allowed to `conduct the activities which would create such burdens and adverse affects, or that if he did create such adverse affects he would have to restore completely the `land to its previous `state-regardless of the cost. There is no `definition `as to what constitutes an impairn~ent of `natural `beauty. Furthermore, there i's no allowance given for any slight amount of erosion or minor impairment of the various uses of the land. Section 3(c) `simply states that it is the purpose of the act to prevent and elim'ina,te these adverse affects. On the other hand, section 3 (f) seems `to qualify the extent of the action re- quired or prohibited in that it provides for `a nationwide program "to prevent or substa'atially reduce `the adverse effects to the environment from `surface mm- ing," but it goes on to state that the purpose is "to assure that adequate measures will be taken to reclaim `surface mined areas after operations are con~p1eted." The purpose clauses of S. 3126 also fail to furnish any `limiting language. For example, section 2(b) states It `is therefore the purpose of this Act to provide parti'cipation `by the Federal Government with State and local governments, private individuals, and other interested parties in `a long-range, comprehensive program to reclaim lands and waters damaged by surface and strip mining, to promote an effective continuing conservation `land use and management program, and to prevent `further detri- ment to the Nation from `such mining operations through- " (1) The establishment of criteria and standards for the reclamation, conservation and protection of surface and strip `mined areas." In IS. 3126 the term "reclamation" is dctlned to mean "the reconditioning or restoration, when appropriate, `of the area of land affected by surface or strip mining operations and such `contiguous lands as may `be necessary for an effective continuing use and management program, under a plan approved by the Secre- taries." The `bills should state clearly that the purpose is to prevent where reasonably possible or to reduce the effects of mining but not to absolutely eliminate any alleged adverse effects. There should be no inconsistency or ambiguity in this rE~gard. D. Retroactive application Under `S. 3132, the federal or state regulations even'tually promulgated could apply retroactively to the pits which were mined prior to the effective date of these regulations. Although it would appear that it is the intent of `S. 31'&2 to provide for reclama- tion only of lands affected after the effective date of the act (section 4)-and fur- ther even after the effective date of any state plan or federal regulation (section 95-623----68--17 PAGENO="0258" 252 2 (e ) ) , a careful reading reveals that it could be construed to apply to prior opera- tions. Section 4 provides that the surface mined areas shall be subject to the act "after the effective date of the act." However, "surface mined area" is defined as "any area on which the operations of a surface mine are conclv4ed after the effective date of a State plan or (the regulations issued by the Secretary), whichever is applicable." (section 2(e)). A surface mine is defined as: " (1) An area of land from which the minerals are extracted by surface mining methods, including auger mining, " (2) Private ways and roads appurtenant to such area, " (3) Land, excavations, workings, refuse banks, dumps, spoil banks, structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other property on the surface, resulting from, or used in, extracting `minerals `from their natural deposits by surface mining methods or the onsite processing of such mm- erals." (~2(d)) Thus, If operations are currently und~rway on a "surface mine" and these operations are concluded after the effective daite of the state plan or regulation, the land affected comes within the definition of surface-mined area and would be subject to the regulations Issued pursuant to this act for reclamation. Furthermo~re, section 4 provides that a surface mine, the products of which enter commerce or the operations which affect commerce, shall be subject to the act. Under the standard operating procedures of the phosphate industry a given surface mine dould include lanis affected both before and after the effecthe date of the act. The act does not distinguish between those portions of the surface mine worked before `the act is' effective and those which are worked after the effective date of the act, and thus the whole mine could be included within the coverage of the act and `the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. The definition of "surface mined area," in S. 3132 `should provide that it includes only the area of a surface mine on which mining operations are com- meneed rather than concluded after the effective date of the state plan or federal regulations. S. 3126 is broader in scope and approach in that it establishes programs for the reclamation of previously affected mined lands as well as lands affected in the future. As to future surface mining operations section 101 provide's: "The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall develop or revise, after consultation with the national advisory committee appointed pursuant to section 6(a) of this act . . . (2) Federal standards, and mining- reclamation requirements for the administration and regulation of all future surface and strip mining operations in the United States ~ ~ ~ (b') in establish- ing Federal standards, and mining and reclamation requirements for the administration and regulation of future strip and surface mining operations in the United States, the Secretaries shall consider requirements which will reasonably assure the attainment of the following objectives : " (1) The standards shall Include, but not be limited to grading, drainage, backfilling, plantings, rovegetation, and any other measures or pradtices deemed by the Secretaries, after consultation with appropriate advisory committees, to be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. Nothing is said in the act as to whether or not the standards and require- ments established pursuant to the act shall apply to land affected after the act becomes law and up to the time of the adoption and effective date of either federal or state regulations. However, the wording of the act is such that these require- ments could be construed to apply during this period of time. Oonsequently, a person performing mining operations during this time would have to do so without knowing what reclamation he would be required to do and thus' would be unable to determine the cost of his operations bntil the regulations were effective. Both acts should stipulate that only those portions of a surface mine which are opened up and the waste disposal areas resulting therefrom after the effec- tive `date of the state plan or federal regulations would `be subject to those regulations. E. Broad discretion given to S~ecretaries Several sections of S. 3132 allow the Secretary of the Interior to act or `make determinations based solely on his judgment or biased upon what the Secretary "deems necessary"-resulting in the Secretary having unfettered discretion which PAGENO="0259" 253 may preclude any effective judicial review of these actions. Examples are as follows: Section 5 ( e) makes any payments by the federal government to the state contingent upon the administration of the state program "in the manner which the Secretary deems adequate." Section 7(a) (1) provides that the Secretary may approve a state plan if he determines that "in his judgment" the plan includes laws and regulations which meet certain requirements. Section 7 (b) (1) allows the Secretary to issue federal regulations if a state "in his judgment" has not taken adequate measures to correct any failures on the part o~f the state. Section 8(i) provides that any propc~sed federal regulatk~ns shall first be published in the Federal Register and be subject to comment. Thereafter, the Secretary may issne the regulations with "such modifications, if any, as he deems appropriate." Section 8(c) provides for a public hearing on objections, but there is no limitation on the authority of the Secretary to approve or disapprove any proposals that are discussed during the public hearing. Section 11 allows the Seeretary to issue such regulations as are "deemed~ necessary" to carry out the purposes of the act. Section :toi of S. 3126 grants very broad powers to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to establish federal standards and mining and reclamation require- ments for the regulation of surface and strip mining operations. In the past, the Department of the Interior, for example, has taken the position (which has in some instances been upheld by the courts) that certain action of the Secretary are not subject to judicial review. Furthermore, when judicial re- view was permitted, statements in legislation or regulations pertaining thereto which granted the Secretary the authority to act based solely on his judgment made the reversal of any such actions almost impossible to obtain. Legislation on the matter should specifically provide that any action of a Secretary is subject to judicial review and that the judgment of the Secretary is not to be the sole cri- teria in determining whether or not he has acted properly. F. Advi$orV committees Section 6(a) of S. 3126 apparently allows each Secretary to establish his own regional advisory committee. It would seem that one advisory committee should be ample to serve both secretaries. All proceedings of the advisory committees should be open to the public. The conclusions and recommendations and the rea- sons therefor should be a matter of public record and available for consideration in the event that any action of the Agriculture or Interior Department is challenged. a. Control of nzining methods Both bills not only stipulate that certain reclamation activities will be required, but also provide for the regulation and control of the extraction or mining methods as well. ( S. 3132 § 7(a) (1) (B) ; S. 3126 §~ 101 (b) , 101(b) (5) ) . The Phosphate Lands Conference asserts that adequate reclamation of western phos- phate lands can be achieved without outside interference with extraction methods. Due to the peculiarities of western phosphate beds extraction plans often have to be changed with practically no notice. Delays and other problems incumbent in submitting and obtaining approval of extracting methods would create an onerous and unnecessary burden on the person engaging in the mining activity. Overburden and ore must be removed as part of the mining operation. In west- em phosphate mining the method used in doing this is irrelevant from the stand- point of reclamation of the land. The economics of the operation and the varia- tions in mining conditions require that the operator be allowed to utilize the extraction methods dictated by these conditions and not by a party having no economic responsibility for the success of the operation. H. Uivi~ a~ad crimi~val penalties and other jwUciai remedies Both bills provide for criminal as well as civil penalties for failure to comply with regulations. In view of the day to day problems which often compel imme- diate changes in mining plans and in view of the extent of control over mining activities contemplated by the bills, the mining operator is placed in a very tenuous position when he cannot change his mining plans without being subject to criminal and civil penalties even if the change in plans results in no appreciable damage. A civil penalty based on provable damages resulting from a violation PAGENO="0260" 254 would be understandable. It is difficult to justify the assessing of civil and criminal penalties regardless of damage. S. 3132, in addition to providing for civil and criminal penalties, also permits a civil action to be commenced in a federal District Court for a restraining order or injunction or other appropriate remedy to: "Prevent a person from engaging in surface mining operations without a permit from the Secretary * ~ ~ or in violation of the terms and conditions of such permit, ~ "To prevent a person from placing in commerce the products of a surface . mine produced in violation of an approved State plan, "Or to enforce a right of entry." The remedy preventing a person from putting his products into commerce `could result in the closing down of a tOtal operation, including not just a mine but all the plants dependent upon the mine. No restriction is placed on the use ~of this power. It is available with respect to the slightest violation-regardless of whether or not any actual damage results or is apt to result from the pro- bibited action. If such a remedy Is to be available at all, it should only be per- mitted when substantial irreparable harm is apt to occur. L Coordination among Federal agencies and probiems of conflicting Federal anZ State aiithoritij S. 3126 is to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. Although there are some areas where specific responsibilities are assigned to the Secretary of Agriculture and other specific responsibilities are assigned to the Secretary of the Interior, generally speaking the matters per- taming to the promulgation and enforcement of federal standards and mining and reclamation requirements are under the joint control of the two secretaries. Such dual control by the two departments is almost sure to lead to conflicts resulting in a situation where a person would not know what instructions to abide by. Apparently the mining operator would have to have the approval of both secretaries as to the activities which he would have to perform pursuant to the regulations. Thus, one Secretary could effectively block action approved by the other. Also, an adverse decision would have to be appealed through the organizations for both secretaries. ~ Section 1~ of S. 3132 allows the Secretary of the Interior, or the heads of other federal agencies to include in federal leases, permits, contructs, etc. such condi- tions as they feel necessary to regulate surface mining operations and to re- claim surface mined areas under their jurisdiction~ Thus, ~n opei~ator would be subject to the provisions of his lease and also any regulations promulgated pur- suant to S. 3132. This again would lead to conflicts. It would seem appropriate to provide that the authority of the federal agencies is limited to the regulations which they may promulgate pursuant to this act-thus avoiding the conflicts which would otherwise occur. It should be noted that other federal and state agencies have overlapping authority which c!ould lead to conflicts. For example, the control of water pol- lutlon is largely a state activity. ~ The U.S. Geologic Survey has * also historically performed certain conservation responsibilities with respect to surface mining. Any legislation should contain provisions for avoiding conflicts among the various federal and state agencies. J. Right of appeal S. 3132, while specifically gi~anting to the Secretary of the Interior the au- thority to instigate judicial action as noted above, `contains no provision allow- ing a person to challenge the action of the Sec~etary in the courts. Also, there i~ rio provision in the bill for appeals within the Department. S. 3126 provides for appeals within the departments and also for the judicial review of final decisions of the secretaries. With respect to interdepartmental appeal2, section 1&2(c) provides: "Any person or operator whose application for a license or permit has beeTl dented by the Secretaries, or whose bond has been ordered forfieited by the Secretaries, or who has otherwise been aggrieved by an action of the Secre- taries, pursuant to the provisions of this Act, may appeal to the Secretaries for annulment or revision of such order or action, and the Secretaries shall issue regulations for such appeals which shall include due notice and opportunity for a hearing." PAGENO="0261" 1 The interdepartmental remedy to contest the decision of a Secretary is to appeal to the Secretary. Thus, the Secretary makes the initial adverse decision and then sits in judgment on the appeal from that decision. C~rtainly fair play would require that interdepartmental appeals and bearings be held before an examiner Who is independent of the department in question and who would be authorized and required to make findings of fact in each case. Under S. 3126 a person appealing a final decision must file his notice of appeal within 20 days. While the large mining company may have a staff which will be aware of this short appeal time, experience dictates that a small operator-~due to the many pressing problems which he has-oft times is not aware of the fact that he must appeal within a certain pertod of time until it is too late. There is no reason for establishing such a short period of time for the filing of a notice of appeaL The appeal provisions of S. 3126 provide that the appeal must be taken to the Oircuit Court, and if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of fact of the Secretary, his findings will be accepted. Past experience in administrative hearings subject to this type of review, illustrates that almost anyone can get enough evidence in the record to support the findings of fact. The usual rules for admission of evidence are not applicable in these adminis- trative hearings, and thus it is almost always possible to get evidence of some kind in ~the record to support the findings. Furthermore, the courts have con- sisten'tly followed the doctrine in such cases that the federal administrators have expertise in their particular field and their decisions are thus given great weight-~partieularly where the appeal procedures provide that the findings of the administrator need only to be supported by some evidence in the record. It is respectfully submitted that a person seeking judicial review should have the option of either proceeding with an appeal to the Circuit Court or to have a trial de novo in a Federal District Court. it is further suggested that any departmental decision should be considered to be a final agency action subject to judicial review if lit is made effeetive pending a depai~tmental appeal of the decision. K. Authority of State$ Both acts provide that the regulation of surface mining will be left to the states, provided the states proceed in accordance With standards set by the federal government. Under S. 3132 the determination of whether or not a state is proceeding satisfactorily rests solely within the judgment of the Secretary. As has been previously noted, this bill sets forth no standards or limitations governing the action of the Secretary. This situation also exists with respect to the authority of the Seeretary in determining whether or not a state is meeting the federal standards. While the Phosphate Lands Conference believes that the western staites can amply handle the problems of reclamation of surface mining, it re- specttfully submits that if legislation is to be adopted allowing the states this authority only if they meet federal standards, then there ought to be some kind of guideline or standard governing the action of the Secretary in his determina- tion of whether or not a state is meeting the federal requirements. S. 3126 provides for an appeal of the Secretary's decision ; however, the appeal again is to the Circuit Court with a proviso that if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Secretary's findings, then these findings shall be conclusive. It is respectfully submitted that a state should have the option of seeking a trial do novo in a Federal District Court. It would seem that in such circumstances the determination of a state administrator is entitled to as much respect from the standpoint of expertise as is the decision of a federal administra- tor and any appeal should be made in circumstances which would give each party equal opportunity to prevail. SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS The foregoing comments have been directed primarily to a critique of the pro- visions in the two bills. In some instances, the comments have indicated pro- visions which might be included in the act. The following constitute additional provisions which the Conference respectfully suggests be considered for possible inclusion in the pro~osod legislation-at least as it may pertain to western phos- phate mining. To a large extent, these suggestions are made with a view to pre- venting the adoption of provisions which have been included in proposed regula- tions published by the Department of the Interior which if included in future 255 PAGENO="0262" 256 regulations pursuant to any legislation would present real problems to the west- ern phosphate mining industry while doing little to enhance i~he achievement of the reclamation of western phosphate lands. A. Submission of a plan for operation prior to commencement of ecoploration operations Any legislation should forbid any requirement for the submission of a pian of operation prior to the commencement of exploration activities. While the Phosphate Lands Conference, as indicated in the proposed regula- tions submitted by it to the Department of the Interior, believes that the most feasible approach to the reclamation of surface mined lands is to have a plan for reclamation submitted and approved, it is virtually impossible to have such a plan submitted and approved before exploration is commenced. Prior to exploration, no one knows what extracting operations will be con- ducted, if any, on the lands in question. Large areas containing phosphate deposits are classified as subject to the leasing provisions of the mineral leasing act, not- withstanding almost a total lack of knowledge of the extent, attitude, quantity, quality, mineability or workability of the deposits. At the time of the commence- ment of exploration activities, neither the United States nor the mining com- pany possesses any appreciable knowledge about the nature of the mineral deposits on the leased Jands. For example, it is impossible to determine (a) The precise location of the proposed mining operation. ( b ) The area where the overburden will be stored. (c) Pile amount of surface that will be desti~oyed. ( d) The nature of the excavation that will be necessary in order to obtain the ore. ( e) The size of the piles of removed overburden and their location and design. (f) The nature and extent of erosion problems, if any. (g) What livestock operations might be interfered with. (h) What streams, if any, will be interfered with. (i) What crops, including foliage, timber, etc. will be disturbed, and the extent thereof. (j) Size and types of equipment to be utilized for exi*oration, develop- mont, or extractive operations'. ( k) Capacity, character, standards of construction, size and location of structures and facilities to be built. It is impdssihle at the time of the commencement of exploration activities to determine what steps will have to b~ taken in order to remove the ore. Con- sequently, it would not only be impossible to describe these operationis, but, in addi*tion, it would be impos's~ble to determine what reclamation activities would be needed.. Although it must be recognized that unexpected situations may arise at any time during the course of mining which would alter the factors referred to above, an effort `should be made to arrive at the most opportune time for the determination of the activities to be undertaken in the furtherance of mining according to good and miner-like practices and with a view to conserving the other resources. It is suggested that the most opportune time to make such a determination is shortly before mining commences in a given area. b. Authority to control eceploration activities It ~is recommended that provisions be inserted in any legislation which would prevent interference with explonation `activities. Exploration activities performed in western phosphate mining which would disturb the sudace consist largely of digging comparatively small trenches and drilling exploration holes. Regulations previously proposed by the Depart- merit of the Interior require the operator to' present to the Department a plan of his operations ineluding where holes will be drilled, etc. and further granted to the Department the authority to designate changes in these plans and thus control where holes would be drilled and trenches dug. In phosphate exploration or mining, it is impossible to "control" the location of drill holes. The location of a given hole is determined by geologic conditions. In the process of exploration, the lessee must be allowed to drill where his train- ing and experience in the light of geologic conditions indicate he should. In most instances he does not know where his next drill hole should be until he has com- pleted his last drill hole-~and the time lapse may be a matter of hours. This is PAGENO="0263" I 257 true, both as to exploration conducted to determine the presence of phosphate under a phosphate prospecting permit and as to exploration done after the graiit- lag of the lease for tho p~irpose of determining how the ore body lies and its phosphate content. Since it is impossible to 1)lo't in advance the location of drill boles, if the regulating agency were to dictate the location of such drill holes, it would be niecessary to either have a representative from the agency on the scene when the drilling was taking place or to have the lessee obtain permission to drill each hole. It is submitted that both procedures are impractical and ~n fact, unneceissary inasmuch as the location of such holes is determined by geologic conditions, and the lessee for economic reasons will not drill any more holes than is necessary. Reclamation of the areas affected by exploration activi- ties could be accomplished without the submission of a plan of operation prior to commencing the exploration activities by establishing the requirements for such reclamation in the regulations. ci. Open end regulations Regulations with an "open end" allowing the regulating agency to change unilaterally the obligations of a mining operator should be forbidden. Otherwise, the operator would never know what costs might be added as a result of the changes. In such circumstances, it would be practically impossible, particularly for a small operator, to obtain a bond inasmuch as the bonding agency would not know the extent of its exposure. D. Time limits Any regulations adopted should contain time limits within which the regulat- ing agency must act on proposed plans submitted by an operator. An operator must be able to program his plans for operation, and extensive delays may result in a failure of the enterprise with the resulting loss of investment. CONCLUSION In conclusion the Conference asserts that unless some specific standards and limitations are placed in any legislation pertaining to mined land reclamation, the Congress will, in effect, have abdicated to the administrative branch its responstbility for establishing policy. Pursuant to the unfettered authority which would be given under the present provisions of these bills, a Secretary could insist upon regulations which would have all the problems for the western phosphate industry which the industry has already encountered in the two sets of proposed regulations published by the Department of the Interior. There must be some guidelines limiting the authority of the administrating agency. Otherwise the industry will find its mining methods being dictated by the agency without any opportunity or basis for challenging its authority. With no limitations in the statute, the mining and reclamation requirements would be subject to change with every change of administrative officer. The Conference again expresses its appreciation for this opportunity to corn- ment on S. 3132 and S. 3126. While the Conference believes that adequate recla- mation of surface mined western phosphate lands could be accomplished without federal intervention, nevertheless, the Conference offers its cooperation in work- ing together with the Committee to draft proposals and changes in the proposed bills which would retain the idea of treating the problems of mined land reclama- tion on a localized basis, but which would nevertheless establish standards and guidelines to define the power of the administrating agency to impose require- meats on the industry, either by federal or state regulation. It should also be noted that the Public Land Law Review Commission is cur- rently reviewing the laws, regulations and problems involving public lands, including phosphate lands. It is anticipated that a substantial amount of data will be obtained in conjunction with this study. The Conference suggests that it might be wise to withhold final consideration of any legislation until this data is available. Senator METCALF. We want to thank you for your statement. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, gentlemen, for what I believe is a very profound and accurate statement of the troubles I know beset the phosphate industry of the West. It seems to me that there is a basic misunderstanding here between those of you who are operators and those of the executive branch who PAGENO="0264" 258 are administrators to the geology that is involved here in this phos- phate mining area. You brought out the fact in your statement, Mr. Power, that these deposits of phosphate were laid down on a horizontal plane, as a layer at the bottom of a great lake millions of years ago. At that time they were horizontal because they were deposited by water action. They were level on a horizontal plane. Then in the thousands and millions of years that followed, with the buckling of the Rocky Mountains and the twisting and upheaving of the earth's surface, this horizontal plane of phosphate was broken and twisted and warped so that there is no continuity. Isn't that what we are saying here? Mr. POWER. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. Isn't it true that the regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior completely disregard this geological basic fact which you so carefully enunciated for us today? Mr. POWER. Yes, sir. Senator JORDAN. Isn't it a fact, too, from the testimony you have given here, that it would be quite impossible, under the circumstances obtaining there, for you to file a preliminary plan of operation, a de- tailed program as to precisely how you are going to do it well in ad- vance of actual exploration or construction? Mr. POWER. It is impossible. Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the main dif- ficulty here is the fact that the legislation is taUored for a situation which has no reality to the circumstances that obtain in western mining of phosphate and in other situations as well. I think all of us want to see a restoration and reclamation of these lands but we want to see a viable mining industry. We do not want to see it destroyed. I think under the regulations and the stipulations that have been handed down by the Secretary and by the strajtjacket that is set up in the provisions of this bill, we are going to have. great difficulty in maintaining any mining industry at all in some of these areas. Now I want to talk about some other matters. I am astounded, as you recount, at the various contacts you have had with the executive branch starting on May 7, 1966, with the regulations they have pub- lished in the Federal Register, your reply to that, and then further regulations published over a year later completely disregarding your communications to them ; your coming back here and finding that you have to start anew with a new set of people and explain in detail the difficulties which beset your operations ; and now I understand you have had no formal reply to your last communication. Mr. OLSEN. Senator, on that matter, in deference to the Depa rtment we did have a chance to go over our comments with them but that was the end of it. We do not want to give you the idea that they brushed us ofF. They did listen. However, we understand that there are regula- tions coming out within the next month and we have no idea what they will contain. Senator METCALF. Senator Church, and by his request the commit- tee, has asked for written comments, a written statement and written responses to your objections and they will be presented to you and they will also be kept in the files of this committee. Senatorr JORDAN. We appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0265" 259 Senator CHIThCH. Will the Senator yield for clarification? Senator JORDAN. Yes, indeed. Senator CHTJROH. It is possible that the reviis~id regulation the Department presumably intends to promulgate will take into account many of the arguments you have presented to us. Mr. EMIGH. We hope that is the case, Senator. We have not seen them. Senator CHURCH. I have had communications with the Secretary be- cause of the importance of the phosphate mining industry in Idaho and the impact it was feared that the proposed regulations would have on the industry. Presumably these arguments have been taken into ac- count by the Department in the process of its review of the original regulations. Now what the result of this will be we won't know until we see what the revised regulations are. But that is where we stand at the moment vis-a-vis the Department ; isn't that correct? Mr. EMIGn. That is correct. Senator Crnrncu. Thank you. Senator JORDAN. I~ want to get into the economics of the things a bit with Mr. Power. Mr. Power, in your statement you dealt with economics somewhat. You heard me ask other witnesses what the surface condition of the land was and what use it was put to before the mining operation was commenced and to what economic use the land was put after the body of ore was extracted, and what would it be useful for. You heard me ask for a delineation of the economic resources that were removed, that were taken out in the mining operation. I now ask this question of you : You said in your statement : "We have contributed millions of dollars of cash flow to the people of our States in the form of payroll, taxes, supplies, and purchase of power, railroad rate, and so forth. In 1967, our annual payroll was $122 million." That is only 1 year, Mr. Power. Is that an average year? Mr. POWER. Yes. Senator JORDAN. How many years has the industry been operating? Mr. PowER. We started about 20 years ago. Of course, 20 years ago we were starting to grow. So it would not have been that high at tha1~ point. Senator JORDAN. This would hardly be average then. You would have come up from a small beginning to an annual payroll of $122 million in 1967? Mr. POWER. That is right, sir. Senator JORDAN. C~* * * our plant investment directly related to western phosphate was in excess of $654 million over the Nation." Mr. POWER. That is correct. Senator JORDAN. `~ * * * out of this we have disturbed in the past 20 years, 1,781 acres, all of which will eventually be reseeded." Now in our western area, to what use was this land put before you started disturbing the surface? Mr. Powi~i. This land is basically cattJe and sheep country. Senator JORDAN. With a carrying capacity of about one sow to 20 acres? Mr. POWER. Senator, I have been in the cattle business for 25 years along with mining. My estimate is that the 1,781 acres we have dis- PAGENO="0266" I 260 turbed would carry 200 head of cattle, for about 5 months of the year. Senator JORDAN. After you disturbed the 1,781 acres with your $112 million a year payroll and a tremendous plant investment and the taxes you pay, after you are finished with the operation then to what use will this land be put? Mr. POWER. We have been reseeding in cooperation with the Depart- ment of Agriculture, the Forest Service, for 2 years. We are finding that our reseeding increases the availability of forage for cattle an~ sheep. Senator JORDAN. In other words, the restored lands, the land that you have reclaimed, will have a higher carrying capacity than the lands in nature's state before they were disturbed by your surface operation? Mr. POWER. That is correct, Senator. Basically, this is sagebrush land and in the mining, of course, we do destroy the sagebrush which takes moisture from grasses. Then when we reseed we put in straight grasses which are much more satisfactory for grazing purposes. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Power. Now, Mr. Olsen, you have gone more into the technicalities of the legislation and I assume that you have amendments to suggest or will suggest amendments. Other witnesse8 have testified as to the need for a judicial review by all means. You have included that among your reeommendations. Assuming you are going to get a bill, would you provide us with the amendments you think are necessary to make it so that you could live with it in your industry? Mr. OLSEN. We certainly would, Senator. We would be pleased to do just that. Senator JORDAN. Very good. That is all I have. Senator METCALF. Senator Church. Senator CHURCH. One thing that concerns me very much about this legislation is the scope of authority that is placed in the Secretary's hands without statutory safeguards. Now if we proceed `by the legislative route, this committee should t~ake into a~ount your testimony here and consider appropriate revisions in the bill that will both accomplish the public objective of land reclamation and pollution control and at the same time impose no arbitrary or unreasonable `burden on the industry in continuing to conduct mining operations. If we don't proceed by the legislative route and the Department promulgates regulations, then what these regulations contain in the last analysis depends on what the Secretary of the Interior deter- mines they should contain. Isn't that correct? Mr. IEMIGH. That is correct. Senator CHURCH. If the power asserted by the Secretary of the Interior is of a plenary form, or if it rests upon the assumption that he has complete power, then inherently, by virtue of the fact he is proprietor of the public lands, without the intervention of `Congress the industry is at the mercy of the Secretary of the Interior; barring a court case that would contest the Secretary's assertion of such power. Isn't that correct? Mr. OLSEN. That would be correct, Senator. PAGENO="0267" 261 Senator CHURCH. What I am trying to probe for is some assessment on the part of you gentlemen who represent the industry as to whether in your opinion it is more desirable to try to work out with the De- partment of the Interior regulations that you can live with and which are also acceptable to the Secretary, or whether you think the best interests of the industry lie in the direction of Congress asserting its fundamental authority in this field and establishing, through legisla- tion, the general guidelines that would control the Secretary's action? Mr. OLSEN. Senator, this is a question which I think we would al- most have to answer at a future time. As of now, we are still hopeful of `being able to work out something satisfactory with the Secretary of the Intei~ior, based largely on the comments which he made here yesterday morning relative to what his intentions are. I know that he stated that it was not the intent to completely elimi- nate the effects of mining on the land. I noted that he also stated it was not his intent to require backfilling unreasonably. It would seem to me that with that common intent we should certainly be able to work something out with him which is going to be satisfactory to everyone. We intend to continue that course and strive our very best to accom- plish it in that manner. What the future holds, we cannot say. There- fore, to commit ourselves either way at this point I think would be impossible. Senator CHURCH. In other words, I interpret your answer to my question as you want to see what the regulations are first before you decide to jump one way or the other. Mr. EMmH. May I comment? Senator Crnniou. Yes, certainly. Mr. EMIGH. We in minerals are in a strange position here. We are subject to the Interior, and are also subject to the proposed bill. It applies to us as well as to anybody mining on fee lands. We are also subject to the Department of the Interior's regulations. We recognize the problems they have. We still fee~t in our conference that many of our problems with the Interior have been their lack of understanding of our problems. We thought that was overcome twice. It turn's out it wasn't. We are looking forward to these proposed regulalions to come up in a few days. In our case we have to work with the Secretary. Senator METcALF. I think it should' be made clear, Senator Church, as part of this discussion, as I understand it, the western phosphate mines are largely on Federal land. Mr. PowER. That is `correct. Senator METCALF. So, you are not in the situation that they are in Florida, for example, where they are operating on private land'? Mr. PowER. That is correct. Senator Crnmcn. I think you are at the moment in a position where you have to wait and see. I think that this committee ought to also defer any decision as to the pending proposal until we have had an opportunity to examine the proposed regulations and determine what they are going to involve. I hope that we will be in a position to do that sometime soon. Senator Jordan's questioning brought out very clearly the tre- mendous economic values that are represented in the mining activity as compared to what the land, itself, would sustain in its natural state. I think that is a very dramatic contrast;. After all, we are all engaged PAGENO="0268" 262 in making a living. This industry makes a, very significant contribu- tion to that process in the West. . . The objective of the Secretary in protecting the public interest, it seems to me, is twofold. One, to prevent unnecessary erosion of the land following mining operations and the pollution of water that might be involved, although in the phosphate mining industry this is not as great a problem a~s it is in other kinds of mining, and two, the reseeding of the land so that it can again sustain wildlife and cattle and sheep. All of this is entirely proper. I have been greatly concerned in my years in the Senate that proper conservation be practiced by the Government. It is a part of the responsibility that the Government owes to all its people. We have seen some reckless and irresponsible ravaging of the land by mining companies. We have seen it in the West, in my State, where beautiful upland mountain valleys which were of great value and of recreational use to the people, were simply destroyed by dredg- ing operations that left piles of sterile rubble, aill for the purpose of some transitory ptro~fit made in reckless mining ventures. Such an atti- tude and such action cannot be ju(stified. In many ways that has led public opinion to be quite adverse to mining as a whole because people see these examples of outrageous destruction and conclude that that is representative of what happens when the mining starts. I think that has had an unfortunate impact on the whole mining indiiistry because certainly that is not representative of the way in which the responsible mining companies are attempting to conduct their business these days. But I think it leads to the swinging of the pendulum to the op- posite extreme and to widespread support of regulations which might go much farther than the public interest really requires : punitive regulations against mining. I think it is the duty of this committee, which has both the con- servation and recreation interests of the country to protect, as well as the mining industry, to see to it that a proper balance is struck. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will continue to pay close heed to the proposed regulations of the Department of the Interior that should be forthcoming soon and to follow this along in such a way that we can reach a working arrangement that will both protect the rea- sonable interests that the public has in the proper conservation of the lands concerned and also permit the industry to go forward with the kind of operations that contribute so much to the economy and the well-being of the people of our State. Thank you very much. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Senator Church. I, too, want to thank you, again, for a description of your industry and this legislation and the regulations which the Secretary can put into effect upon leasing of the public lands that would affect you. I know that I do not have to dwell on the subject that Senator Church has mentioned. This committee is composed of men who are as sympathetic to the mining industry as you can find anywhere in the United States. We are concerned about your welfare and the welfare of our constituents. You have made a tremendous contribution to the devel- opment of resources of our area. PAGENO="0269" 263 We are also pleased that this hearing has brought out the enlight- ened possibility on the part of many miners so that the abuses that Senator Church has mentioned which we can view any time we drive on highways in Montana and Idaho and Utah and Washington and all over the West, are no longer in existence. We do have a concern over the puiblic interest to see that these abuses do not continue. We have a concern with the development of proper appeals, security of basic rights, passage of constitutional legislation, all of which we have tried to raise in the course of this hearing. We are grateful to you for bringing this to our attention so far as your particular industry is concerned. Senator Burdick, do you have some comments? Senator BunDICK. No. I arrived late but I assure them I will read the testimony. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much. Mr. EMurn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator METCALF. Gentlemen, we have been here for more than an hour this afternoon. We have heard only one witness. I hope that as these hearings have developed we have had a lot of repetition and many of the points have been covered. Again, I reiterate your statement will be printed in full in the record. So try to summarize and bring up new material. The next witness is Mr. Jane Leirfallom, commissioner of con- servation, State of Minnesota. You have a companion, Mr. Lierfal- lom. We are delighted to have you with us. STAT~EMERT OP JARLE LEIRPALLOM, COMMISSIONER OP CONS;ER- VATION, STATE OP MINNESOTA, ACcOMPANIED BY EUGENE FERE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OP WATER, SOUS, AND MINERALS Mr. LEIRFALLOM. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the green brochure you have is the statement of Gov. Harold Le Vander which he has asked me to present on his behalf because while he was planning to come here he was unable to come. I am appearing in his stead. Senator METCALF. We would be pleased to have Governor Le Vander, but we are glad to see you. Mr. LEIRFALL0M. My name is Jarle Leirfallom. I have with me Eugene Jere, Director of the Division of Water, Soils, and Minerals, of Minnesota. We have in Minnesota a department of conservation that combines substantially all of the natural resources in one : de~ partment. Because time is short, Mr. Chairman, I am going to merely ahbre- viate this report. It has its own exhibits that are self-explanatory: Some good maps of the very interesting Mesabi Range, some brochures in the back that show some of the positive values that are created by mining and are advertised as tourist attractions and these sorts of things. In my brief summary I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that Min- nesota is a State of great natural beauty and the Nation's largest producer of iron ore. We are, therefore, vitally interested in any legislation that could af- fect the iron mining industry and thus the economy of the State. PAGENO="0270" 264 As the second largest industry in Minnesota, iron mining has long played an important role in the entire economy of the State. The related industry and services it supports magnifies its economic im- portance to the State. Minnesota is noted for its huge iron ore reserves and its active iron mining industry, which has produced over 60 percent of all the iron ore mined in the United States. During the 84-year history of iron mining in Minnesota, 2.8 billion tons of natural ore and concentrates have been produced. At present, the capital investment relating to Minnesota taconite iron ore alone is over $1 billion. Plant capacity in the State now ex- ceeds 32 million tons of high-grade ore pellets per year, with the prospect of a substantial increase in the near future. This represents over 65 percent of the total U.S. pellet plant capacity. With mineral rights in over 5 million acres of trust fund land and millions of acres of tax-forfeited land, the State is the largest single mineral fee owner in Minnesota. Over 400 million tons of iron ore have been produced from State-owned properties. The revenue derived from the trust fund properties is dedicated to the support of public schools, State universities, and other public institutions. The State's permanent trust funds now total over $300 million. In addition to its vast mineral ownership, the State has done much to encourage private development through public investment in re- search and by enactment of laws encouraging the growth of the industry. Minnesota's main iron ore reserve, the Mesabi Range, represents the Nation's largest assured source of this vital raw material. The physical characteristics of the iron formation are such that in the interests of good mineral conservation, open pits must remain "open" for greatly extended periods, and lean ore materials stockpiled for future use. Most of the presently existing stockpiles and inactive open pits will be reworked in the future in conjunction with magnetic and nonmag- netic taconite operations. With open pit reserves of approximately 45 billion tons of crude magnetic taconite and a nearly equal amount of nonmagnetic taconite, and the prospect . of vast underground taco- nite reserve also being developed, there is no foreseeable end to mining on the Mesabi Range. However, with growing competition for capital investment in iron mining from Canada, South America, Africa, and Australia, we must be increasingly concerned with any congressional ~ction which might jeopardize or affect the competitive position of Minnesota. While broad nationwide surface mining regulations may reduce the likelihood of one State being placed at an economic disadvantage among the other States due to its reclamation efForts, the hazard of Minnesota's or the Nation's iron mining industry being placed at a competitive disadvantage internationally must be considered and avoided. Iron ore from foreign countries provides Minnesota's pri- mary competition. In addition to iron mining as an industry, the iron range has be- come a major tourist attraction in northern Minnesota. The large open pits, enormous taconite plants, mountainous stockpiles, and colorful history have drawn many tourists to the area. PAGENO="0271" 265 The communities of the range have shown a keen interest in encour- aging tourists to visit the area by establishing such facilities as the Museum of Mining at Chisholm, the Two Harbors Park, featuring ob- jects relating to transportation in the mining industry, mine view- points, and many others. Minnesota's oldest underground mine at Soudan has now been con- verted into a State park. Tours, both on the surface and 2,400 feet underground, provide visitors at the park with an accurate interpre- ~ .~ tation of underground mine operations. The State is presently investi- ~M gating the feasibility of establishing an open pit State park. ~ ~he mining companies have served the tourist by establishing mine viewpoints, conducting plant tours and establishing recreation areas on water impoundments created to supply water for the taconite plants. Minnesota is aware of the many aspects of mining effects upon our environment and we have already instituted action. Water pollution due to mining, a major problem to much of the mining industry and the country, is practically nonexistent in Mm- nesota. Through the cooperative efforts of State agencies and the mining industry, plant waters are recirculated through closed-circuit systems, and large settling basins have been established to handle any discolored mine waters. The Strip and Surface Mine Study Policy Committee of the Department of the Interior recognized this fact in their report "Surface Mining and Our Environment" by stating, "The minerals in the formations are chemically inert and the terrain is flat; thus the mining operations cause little or no water pollution." The Department of Conservation is presently conducting research directed toward improving the quality of taconite plant water. If successful, this will further reduce the water pollution potential and will also decrease the amount of fresh makeup water required for taconite processing. The mining industry has shown an awareness of the problem by conducting experimental planting on surface dumps, tailings basins, and stockpiles. Tailings basins have generally been placed in areas which would be least detrimental to our natural resources and screened from public view except by air. Research is presently being conducted to rejuvenate tailings basins to allow vegetation growth by fertilization and soil conditioning. There is a vast difference between iron mining in Minnesota and coal mining in other areas of the country. In most coal operations, mining in a particular area is completed in a relatively short period of time with the operator moving on to other areas with no reason to return. Due to the immense reserve and the structure of the formation, iron ore mining in Minnesota is a very stable industry, and the mining area will not be exhausted in the foreseeable future. Only in the southeastern part of the State, in the Fillmore County area, where small, shallow iron ore deposits occur, does a situation similar to coal mining exist. In this area it has long been the practice to return the area to its natural condition upon completion of mining. By contouring and replacement of the topsoil, farm crops are being raised on the mined-out areas shortly after mining operations are concluded. PAGENO="0272" 266 The State, in establishing rules and regulations for its infant copper- nickel industry, recognized the pollution and environmental control problems that could develop. As a result, the State leases contain pro- visions for protection of the environment and for reclamation. Our State is concerned about the problems that this bill attempts to deal with. We are not negating the intent of this bill. The State's concern for the effects of mining on our environment is further demonstrated by the fact that the department of conserva- tion, which I head, has selected specialists in the fields of minerals, waters, forestry, game and fish, and parks to collectively study the problem for the purpose of making recommendations for the preven- tion of blight and restoration of mined lands. Meetings have also been held with mine officials and specialists to study and define problem areas. The study com~nittee is especially concerned with long-range prob- lems relating to mine waste disposal, the stockpiling of lean ores and taconite, and future uses of exhausted pits. These preliminary efforts have been met with cooperation and success, and other State agencies have indicated their willingness to assist in studies and research. We feel strongly that Minnesota is best qualified among all of the 50 States to cope with the unique problems associated with surface mining of its iron ore, prthlems which are identified and which are being worked on, and which no other State confronts to the same degree as Minnesota. The State, therefore, agrees with those purposes of S. 3132 found in section 3, which read as follows: " (d) rfhat, because of the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical, and other physical conditions in mining areas, the estab- lishment on a nationwide basis of uniform regulations for surf ace- mining operations and for the reclamation of surface-mined areas is not feasible; " (3) That the initial responsibility for developing, authoriz- ing, issuing, and enforcing regulations for surface-mining opera- tions and for the reclamation of surface-mined areas should rest with the States ; and " (f) * * * to assist the States in carrying out such a problem." We strongly oppose any Federal legislation which may result in the iron mining industry of Minnesota being placed at a competitive dis- advantage internationally. We also strongly oppose those portions of 5. 3132 which inject the Secretary into the details of State planning, funding, and personnel practices, particularly when the State has recognized the problem and is competently and realistically working on solutions. The involved paperwork connected with Federal programs has be- come the strangulation of many worthwhile programs and imposes an immense workload on State government. For example, Minnesota recently submitted a report on a $50,000 Federal assistance program which required many man-hours of work and a stack of supporting documents 7 inches high by actual measurement. In the testimony today the reported discrepancies on disturbed acreage is illustrated by the difficulties involved in outside supervision. It is our position, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal legislation can best assist Minnesota in surface mining reclamation by research and technical assistance. PAGENO="0273" 267 The key problem is that of sorting out values, sorting out the posi- tive values from the negative. This we are already doing. An illustration of this is the Hobrusk mine which is of such grandeur `and such scope that it has to be regarded as a positive value. That same large open pit mine in the world if surrounded by stock- piles would have to be considered negative. If at some time in the future Federal assistance is made available* to States for general reclamation purposes, it should by all means be .~`, on a block grant basis rather than the attrition and the administra- ,- ~ tive strangulation which accompanies detailed State plans submitted `~i:~p Federalofficials outside the State. ~We have underway `in Minnesota, as I have mentioned, positive action and cooperation to meet our own r~eeds under the very first statute in our law books, statute No. 1 which says that the State shall exercise jurisdiction over all the `lands within its boundaries. In Minnesota I feel sure that the next 2 years will show that we can successfully `solve our own problems. If we cannot, this will also be- come evident. It is clear from these hearings that the problems of the various States differ and, therefore, require separate answers. It also seems obvious that the problems Of the various types of `mining differ and, therefore, require `different approaches, particularly with respect to coal. If there is to be Federal legislation we suggest that the commit- tee seriously consider the problems of coal mining separately lest Minnesota be saddled with undesirable legislation created to solve problems that exist in other States but do not exist in ours. We do not wish to appear unfriendly, Mr. Chairman, but we can see no reason why our State efforts on a State matter should be inter- rupted or interfered with by officials outside the State. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BiJTRDICK (presiding) . Thank you, Mr. Leirfallom. I just want to ask one question. `The Minnesota statutes provide that the leases shall contain certain conditions. One whk~h you have underlined in your statement is that the lessee shall restore the premises as nearly as the commission deems practical to the natural conditions of the surrounding area. In practice, how has that proviso worked out ? Mr. LEIRFALLOM. These, Mr. Chairman, are new leases now being negotiated for the copper and nickel industry. The industry has co- operated with us in developing reasonable standards and we anticipate no problems whatsoever because these arrangements are worked out in cooperation with the industry. But they are more a part of the future than of the past. Senator BURDIOK. This is a fairly recent law? Mr. LEIRFALLOM. That is right. We have a new industry coming up in Minnesota, namely, copper-nickel. Senator BuEnIox. Thank you for your contribution. The complete text of the Governor's statement will be printed at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT DY Hox. HAROLD LEV~NDEB, GOVERNOR, STATE OR MINNESoTA Mhinesota, a land of great natural beauty and the Nation's largest producer of iron ore, is vitally interested in any legislation that could affect the iron mining industry and thus the economy of the state. We therefore welcome the oppor. 95-t323-6S-----18 PAGENO="0274" 268 tunity to present our views on the proposed Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968. HISTORY AND DFNELOPMJ3~NT The history of iron mining in Minnesota dates back to July 31, 18184, with the first shipment of iron ore from the Soudan Mine on the Vermilion Iron Range. In the next decade the Mesabi Range itself came into production with the open- ing of the Mountain Iron Mine in 1892. In quick succession iron mines were discovnred and opened in the Biwahik and Hihblng areas and near Virginia and Eveleth. Most of the early nilnes were operated as underground minOs but the large deposits were soon converted into open pit operations typical of the Mesa~d Iron Range. As mining ~yperations mo~ired westward along the Mesabi, a third Minnesota iron range was being explored and developed. The Onyuna Range, east and north of Brainerd, shipped its first iron ore in 1911 (see Appendix I, "Minnesota's Iron Ranges"). ~ Underground mining was impoi~tant In the early days but the last of the under- ground mines closed in 1967. Large-scale open pit mining has facilitated the rapid development of new mines and Increased production. The Hull-Rust Mine at Ribbing is noted as the largest open pit iron `ore mine in this world. Advances in equipment and technology have permitted the change from direct shipping natural ore to the concentrating type natural ores and finally the com- plex separation of magnetic taconite ores. The, present pellet plant capacity from Minnesota's seven taconite plants totals 32.4 million tons per year (see Appendix II ) . This represents over 65% of the nation's present pellet capacity. These seven taconite plants represent a total capital investment In excess of one billion dol- lars. Since the turn of the cei~tury, the nation's iron and steel needs have been met largely with iron ore shipped from the iron ore mines located on Minnesota's three iron ore ranges'. Minnesota has produced over 60% of the nation's domestic iron ore during the past 84 years. The discovery and development of Mlnnesota'~ three iron ranges came at an important time for our nation and for the world, for the 20th century, with its world wars and great economic growth, has demanded tremendous quantities of iron ore. TWO world wars plus the Korean conflict have contributed greatly to the depletion of the national reserve. There are, however, over 45 billion tons of magnetic taconite reserve and considerably more tonnage of non-magnOtic taco- nite still available in Minnesota. iron ore is the basic raw material in the making of steel, and Minnesota is fortunate for its endowment of this important natural resource. The economic future of Minnesota, the sustenance of the mining industry, and the strength of our nation rest with the continued wise conservation and develop- ment of this valuable resource. STATE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MINING Minnesota has shown a continuing concern to maintain a competitive position with other countries and the various states in the iron mining Industry. We have demonstrated our desire to maintain this' competitive position through numerous legislative ~etions'. The encouragement given the taconite industry illustrates this point, and is described as follows : Beginning in the early 1920's, and continuing for twenty years, the state legislature appropriated approximiately $20,OtXl per year to sup- port the experimentsof Dr. E. W. Davis, director of the University of Minnesota's Mines Experiment Station, and others relating to the concentration of iron minerals found in tacon'ite ore. During this same period approximately $30,000 to $40,000 per year was made available for this . same purpose from the regular budget of the University of Minnesota, a tax-supported institution. In 1941, near the end of the period in which Dr. Davis and others' perfected the laboratory process for concentrating the iron minerals found in magnetic tacon'ite, the legis- lature enacted laws which authorized leasing of state-owned taconite ore-bearing lands in larger units (240 acres) than that for iron ore (80 acres) , and lowered the minimum. rentals and royalties to be paid under a taeo'ni'te lease. Most of the state-owned landsi containing taconite ore were leased within a relatively short period after enactment of these laws. In 1943, the legislature authorized the conversion' of iron ore permits to taconite leases, which, as mentioned above, provide lower rentals and royalties. In 1945, taconite companies were given the power of condemnation by the legislature, and also' were authorized to use state PAGENO="0275" 269 lands, under permit, for operations relating to taconite mining. The ~ 1egis~ature, in 1947, authorized the Commissioner of Conservation to issue water appropria- tion permita to the taconite industry which would be irrevocable except for brea~h of conditiona of the permit. The 1949 legislature authorized the Commissioner of Conservation to graut permits to the taconite industry to drain, divert and other- wise use water~ under his jurisdiction. In 1957, the legislature authorized exten- sions of twenty-five years~ for leases which have been or may be designated as taconite leases. Finally, in 1964, the citizens of the State of Minnesota approved the "Taconite Amendment" to the State constitution which provided certain tax protections to the taconite industry. With growing comp~tit~on for cai~ital investment in iron mining from Oanada, South America, Africa, and Australia, we must be increasingly concerned with ~ ~ ~ any congressional action which m~ight jeo'j~ard'ize or affect the com~eItitive ~oisition ~of Min*nes~ita. While broad nationwide surfhce mining regulation's may reduce the ~kelthood of one state bE~ing j~laced at an eeoi~omic disadvantage among the other states due to its reclamation efforts, the hazard of MinneSoth's or the na- tion's iron imining industry being placed at a competitive disadvan~age inter- natiunially must be cons~dere and avoided. Iron ore from foreign eountries pro- vides Minnesot~a's primary competitilon. EOONOMIO EFFE~JTS OF MINING As `the second iargest indushry in Minnesota, iron mining has long played an important `role in the en~1ire economy of the atate. The enormous capital invest- ment required, the large labor force employed, the direct state, county and local taxes *i~ pays (over $1.5 billion stince World War I) are some of the measurahie effedts. The related industry and ser~ices it `also supports magnifies its economic impor~tiance tie the state to an even greater extent. The State of Minnesota is perhaps unique in the amount of mineral liand~ ~hieh it still owns and administers. Of the 8.5 million acres of land ortginiailly ceded to the state, 5~ million were dedicated as permanent trust fund lands. Due to the fore~igh't of our early state officers and iegisllaito.rs, the legislature, in 188i~, passed the first mineral lease law, an a~t ~hich also reserved to `the s~ta~e all rigI~ts to minerals in trnst fund ~nds lodated in three counties w~here minerals were then known to exist. In 1901 the legislature extended this to all state trust funds `lan'dfs~ Although much trust fund surface land has been sold, the state, be- cause of this early action, has retained the mineral rights to over 5 million acres of this land. Rental and royalty revenue from mining on these lands has been `the `primary source of money's de~io5ited in the permanent trust funds which now `total over $300,000,000. The interest derived from this total is used for the suppott of public schools, state univer~iti~s, and other public institutions. As agent for the county and local taxing districts, the state also admiinisters the many millions of acres of mineral rights that have been forfeited for taxes. un the kniown open pit area of the Mesabt Iron ~ormhtion, which extends for a di~tance ~:xe over 110 rnil~s, the total State ownership amounts to over 18%. From the time of the first shipment of `state~owned ore in 1893, until 19438 over 1/3 billion tons of direct shipping or natural ore concentrates have been pro- duced from state-owned propeities. In addition, ~ver 100 million tbns of state- owned `crutle taconite ore have also been mined. Of the 45 billion tons of commercial crude taconite iron ore located in the potential open pit portion of the iron formation, Minnesota, through its owner- ship of trust fund lands and lands that have been forfeited for taxes, owns ap~ proximately 9 billion tons which some day can `be converted into about 3 billion tons of high grade taconite concentrates or pellets. This reserve tonnage of State-owned material is particularly impreSsive when compared with the 2.8 billion tons of natural iron ore and concentrates that have been produced from both State and privately-owned mineral lands during the 84-year history of iron mining in Minnesota, and the 4'/2 billion tons of iron ore that have been pro- duced to date in the United States. LONG-RANGE MINING Geological conditions favorable to the formation of sedimentary iron deposits have occurred many times in the remote past. These conditions were often very similar in widely separated areas. So alike are the Precamhrian iron formations of Minnesota, Labrador, Brazil, and India that geologists are scarcely able to differentiate them. PAGENO="0276" 270 The iron formation of Minnesota's Me~abi Range is clas;sified into four main horizons~-~the Lower Oherty, the Lower S~aty, the Upper Ciherty, and the Upper S1aty-~with a total average thickness o~ over 500 feet. Each of these horizons and its many sub-groups' ha~ its own peculiarities and degrees of natural en- richment. Thus, in the mining of an economic deposit, lean and waste materials by present-day standards are often encountered, and grade-quality structure dictates the segregation of these leaner materials into various stockpiles adja- cent to the properties for future use. Many stockpiles and tailings ponds have already been re-worked to produce substantial tonnages of merchantable ore (see Appendix III, "Stages of Mining on the Mesabi Range"). A recent deep drilling exploration by the University of Minnesota has con- firmed the continuance of the iron formation down dip. Many geologists believe that Lake Superior is un4erlain by thi;s formation which resurfaces as the iron deposits of Wisconsin and Michigan. Mining engineers are already envisioning the day when taconite will be extracted from vast underground workings. Metal- 1urgi~ts are continuing to make breakthroughs on economic procedures to con- centrate the various lean ores and non-magnetic taconites. Iron ore mining is a matter of economics. There is no foreseeable end to mining on the Mesabi Range. Most of the presently inactive open pits are not depleted. Some will be re~worked in conjunction with magnetic taconite opera- tions, while others will be mined for non-magnetic taconite in the future. The lean ore stockpiles and tailings ponds also represent material that has a poten- tial use as well as a present value. Thus, the active-Inactive mining cycle could be repeated many times before any areas are exhausted. it has been known since 1948 that there was a posisihility of commercial eop~ per, nickel, and associated minerals being discovered in northeastern Minnesota. Interest in the Minnesota deposits was revived in 19tE~5. As the result of a public sale, 2G0 copper-nickel leases have been issued by the State of Minnesota to date covering approximately 87,000 acres of State-owned mineral land. Much explora- tion has been conducted to date, and additional exploration work is programmed for the immediate future. The interest that is presently being shown by the major copper and nickel producing companies in the potential of copper, nickel, and associated minerals in northeastern Minnesota holds promise of the development of a new mineral industry in that area that may approach the scale of Minnesota's taconite operations. TOURISM AND MINING In addition to iron minIng as an industry, the iron range has become a major tourist attraction in northern Minnesota. The unique character of the range with its large open pits, enormous tacmite plants, mountainous stockpiles, and color- ful history, has drawn many tourists to the area. The eommmilties of the range and the mining companies have dona much to encourage the tourists to view the operations and to gain a better understanding of the mining industry. The relationship of mining and tourism in this area is indicated by the hrochuires enclosod in the back of this report and is typical of the types of promotioh used by the communities and the mining industry. The mining companies have served the tourists by establishing mine viewpoints, conducting plant tours, and estaNishing recreation areas on water impoundments created to supply water for the taconite plants. One of the companies which has regularly maintained from three to seven mine viewpoints has recorded nearly 2.7 millIon tourists at their facilities during the past 16 years. This in- eludes over 85,000 tourists who were given guided tours through their tacouite plant. The mining companies have constructed campgrounds, picnic grounds and boat launching facilities at their water reservoirs which are open to the public. The communities of the Range have shown a keen interest in encouraging tourists tO visit this unique area by establishing such facilities as the Cfhishoiin Mining Museum, the Two Harbors Park featuring objects relating to transporta- tion in the mining industry, mine viewpoints, and many other facilities. The Museum of Mining at Ohishoim attracted over 24,000 paId tourists from 37 of the 50 states, plus 21 foreign countries during 19E17. In 19*13 when United States Steel Corporation closed Minnesota's oldest underground iron mine, the Soudan Mine, they granted the land and all facilities to the `State of Minnesota to `be operated as a state park. The Tower-Soudan State Park was formally dedicated and opened to the public July 1, 1965. Surface and underground tours are conducted to' provide the visitor with an accurate interpretation of an underground imine and mining operations. Visitors on `the underground tour are lowered 2400 feet below the surface in `the same mine cage PAGENO="0277" 271 that the miners used, are given a 30004oot electric train ride through a mine tunnel and are shown the underground mining area and equipment. During 1907 almost 38,500 peop~e v~sfted the park, with over 1G,000 taking the under- ground tour. As a result of the unique character of the Iron Range, the tourist industry has shown a continuous growth in `the area. Further expansion of `the tourist industry in the mining area is contemplated. For example, the state is presently investigating the fea~ibiiity of establishing a state park in one of the huge open pits. MINING AND oun ENVIRONMENT-PRESENT ACTION ~ Minnesota is aware that much must be done in the field of planned mine waste disposal, considering that the mining of the present commercial taconite reserve ~ alone will result in the creation of many billions of tons of inert tailings. Addi- ~ional research is needed to find uses for this now seemingly useless byproduct, and means of storing this material in a manner compatible with the natural environment. The mining industry has shown an awareness of the problem by conducting experimental planting on surface dumps, tailings basins and stockpiles. Tailings basins have generally been placed in areas which would be least detrimental to our natural resources and screened from public view except by air. Research is presently being conducted to rejuvenate sterile tailings basins to allow vegetation growth by fertilization and soil conditioning. Water pollution due to mining, a major problem to much of the mining industry and the country, is practically non-existent in Minnesota. The Strip and Surface Mine Study Policy Committee of the Department of the Interior recognized this fact in their report "Surface Mining and Our En- vironment" by stating : "The minerals in the formations are chemically inert and the terrain is fiat ; thus the mining operations cause little or no water pollution". Through the cooperative efforts of state agencies and the mining industry, plant waters are recirculated `through closed-circuit systems and large settling basins have been established to handle any discolored mine waters. Much work is being done to prevent pollution of our lakes and streams from surface water run-off by the construction of dikes, ditches settling basins, and plant and stockpile layout. The Department of Conservation is presently conducting research directed toward improving the quality of taconite plant water. An experimental method of removing colloidal particles from plant water is' being studied to allow greater re-use of the water in taeonite processing. If successful, this will further reduce the water pollution potential and will also decrease the amount of fresh make-up water required for taconite processing. There is a vast difference between iron mining in Minnesota and coal mining in other areas of the country. In most coal operations, mining in a particular area is completed in a relatively short period of time, with the operator moving on to other areas with no reason to return. Due to the Immense reserve and the structure of the formation, `iron ore mining in Minnesota is a very stable industry, and the mining area will not be exhausted in the foreseeable future. Only in the southeastern part of the state, in the Fillmore County area, where small shallow iron ore deposits occur, does a situation similar to coal mining exist. In this area it has long been the practice to return the area to its natural condition upon completion of mining. By contouring and replacement of the top soil, farm crops are being raised on the mined-out areas shortly after mining operations are concluded. The following steps have been taken in regard to the state's infant copper- nickel industry. The rules and regulations for the granting of State copper- nickel mining leases recognize the pollution and environmental control problems that could develop. As a result, the state leases contain provisions for protection of the environment and for reclamation a a follows: (Paragraph 6) Rights under the lease "~ * * shall not inciude the right to reduce or smelt ore upon said mining unit without agreement between the lessee and the Commissioner, authorizing such use of the surface of the land and providing for the necessary protection of life and property." ( Par. 23 ) The provisions of the lease `are "n' * * `subject to all applicable federal and state statutes, order, nibs `and `regulations, and all operations under this lease shall `be conducted in conformity therewith. No interference, diversion, use or appropriation of any waters over which the Commissioner ~r any other state agency has jurisdiction, shall be undertaken unless authorized in writing by the `Commissioner `or the said state `agency." PAGENO="0278" 272 (Par. 24) " * * * Surfaee lands ow~ied by th.e State in said mining unit are not to be cleared or used for consUruction or stockpiling purposes umless and until the pian fo~r such use has been ~tpproired by the coanmissioner. The surface use of said mining unit shaM be conducted in such maniier as to prevent or reduce scarring and erosion of the land and pol1u~ion of air and water." ( Par. 30 ) States that upon t~rmiination of the lease " ~ ~ ~ the lessee shall, at ths own expense, properly and adequately fence all pits, level banks, and refill all test pits and cave-ins that may be deemed dangerous or are likely to cause damage to persons or property, and the lessee shall do all other work which the commissioner deems necessary to leave the premises in a safe and orderly condition to pro~eet against injury or damage to persons or property, and sh~tll restore the premIses as nearly as the cemmissioner deems practicable to the natural conditions of the surrounding area." A final example illustrates that Minnesota is aware of, and has shown its concern for the effects of mining on our environment. The Department of Con- sorvation l~as selected specialists in the fields of minerals, waters, forestry, game and fish, `and pmrks to collectively study the prohlem for the purpose of making ree~tmnendations for the prevention of blight and restoration of mined Lands. Meetings have also been held with mine officials and specialists to study `and define problem areas. The study com~&ttee is especially concerned with long-range problem~s relating to mine waste disposal, the stockpiling of lean ores and taconite, and future uses of exi~ansted pits. These preliminary efforts have been met with coopera- tion and success and other state agencies have indicated their willingness to assist in studies an~d research. PROPOSED FEDERAL RECLAMATION CONTROL-MINNESOTA'S VIEWS M~nn'esota's main iron ore reserve, the Mesabi Range, is unique a~nong the Nation's iron ore sources due to it's structural uniformity and size. It represents the Nation's Largest assured source of thts vital raw material. The physical oharaeteristh~ `of the iron formation are such that in the practice of good mineral conservation, open pit mines must remain "open" for greatly extended periods, and lean ore materials stockpiled for future use. We fieel strongly that Minnesota is best qualified among all of the 50 S~taths to eope with' the unique problems associated with surt1~ace minting of its iron ore, problems which are identified `and which are being worked on, and which n'o other State confronts to the same degree as Minnesota. The State, there- fore, agrees with those purposes of S. 3132 found in Sec. 3, clauses (d) , (e), and part of (f), which read as follows: " (d) That, because of the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical, and other physical conditions in mining areas, the establishment on a nationwide basis of uniform regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclama- tion of surface-mined areas is not feasible: " (e) That the initial responsibility for developing, authorizing, issuing, and enforcing regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclamation of surface-mined areas should rest with the States ; and " (f) . . . to assist the States in carrying out such a program." We strongly oppose any Federal legislation which may result in the iron mining industry of Minnesota being placed at a competitive disadvantage internationally. We also strongly oppose those portions of S. 3132 which inject the Secretary into the details of State planning, funding, and personnel practices, particularly when the State has recognized the problem and is competently and realistically working on solutions. The involved paperwork connected with Federal programs has become the strangulation of many worthwhile programs and imposes an jim mense work load on State government. For example, Minnesota recently sub- mitted a report on a $50,000 Federal assistance program which required many man hours of work and a stack of supporting documents seven inches high. It is our position that Federal legislation can best assist Minnesota in surface miiiing reclamation by granting financial assistance and making available tech- nical help as needed. On many occasions we have expressed our strong interest in creative and effective Federal and State relationships built around a "block grant" principle, rather than Federal involvement in the details of State plan- ning and administration. The matters we are concerned with here today could well be served by the application of the "block grant" concept. In conclusion, the State appreciates the opportunity given to preaent its' con- cerns in regard to the legislation under consideration. In your forthcoming delib- erations we urge you to refer to the material we are supplying you today and invite you to make further inquiry of the State, should the need arise. PAGENO="0279" 273 APPENDIX I MINNESOTA TACONITE PLANTS iN OPERATION, APRIL 1968 Mining company (in million tons( MINNESOTA'S IRON RANGES APPENDIX II Reserve Mining Co Erie Mining Co United States Steel Corp National Steel Pellet Plant (The Hanna Mining Co. and National Steel Corp.) Butler Pellet Plant (The Hanna Mining Co., Inland, and Wheeling Steel Corp.) Eveleth Taconite Co United States Steel Corp.' Annual pellet Plant production location 10. 7 10. 3 4.5 Silver Bay. Hoyt Lakes. Mt. Iron. 2. 4 Keewatin, 2. 0 Nashwauk. 1.6 Forbes. .9 Mt Iron. 32.4 Total `Pilot plant PAGENO="0280" 274 Senator Btmr~IoK. Mr. Richard T. Eckles coordinator, Department of NaturaJ Resources, State of Colorado. I recognize Senator Allott of Colorado. Senaor ALLOI'r. Thank you, Mr. `Ohairman. I am very happy to be here today and to have the opportunity to introduce Mr. Richard T. Eckles to this committee. 4. Future ~cxIerground use o~ non.'e~a~etic ~ that the ncm.4nagnetic taconite stockpile has been renoved end processed. PAGENO="0281" 275 This is o~ie of those happy incidents. I have imown his father, and mother, too, for more years than I `oare to mention, and I suspect that I have known him practically all of his adult life. He is the oooirdrnator of the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Colorado which position he has held now approximately 6 years. This department is charged with the responsibility of all of thei re- sources of Colorado, not alone mining, and stabilization and pollution, but also riesponsibility for the reclamation of water and the conserva- tion of water within the State of Colorado. He has done a very bril- liant job and I am very happy to be able to make these reniarks before ~ ~ he testifies. Ithankyon. STATLMENT OP RICHARD T. ECKLES, COORDINAT'OR~ DEPARTME~NT or NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OP `COLORADO Mr. Eoiu,ns. Thank you, Senator Allott, for those very kind re- marks. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee : I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today not `only to comment briefly o'n S. 3132 but also reflect on some of the prthlems the States are ex- periencing in the field of natural resources. The continual necessity to react instead of acting on these great problenis is becoming an unac- ceptable position. The Public Land Law Review Commission, whk~h was established by the `Congress of the United States, is directed to complete its studies and come `before you with recommendations by 1971. The Western States futures depend on these recommendations. Since the Public Land Law Review Commission was established, the States have expe- rienced a flood of legislative proposals and executive orders from the Federal agencies which cover the same subjects this Commission is studying. It is obvious to me the implications of these actions. What are we to do ; wait in good faith until 1971, or continually react on these current proposals? I will give you a specific example of the cooperation the States of Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado' are having with the Secretary of the Department of the Interior regarding the oil shale lands. The Gov- ernors of these States, along with myself, met with Mr. Udall in Denver on May 4, 1967, to discuss Interior's oil shale leasing program. During this meeting, Mr. Udall suggested the establishment of liaison between the appropriate State and Federal agencies to combat prob- ]ems in the area's of water pollution, `spent shale dumps, air pollution, land restoration and reforestation, wildlife protection, and so forth. The Governors responded to Mr. Udall's suggestion in a positive manner. Since that meeting, we have not had any further word about this most important subject. With reference to S. 313~: I am not impressed with the proposed authority in this bill. Section (3) (b) is an infringement on States rights and also creates a~ conflict with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The continual inference that the States are not capable or interested in controlling the resources within their boundaries is no longer acceptable to me. PAGENO="0282" 276 ~ I have attached to this statement copies of a land restoration agree- ment which was consummated April 16, 1965, between Surface Coal Mine Operators and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. This agreement covers over 95 percent of the coal lands that were mined as far back as 1940. It is difficult for me to envision legislation that is retroactive or that will blanket all operations. Some lands will cost only a few dollars per acre to restore while others might cost $1,200. With the assistance of my State agencies, which are soil conserva- tion, water pollution, bureau of mines, game, fish and parks, coal mine inspection, forest service, and the Colorado State University, we can get this job done better than some bureau in Washington, D.C. My big-game biologists inform me that this program is doubling the carrying capacity of this land compared to the surrounding terrain. My State has another project which is being conducted at Colorado State University. It is a 4-year program jointly funded by the mining industrial board, State forester, game, fish, and parks department, and the university are to develop restoration programs for Colorado mine dumps and mill tailing ponds. The most current conservation ac- tion that comes to my mind is a mining operation that will be In pro- duction within the next 5 years. After I had many long hours of dis- cussion with their design engineers, the company increased their con- struction costs $12 million to assure the protection of the esthetics and wildlife of this area. In fact, in addition to my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, Colorado looks on the sand and gravel operations as a fertile area for future potential. Where there is water available, we are hopeful that some of these areas can be developed into park and recreation area's. Where there is not water available, these are attractive sites for solid waste disposal. The attachment I referred to earlier in my statement that is an agree- ment with the coal companies was looked upon by the State of Montana favorably and they incorporated these thoughts in a recent law passed by their legislature.' Colorado and many of the States need experience in these new pro- grams that have been initiated in many of the States in the West. We need that experience due to `the difference in the `altitudes and climates that we experience within our State boundaries. With this, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for having taken the commit- tee's time today, but I hope my statement will point up some of the problems these proposals are creating for the affected States. Senator BTJRDICK. Thank you for your contribution. Does the State of Colorado have a conservation act? Mr. ECKLES. We do not have a Oolorado law covering specifically surface mining, but with the agreement I referred to, and which is attached `to my statement, I feel invaluable experience and information will be derived from this agreement. Senator BTJRDICK. These agreements `are voluntary, they do not have the force of statute? Mr. ECKLES. Not directly, but in my field there are many Colorado laws whether it be mine safety, water pollution, degradation, we have those types of laws. PAGENO="0283" 277 Senator BrIRDICK. But no one comprehensive law? Mr. EOKLES. No, sir. Senator BijiuucK. Thank you again. Mr. ECKLE5. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ( The memorandum referred to follows:) MEMORANDUM OF UNDEBSTANDING BETWEEN COAL SURFACE MINING COMPANIES OF COLORADO AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF CoLo&~Do Whereas, the Mutual Objective of the signatory parties to this Memorandum of Understanding is to accomplish in the State of Colorado, the restoration o~f land affected by the surface mining of coal to its most practical and productive use within the shortest possible time, and Whereas, the principal method of accomplishing this objective is to estab- lish vegetative cover on all such land as soon as chemical, physical and moisture conditions permit. Now, therefore, the signatory parties hereby enter into the following Memo- randurn of Understanding: Definitions ; Wherever used or referred to in this Memorandum, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: ( a ) "Overburden" means all of the earth and other miaterials which lie above natural deposits of coal, and also means such earth and other materials dis- turbed from their natural state in the process of open cut mining. (b) "Surface mining" means the mining of coal, by removing the overburden lying above natural deposits thereof, and mining directly from the natural de- posits thereby exposed. (c) "Operator" means any person, firm or corporation engaged in and con- trolling an open cut mining operation. ( cI) "Affected land" means the area of land from which overburden shall have been removed, or upon which overburden has been depoaLted, or both. (e) "Refuse" means all waste material directly connected with the cleaning and preparation of substances mined by open cut mining. (f) "Ridge" means a lengthened elevation of overburden created in the open cut mining process. (g) "Peak" means a projecting point of overburden created in the open cut mining process. (h) "Department of Natural Resources" means Coordinator of Natural Re- sources and/or any state department, commission, or a~eney so designated to represent the Coordinator. (1) "Industry" means `those operators who rtre signators to the Memoi~andum of Understanding as well as any operators who subsequently ratify it and agree to be bound by its terms. PROVISION I It is agreed that it shall be the responsibility of `the Coal Surface mine opera- tors, who engage in open cut mining for coal to carry out the reclamation work, PROVISION II As soon as possible after the completion of the mining operations in an im- mediate area, a Reclamation Plan shall be prepared by the operator, which among other things, will include a map Which shows the affected area and other pertinent details, stUch as roads, and access to the area. Suggested $oales Up to 10 acres 1"=lOO' 10 to 40 acres 1"=21J0' 40 acres and above 1"=400' All maps shall show quarter sections, sections, `township and county lines coming within the scope of the map; access to the area from `the nearest public road, a meridian, a title containing operator, address, scale of map, by whom map was drawn, name of engineer, date, and township, range and county. PAGENO="0284" PROVISION III A-grading shall be carried on adjacent to public highways by striking off ridges `to a width of at least ten (10) feet at the top and peaks to a width of at least fifteen (15) feet at the top. In all cases, an even or gently undulating skyline as seen from the roadway will be a major objective. B-Earth dams shall be constructed in final cuts of all operations, where practical, if necessary to impound water providing the formation of such im- poundm'ents will not interfere with mining operations or damage adjoining property. C-Acid forming materials in the exposed face of a mineral seam that has been mined shall be covered to a depth of not less than two (2) feet with earth or spoil material unless covered with water to a depth of not less than two (2) feet. D-All refuse shall be disposed of in a manner that will control stream pol- lution, unsigh'tliness or deleterious e1~ects from such refuse, and water from the mining operation shall be diverted in a manner designed to control siltation, erosion or other damage to streams and natural water courses. PROVISION IV A-On any affected land, the surface of which is used or is going to be used by the operator for the deposit or disposal of refuse, or within depressed haulage roads or final cuts or any other area where pools or lakes may be formed, no vegetative planting of any kind shall be made. B-On any affected land whose chemical and physical characteristics are toxic, deficient in moisture or plant nutrients or composed of sand, gravel, shale, or stone to such an extent as to seriously inhibit plant growth, planting shall be held in abeyance for a period of ten (10) years after the mining is completed. If, during this ten (10) year period, natural weathering and leaching of such affected lands fails to remove the toxic and physical characteristics inhibitory to plant growth the affected land be considered unplantable. PROVISION V A-On all affected land, the operator shall determine which parts of the af- fected land shall be reclaimed for forest, range, crop, horticultural, homesite, recreational, industrial, or other use, including food, shelter, and ground cover for wildlife. B-If the operator's choice of reclamaltion is forest planting, he may select the future use objective and elect to use hardwoods or conifers, or both. He shall construct fire lanes or access roads when necessary through the area to be planted. These lanes or roads shall be available for use by the planting crews and serve as a means of access for supervision and inspection of the planting work. He shall provide free access to the general public on all lands owned or otherwise controlled by him, and across said lands to adjoining public lands, except those areas where public entry might be hazardous or a hinderance to mining operations. The operator further agrees to leave roads constructed during mining operations in passable condition for use and benefit of the general public, where practicable. He shall permit hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreational activities as may be prescribed by the Coordinator subject to the operators decision, except in areas where such activities are found by the operator to be hazardous or objectionable. Tree planting stock shall be ordered and planting carried out based on a spac- ing of 10' x 10', approximately 435 trees per acre. Planting methods and care of stock will be governed by good planting practices. C-If the operator is unable to acquire sufficient planting stock of desired tree species, from the State or elsewhere, he may defer planting until planting stock is available to plant such land as originally planned or selected an alternate method of reclamation. PROVISION VI A-If the operator's choice of reclamation is for range, he shall strike off all the peaks and ridges to a width of at least ten feet prior to the time of seeding. The legume seed shall be properly innoculated in all cases. The area may be seeded either by hand, power or the aer~aI method. 278 PAGENO="0285" 279 rlhe species of grasses and legumes, and the rates of seeding to be used per acre shall be determined primarily by recommendations from the Colorado State Agricultural Experiment Station and experienced reclamation personnel of the mining companies, after considering other research or succ~ssfu1 experience with range seeding on Colorado mined land. . PROVISION VII If the operator's choice of reclamation is for Agricultural or Horticultural crops which normally require the use of farm equipment, the operator shall grade off peaks and ridges and fill valleys of such land to a degree so that the area can be traversed with farm machinery reasonably necessary for such use. Prepara- tion for seeding or planting, fertilization, and seeding or planting rates shall be governed by general agricultural and horticultural practices except where re~ search or experience in such work on Colorado mined lands differ with such practices. PROVI5ION VIII If the operator's choice of reclamation is for the development of the affected area for homesites, recreational, industrial or other uses including food, shelter and ground cover for wildlife, the basic minimum requirements necessary for such reclamation shall be worked out between operators, the Coordinator, and/or other interested parties in each individual case in the prepnration of the plan. The Coordinator agrees A-Po assist the Industry in reclaiming and restoring strip mined areas by providing technical and trained personnel for planning and evaluation of recla* mation operations. B-To assist in obtaining planting stock, seeds, cuttings, etc. of suitable plant species used in restoring strip mined areas. C-To cooperate with and assist the Industry in obtaining aid from other gov. ernmental organizations and institutions for the overall development and prorn motion of strip mined area reclamation efforts. PROVI5ION IX The Reclamation Plan prepared by the operator shall be based upon: Provisions for or satisfactory explanation of, all general requirements, for the type of reclamation chosen. The details of the Plan shall be appropriate to the type reclamation desig- mated by the operator and based upon the advice of technically trained personnel experienced in that type reclamation on surface mined lands and by scientific knowledge from research into reclaiming and utilizing mined lands of Colorado, when available. PROVIsION X All reclamation shall be carried to completion by the operator with all rea- sonable diligence and shall be completed prior to the expiration of three years after the Plan is prepared except as provided in Provision IV-B and V-C. PROVISION XI The Coordinator or his accredited representatives may enter upon lands on which the operator is mining for the purpose of inspection. The `Coordinator shall give written notice to operator of any suggestions or comments concerning the reclamation work. As soon as all reclamation work prescribed in the fleclamiation Plan is corn- pleted, the operator shall notify the Coordinator. The Industry and the Coordinator matually agree A-To meet once each year, or more often if deemed advisable, for an on the ground inspection of all strip mined areas not previously inspected. B~-Tb promote and advertise sound natural resource management through all mass media reasonably available; *to n~ake periodic and special public re- leases, jointly or individually regarding the progress of reclamation projects, provided however that indiviflual public releases either shall be cleared by the other party or shall not be derogatory or critical of the other party. In the event of disagreement or conflict with established pcdicy or administrative PAGENO="0286" 280 procedure the m~attr shall be directed through proper channels to the Coordi- nator of Natural Resources, State of Colorado and the designated officials of the signatory companies for decision or reconciliation. C-All supplementing or more specific agreements between the parties hereto that subsequently may be considered will be prepared within the framework of this agreement. D-It is expressly stipulated and agreed by both parties that each and every provision in this Memorandum of Understanding is subject to the Laws of the State of Ooloredo, and to the delegated authority assigned in each instance. s-Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as obligating the Coordinator or his deaignated representatives in the expenditure of funds or for future payment of money in excess: of appropriations authorized by law or obhgat- ing the companies of the Industry to expenditure of funds in excess of those n~onies normally and reasonaily budgeted for the provisions contained in this agreement. F-This agreement shall become effective when signed by the designated rep- resentatives of the parties hereto and shall remain in force until terminated by mutual consent, or by either party upon six months notice in writing to the other of its intention to do ~o. Amendments to this agreement may be proposed by either party and shall become effective upon approval by both parties. IN WITNESS THELRFiOF, the parties hereto have subscribed their names and affixed their seal this 1~th day of April 1965. Attest : ENERGY COAL Co., R. T. ECIKLES, Uoordiaci~tor. HARRISON EITELJ0RG, President. Attest: E. T. WHITCEOFT, Secretary. PITTSBURGH & MIDwAY CoAL MINING Co., J. A. MINEa, Vice President-E~~ineering. Attest: ~ HENRY ;r. HOFMENTES, Secretary. PEABODY COAL Co., S. L. JEWELL, Vice President. Attest: C. S. MULVANEY, Secretary. Executed and witnessed this 16th day of April 1965. A. J. CHRISTIANSEN, Witness. Senator BiJRDICK. The next witness will be George Zeigler of the National Limestone Institute. STATEMENT OP GEORGE A. ZEIGLER, CHAIRMAN OP THE BOARD, ~ NATIONAL LIMESTONE INSTITUTE, INC. ; AC'C'OMPANIED BY ROBERT KOCB, PRESIDENT, N. J. O~ROVE LIME CO. Mr. ZEIGn~n. Mr. Chairman, my name is George Zeigler. I am man- ager of corporate accounts for the M. J. Grove Lime Co., a division of Flintkote Co., Frederick, Md. It is my privilege to be the spokesman in my capacity as chairman of the board of the National Limestone Institute, Inc., of 548 lime- stone producers from 34 States. I have with me Bob Koch, our president, who resides here in Washmgton. We operate mines and quarries in producing the great variety of limestone products for agriculture, business, and the local, county, State and National Governments. As you know, limestone is also widely used in connection with our Nation's conservation programs; and because of this many of our members have developed a keen interest in conservation and the PAGENO="0287" 281 work that the Department of the Interior is doing in conserving our Nation's land and waterways. Therefore, I find myself coming before you today, with mixed emotions, because I am not at all certain that the real intent of this legislation is as clear is it could be. I have reviewed the very graphic book entitled "Surface Mining and Our Environment" which was pi~blished by the Department of the Interior. And, I must agree that any organization or individual with any feeling for conservation could no4~ help but be moved by the scenes pictured in that book. Our Nation must not allow vast acreages to be literally turned up- side down and left as waste. The extraction of a relatively small amount of minerals from beneath the surface must not be allowed to destroy the value of the land which is left. And, of course, steps should ~be taken to control the pollutants from mining operations. However, these adverse developments which I have just covered are not inherent to all forms of "Surface Mining" opera- tions. As this type of legislation has been under consideration in recent years, we have never felt we came under it as it was usually termed "strip mining." But, because of the use of the words "surface mining" in this bill, which has a much larger scope, we are concerned. In the quarrying of limestone, the destruction of thousands of acres of land, and the pollution of streams and rivers and resultant destruc- tion of fish and wildlife does not occur. Limestone quarries are relatively small, rarely do they cover more than a few acres. More often than not, they are situated away from populated areas, water pollution is not a factor since limestone in itself is a purifier of water and would enhance the growth of vegeta- tion along waterways and improve the mineral content of the water. Also, quarries are most generally permanent installations, much as a factory or utility. Because quarries are operated on this permanent basis, operators tend to be "good neighbors." Many quarries, which have been caught up in the suburban spread of their localities, have long ago taken steps to screen their property with trees and plants, and new methods of blasting have virtually eliminated shock and noise to the surrounding community. Many other "good neighbor" policies are commonplace in the industry. As I mentioned earlier, we have the impression that this legislation j5 being proposed to deal with "strip mining" alone. And, from our informal discussions of this matter with Interior Department officials, it was made quite clear to us that our industry was not con- sidered a contributor to the pollution and devastation of our land. It seems to us that the Congress, if it deems legislation necessary, should make the legislative record quite clear so that the respective States would realize that this industry does not need to be regulated to prevent the conditions outlined in section 3(b). We, in the institute, are continually urging all limestone producers to be as "good neighbors" `as possible. However, regulations to pre- vent the disruption of many acres of land, interfering with industry, agriculture, recreation, forestry, or contributing to floods, pollution PAGENO="0288" 282 of waters, and so forth, ar~ simply not needed as this industry does not do any of these things. If the Congress passes this bill without making this clear, we are fearful that some States may forget to differentiate between the many different kinds of surface mining. This could result in untold financial hardships. These, obviously, would have to be passed on to customers of this industry. And, as you know, some of our principal customers are local, county, State and National Governments. For example, the point I am trying to emphasize is that when regulations nre being prepared for water pollution, we certainly should be excluded, as limestone is, as I mentioned before, actually a water purifier. In conclusion, I would like to quote from the book, "Surface Mm- ing and Our Environment." Reading from the bottom of page 33, it states: "Open-pit mining is exemplified by quarries producing limestone, sandstone, marble, ~ ~ "Usually, in pen-pit mining, the amount of overburden removed is proportionately small compared with the quantity of ore re- covered. Another distinctive feature of open-pit mining of iron ore and other metallics, large quantities of ore are obtained within a relatively small surface area because of the thickness of the deposits ~ ~ "Some open pits may be mined for many years-50 or more in fact, a few have been in continuous operation for more than a century." Within that paragraph, I feel, lies the significant difference be- tween limestone-quarrying operations, or open-pit mining, and "strip mining" operations. It is a fact that quarries are relatively stable, many with permanent facilities, extracting their product from a small area without disrupt- ing the surrounding community or countryside and without causing pollution to surrounding streams and watersheds. Therefore, we believe limestone quarries should be excluded from this legislation. Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you to present these views of the limestone producers of the Nation. Senator BrmimcK. I should also like to welcome Mr. Koch as an old friend of the committee. Do you have a statement? Mr. Kocu. No, Senator. Mr. ZEIGLER. He worked pretty hard on this one, Mr. Chairman. Senator BinmmcK. I have just one question. How do you handle the overburden now? Mr. ZEIGLER. When we select a quarry site, in selecting that site we usually try to take the lowest point and bring it up to grade with the overburden. Now one of the major reasons for electing to put a quarry in is that it has the least amount of overburden. So we don't like overburden, it is nonproductive. Senator BUIWICK. This is generally true of quarries? Mr. ZEIGLER. Yes, generally true of limestone and aggregate quarries. Senator BURDICK! Thank you very much. Mr. ZEIGn~im. Thank you very kindly. PAGENO="0289" 283 Senator BTJRDIOK. Mrs. Alice J. Grossniklaus, secretary of the Corn- munity Council for Reclamation. STATEMENT OP MRS. ALICE J. GROSS1'TIKLAUS, SECRETARY, COMMUNITY COUNCIL POR RECLAMATION Mrs. GROSSNIKLAUS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Alice Grossniklaus. I doubt whether you will have trouble hearing me because I practice what Senator Dirksen says, if it is worthwhile saying, "aim for the back row." First, I am president, owner, and operater of the Alpine Cheese Fac- tory, Wilmot, Ohio. It is also Ohio's showplace of cheesemaking. I point out that it is not a two-bit outfit in the hills. We are, however, only one of 20 cheese factories located in five counties underladen with coal. The Ohio cheese industry has been a dependable source of income to the community for over 100 years. We have around 1,500 dairy fam ilies and the industry pays them around $7 million a year income. Industry to industry I cannot conceive of anything that is more damaging to the cheesemaking and all other agricultural industries than the turning of productive lands into strip mine devastation. Secondly-this is every bit as important to me as the above-I am Secretary of the Community Council for Reclamation, Wilmot, Ohio. It is a nonprofit chartered organization. Its purposes are to accomplish more effective enforcement of present laws governing air pollution, water pollution, reclamation, and restoration of land and property damaged by mining and other operations, and to see additional laws and measures to improve conditions in the foregoing areas of opera- tion, to stimulate and encourage public participation to the end that the foregoing objective may be accomplished. With these purposes in mind, I now wish to present my addendum to the proposed testimony that I already handed in to the committee. This addendum is presented in the form of photographic illustra- tions identified as reclamation reasons Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The purpose is to portray the facts mentioned in the proposed testimony. Following is a copy of descriptive data on the illustration, reclama- tion reason No. 1. Beautiful Ohio is underladen with coal in 27 coun- ties-and there is a farming country photographed in Holmes County. Nearly all of the land underladen with coal in the counties affected are of this caliber, productive, beautiful, filled with natural resources, near populated areas, or a combination of all. Truly God-given. Next we have three postcards which show a virgin forest. It is called Stark Wilderness Center. It is in Wilmot, Ohio. Many trees are labeled along Sigrist Woods Trail, such as this towering 200-250 year old red maple. Sigrist Woods is a heritage from the past, protected by man but managed by nature. The 409-acre center is open daily. That is in Stark County. Our council was instrumental in saving this virgin woods from strip mining. It is now an outdoor educational center for schools, clubs, and tourists. Reclamation reason No. 2: Tuscarawas County strip-mined land- tax revenue versus non~strip-mined land taxes. Figures from auditor's office, Court House, New Philadelphia, Ohio. The established values 9~-623-68----19 PAGENO="0290" 284 were compounded from unlimited factual valuations in numerous townships in the Garaway School District. Garaway School District average tax paid on strip-mined land is 49 cents per acre, per year. Most of the lowest valuation is in Wayne Township and the tax is 14½ cents per acre, per year. The average tax paid on neighboring farm land is $2.25 per acre, per year. From records compiled, the lowest is $1.18 per acre, per year. The following projection is based on the above averages. Farmed land at a thousand acres at $2.25 per acre, $2,250 ; 1,000 acres of strip-mine land at 49 cents is $490, with an annual loss of tax revenue of $1,760. This is a continued loss until the stripped land is adequately restored. Now we have two photos showing polluted waters and worthless land. To 1965, strip-mined land acres in Tuscarawas County are 17,568. The next illustration is reclamation No. 3. That is Harrison County. The study reveals progress in reverse. It shows neighboring outlook in the photograph. The population in 1940 was 20,313. The population, 23 years later, in 1963, was 17,375, a population loss in 23 years of 2,938. Thirty-six percent are under 18 years of age. Twelve percent are over 65 years of age. A development analysis initiated by the local cooperative exten- sion service in 1963 reveals that 41.9 percent of Harrison County households have a total income of less than $4,000 per year. The Harrison County attitude summary results reveal that, due to the low-income bracket, many households need education in home management, decisionmaking, use of credit, budgets, and so forth. They also do not have the training and knowledge to face im- mediate problems. Many low-income people stayed to face the music because they did not have the means to leave. The only daily progress visible to them is more spoil banks and more high walls. This low-income problem exists in every county, but in counties where other industries are predominant there are more economic benefits to shoulder the burden. From 1950 to 1960, mining employment in Harrison County de- creased 29 percent. Auditor's office, Cadiz : Stripped land spoil tax value is $10 per acre. The average real and personal taxes are $27.80 per $1,000. The auditor said, "What hurts our tax structure is that the first thing they do is tear down the buildings." To 1965, strip-mined land, in Harrison County, is 40,474 acres. The photo shows the stripped acres. Projected population for 1980: 15,851. Total land acres: 258,000. We have an exploding population era and this county is definitely going back. Now we have reclamation reason No.4. Meigs County: There was a pilot strip mine reclamation project. These are quotations and figures: $44,770 was lost in property value reported by 17 landowners representing a total of 1,943 acres. There are three photos showing stripping erosion and siltation. PAGENO="0291" 285 Meigs County Fish and Game Association, Pomeroy, Ohio: As citizens, taxpayers and sportsmen, we think that this issue Is years behind correcting. We au know that it is useless to purchase licenses to hunt and fish in Meigs County under the conditions caused by strip-wining In the county. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee, Pomeroy, Ohio: We would like to further state the damage to croplaud in the area is resulting in farmers being unable to take advantage of programs offered by the Federal Government due to heavy silting of the cropland which takes it out of production. It has resulted in a loss of income to the family-size farmer which is the backbone of Meigs County agriculture. Meigs County Game Protector Donald Williams, Pomeroy, Ohio: It has been my sad experience to see the streams and land deteriorate in Meigs County from strip-mining for the past five years. As Meigs County Game Protector, I work very close with the outdoors, fish and wildlife through- out Meigs County. During my time here in Meigs County, I have seen several of our streams go from good fishing streams to completely acid conditions from strip mines and fish can no longer live in these waters. Meigs County auditor's office, Pomeroy, Ohio After the reappraisal of real estate in Meigs County, Sciplo township valua- tion has shown `more than $150,000 decrease in valuation. Most of this decrease is due to strip mine operations within Scipio township. Meigs County sheriff, Pomeroy, Ohio: The pasture lands no longer make a beautiful scene as they had in the past but make an ugly picture that will remain or even grow worse. unless something is done in the future to help the people that have had the burden placed upon them by other persons. The dwellings that are left standing in this particular area are usually occu- pied by persons that cause much trouble to the people of the communities and to the local law enforcement agencies. The Farmers Bank & Savings Co., Pomeroy, Ohio: From a purely economic standpoint, this damage caused by stripping ha~ run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, not only has it caused the loss of farm income but it has caused the loss of bank deposits, tax revenue ; and has added untold burdens on onr county and State highway departments. Snowville Store, Wendell looper, owner, Albany, Ohio: I have been in thet store business for 35 years in a farming district and done a good husiness till strip mining came along and ch~maged the farms till the farmers could hardly pay their taxes. That hurt my business until I can hardly pay taxes. Meigs County Farm Bureau, Tom Sayre, president, Pomeroy, Ohio: We cite such evidence as loss of farm income being loss of land value, loss of tax revenue, damage to roads, destruction of wildlife habitat and damage to the rural social structure. Commissioners of Meigs County: The strip mine operations in this area of Meigs County have caused heavy damage to county and township roads. ( Statement of damage to be prepared by the County Highway Department.) it is a noted fact that the farm land in this area is decreasing in value which causes a loss on the tax duplicate in Meigs County. Department of Highways, Division 10, Marietta, Ohio State Routes most seriously affected are 143, 680, 684, and 69r2. Direct costs ineurr~d to date are derived from both documented cost figures and ~stlmated cost portion of overall maintenance expenses attributed to strip mining, total PAGENO="0292" 286 $90,946. Indirect estimated cost of cleaning charffiels~, culverts, bridges, raising grades and corr~cting slldes~-Potaa $18~,0O0. This does not include damage to pa~e~ent surfä~e~ resniting frohi hauling of the stripped coal. Citizens aiid taxpayers-From individual case histories: In addition to the statements we have already made couce~ning what striD mining has done to our propecty, we would like to quote an agent from a farm `oan agency, "If we see any strip mining on your farm or can see any from any position from your farm, we will not consider making a loan." Now reclamation reason No. 5 : Pennsylvania law reclamation and &~sts to the mining industry. There is a photo of mining before reclamation. Restoration is planned for at the time of mining. This spoil is on top of the highwall ridge, ready for back filling. Two photos of restoration and growth. 1. Restored back to contour with highwall terraced. 2. Contour restoration planted in clover in May 1964. This picture us taken in September 1964. Director William Guckert, Pennsylvania Department of Mines, Bu-. reau of Conservation and Reclamation, proudly exclaims: Pennsylvania law is working in restoring land for useful purposes of the ~future. Not waste any longer. Are ridding onr state of poverty areas created by unreclairned stripped acres. Land restoration costs From $250 per acre to $500 per acre. All land is put back to contour. No high walls are permitted. The $500 per acre restoration includes top soil. Cost per ton of coal mIned is from 7 cents to 20 cents to restore stripped land. Now reclamation reason No. 6. It shows a picture where they take it out, but at the same time they tell us they cannot put it back due to cost. Our council had two bills in the State of Ohio, one in 1963 and one in 1965. In 1965, I have the testimony of the hearing. There the strip miners said it cost $27,000 `to put the last acre back. In the Georgetown area, highwalis are put in, there are 73 miles of highwalls. If it would cost them $27,000 to put the last acre hack, why, no one would expect them to do it but that is not true. Then the next photo shows as they leave it. Reclamation reasons Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, `and 6 are résum6s of research, facts studies, and statistics and have been presented in an effort to stress the urgency for defined, adequate strip mined land reclamation, including proper enforcement measures. Thank you. Senator BURDICK. Thank you for your testimony. You have made quite a contribution to the record. There are some rather graphic photographs you have submitted to the committee. They will be in the files for the use of the committee. Mrs. GROSSNIKLATJS. Thank you. Senator BURDIOK. Since the committee will recess at 4 o'clock, we probably `have time for one more witnesis. I will call Mr. Ward Padgett, Inspector for Department of Mines, Oklahoma. Mr. Padgett will be the last witness today, and then we will adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. PAGENO="0293" 287 STATEMENT OP WARD PADc~ETT, CEIEP MINE INSPECTOR, DE~ PARTMENT OP MINES, STATE OP OKLAHOMA; ACCOMPANIETh BY THOMAS KISER, PRESIDENT, ORE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATIO~ OP THE TEl-STATE AREA IN OKLAHOMA Mr. PADGETT. Mr. Chairman and conimittee members, I have with me Mr. Thomas Kiser, president of the Ore Producers Association of the Tn-State Area in Oklahoma ~ho may have a comment or state- ment to miake after my presentation. My name is Ward Padgett. I am chief inspector for the Department of Mines in Oklahoma. This morning e~n1y I received a letter from our Gvernor, which at this time I would like to read. Since all segments of the mining industry in Oklahoma have shown their willingness to cooperate in implementation ~f our reclamation law, I see no reason to add additional burdens to the State by passing Federal reclamation legislation. I feel that Oklahoma is capable and willing to exercise its responsibility in this area. Our law gives us the additional authority to adopt necessary regulations to carry out the content of the act. Any additional information that the committee desires, I will be happy to supply. Sincerely yours, DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Governor. In Oklahoma the mining industry became actively interested in the problem of opencut land reclamation early in 1965. Studies were begun, and many meetings were held with representatives from all segments of the industry_-coal, copper, lead, zinc, crushed stone, sand and gravel, and so forth-working closely with my office and with interim legislative committees in drafting a proposed opencut land reclamation law. When `the draft was completed, these same people continued to work together in support of the passage of this legislation by the Oklahoma Legislature. This occurred in April 1967, and the law become effective January 1, 1968. The representatives of the various segments of the mining industry in Oklahoma have shown their willingness to cooperate to the fullest extent possible in the proper and timely implementation of our nec- lamation law, and I have every reason to believe the industry will continue to give this kind of cooperation. Oklahoma's Open Cut Land Reclamation Aot is a very broad statute affecting all surface-mined minerals and giving the department of mines or other administering agency considerable leeway in mak- ing rules and regulations to accomplish the purposes of the statute. Our law will deal adequately with the problems of reclamation. With the mining industry expressing and evidencing the kind of cooperation we have had in the past and have every reason to expect in the future, if additional legislation is needed, we are convinced we can rely on the industry for support and on our `legislature to enact such necessary legislation. Recognition of the problems created by opencut mining and the need for land reclamation are of recent origin. Over the last several years, more and more States have begun to look seriously at the problem and to try various methods of solution. PAGENO="0294" 288 We believe that recognition of this problem is such and is growing at a rate which eliminates the need or the interest of Federal agencies in the problem. I might add there that the interest of the Federal Government, we would think, would continue in the area of research and technical information. The 31st Legislature of the State of Oklahoma has adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 83, "Expressing Opposition to Proposed Land Reclamation Legislation Now Pending Before the Congress of the United States." I ask that a copy of this resolution be inserted in the record at this point. Senator BTJRDICK. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The document referred to follows:) STATE OF OKLAHOMA, SECOND SESSION OF THE 3lsv LEGISLATURE By Massad of the senate and Mountford of the House SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 83 As Introduced A Concnrrent Resolution Relating to Mining; Expressing Opposition to Proposed Land Reclamation Legislation Now Pending Before the Congress of the United States; Memorializing Congress to Recognize the Capacity and Intent of the Several States to Develop Adequate Solutions to Problems Associated With Open Cut Mining; and Directing Distribution WHEREAS, proposed legislation is now being considered by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate whereby the Federal Government and agencies thereof would be assigned primary authority and responsibility with respect to the reclamation of areas subjected to open cut or strip mining practices and operations in the several states ; and WHEREAS, during recent years more and more states have recognized the problems created by open cut mining and, individually and collectively, have begun to examine various methods of solving these problems ; and WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Legislature and the State's mining industry became actively interested in the problems of open cut land reclamation early in fl~65 and, through close cooperation between the industry and the Legislature, a strong "Open Cut Land Reclamation Act" was enacted into law in April, 1967 and became effective January 1, 1968 ; and WHEREAS, the Oklahoma "Open Cut Land Reclamation Act" applies to all surface-mined minerals and gives broad latitude to the administering agency with respect to the development of rules and regulations for its effective enforce- ment and implementation ; and Whereas, our state's mining industry has displayed its willingness to co- operate fully in accomplishing the purposes of the "Open Cut Land Reclamation Act" ; and Whereas, the several ~tates concerned with the problems of open cut land reclamation are moving, through participation in the Inter-state Mining Corn- pact and through state legislation, to develop adequate solutions to such prob- lems ; and Whereas, it is a basic principle of our system of government that local prob- lems should be met locally, and only when these problems are not being met by the responsible local authorities and, simultaneously, have ramifications of re- gional or national scope, should the Federal Government intervene. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the Second Session of the Thirty-First Oklahoma Legislature, the House of Representatives concurring therein: SECTTON 1. That in view of the efforts of Oklahoma and other states affected by problems of open cut land reclamation to effectively solve these problems through their own individual and collective action, the Congress of the United States be and hereby is respectfully memorialized to recognize the capacity and intent of the several states to expeditiously and effectively solve such problems by their own efforts. PAGENO="0295" 289 SECTION 2. That the Congress of the United States, in view of the foregoing, be and hereby is res~eotfu1Iy advised of our opposition to Federal reclamation legislation now pending before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on the grounds that such legislation is unnecessary under present con- ditions. SECTION 3. That duly authenticated copies of this Resolution be forwarded to all members of the Oklahoma delegation in Congress, to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and to Mr. Ward Padgett, Chief Mine inspector of.the State of Oklahoma. Mr. PADGETT. Oklahoma surfaco-mining operators met April 24 and registered their support for the State's Open Cut Land Recla- mation Act and their opposition to Federal reclamation legislation. Therefore, on behalf of the State of Oklahoma and of the mining industry of our State, we wish to go on record as opposing Federal reclamation legislation ~ because we feel very strongly that the prob- lems of surface mining and reclamation can be handled far more capably at the State level. Thank you. Senator BuiuIcK. Do you have any reclamation act governing strip mining in Oklahoma? Mr. PADGETP. Yes, sir. It became effective the first of this year. Senator BTJIWICK. Then you don't have any experience to testify to? Mr. PADGErr. No, sir. It has just begun to take shape and time will tell. Senator BIJRDICK. We are going to recess now until 9 o'clock tomor- row morning. Are there any witnesses who would like to leave a prepared state- ment at this time? You have a perfect right to testify tomorrow, of course. It is unfortunate that some could not be heard today. We are very sorry about that. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF FRANK C. WACHTER, VICE PRESIDENT, PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND Conp. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee : My name is Frank C. Wach- ter. I am Vice President of the Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp., of Hancock. West Virginia. This statement is presented in behalf of the Natioiial Industrial Sand Association of which my corporation is a member and of which I am Chair- man of its Public Relations Committee. The National Industrial Sand Asso- ciation, which represents the industrial sand industry in the United States, finds the proposed "Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968" of direct interest and importance to our industry. I wish to call to your attention the fact that the industrial sand industry w~as not considered by the U.S. Department of the Interior in its study, "Sur- face Mining and Our Environment." Apparently the `reason for omitting our industry from their report and statistical data was because our annual produc- tion is considerably lower than most mining industries, namely, 26,360,000 short tons produced in 1966 (Bureau of Mines, 1966 "Minerals Yearbook") and the fact that individual industrial sand operations are conducted at specific single and small `locations and in some cases, for more than one hundred years, disturb- ing but little of the earth's surface annually. Our industry mines and processes a mineral of limited occurrence that is a necessity for the manufacture of countless diversity of products consumed by our country in both peace and wrar Its necessity is so great that it received one of the top government prior- ities in World War II and the Korean War. Our industry is indeed reclamation conscious. The National Industrial Sand Association's Committee on Public Relations recently completed the publication and distribution of `its first reclamation research report, entitled: "Shaping the Land-Planned Use of Industrial Sand Deposits." Copies of this publica- tion were forwarded to the members of this Committee prior to `this hearing. PAGENO="0296" 290 Copies of the National Sand and Gravel Assoeiation's' reclamation research reports have always been forwarded to members of the National Industrial Sand Association. Both Associations share the same executive staff. I wish to direct my remarks to the Administration's bill, S. 3132, entitled: "Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968," which was introduced by the Chair- man of this Committee. I request that the following suggested changes to the bill be considered, (attached to this statement is copy of suggested language for these amendments) (1) The clarification of Section 2(e) so that only those lands from which strip and surface mining minerals are removed in the future will be affected by the Act at the time of enactment. (2) Extending Section 7(a) (1) (B) to include the right to modify the sub- mitted mining plans because of changes directed by engineering technology. (3) Extending Section 7(a) (1) (D) to provide for modification of reclama- tion plans because of unanticipated geological, economic, environmental, or other factors. (4) Adding a new subsection "G" in Section 7(a) (1) to provide that when a State Plan is approved that the State be the sole and exclusive agency in delegating the authority to regulate mine reclamation. (~) Adding new Sections 13 and 14 to create a Federal Surface Mining Recla- mation Board of Review which would hold hearings on disapproved State Plans and individual aggrievances of mining producers ; and (6) Adding a new Section 15 entitled, "Judicial Review" so that any final order issued by the Board under new Section 14 would be subject to judicial review by the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the State or mine affected is located. On behalf of the National Industrial Sand Association and the members of the industrial sand industry throughout the TJnited States, I sincerely hope that this Congressional Committee will favorably react and incorporate into the final enacted bill, the suggestions outlined in my testimonr. Senators, I thank you for the time allotted me. TIlE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SAND ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING 5. 3132 Amend Sec. 2(e) by deleting the word "concluded" on page 2, line 19, and sub- stituting therefor the word "conducted." Amend Sec. 4 by deleting the words "and the surface mined area thereof" on page 4, lines 16 and 17 Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) by deleting the word "and" under subsection (F) , and by adding subsection (G) on page 9, line 6 as follows : " (G) provide that the state agency is the sole and exclusive agency to which the state has delegated the authority to regulate mine reclamation ; and" Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) (A) by eliminating the ~emi-colou after the word "en- vironment" on page 7, line 18, and adding the following words : "and preserve and protect the availability of mining resources for the present and future ;" Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) (B) by adding the following words after the word "plan" on page 7, line 19 : ", either written or graphic," Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) (B) by adding the following words after the semi-colon on page 7, line 24 : "provided that modifications of such mining plans may be filed with, and approved by, the state agency, from time to time, when such modi- fications are commensurate with the purposes of this Act ;" Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) (C) by eliminating the words "relating specifically" on page 8, lines 1 and 2, and substituting therefor "where applicable" Amend Sec. 7 (a) (1) (D) by adding the following words after the semi-colon on page 8, line 15 : "provided that such reclamation plans may be modified or changed from time to time to reflect discovery of unanticipated geological, ceo- nomic or other conditions ;" Amend Sec. 7(a) (1) (F) by deleting the words "criminal and" on page 8, line 22. New Sec. 7(c) "(c) In the event that the Secretary does not approve a plan submitted by a state in accordance with this section, or in the event of the with- drawal of the Secretary's approval in accordance with subsection (b) above, such state may appeal the Secretary's decision to the Federal Surface Mining Recla- mation Board of Review, in accordance with Sec. 13 and 14 of this Act." PAGENO="0297" 291 New Sec. 8(1) " (f) A mine operator aggrieved by any decision of the Secretary made pursuant to this section, shall be entitled to review of the Federal Surface Mining Reclamation Board of Review in accordance with Sec. 13 and 14 of this Act." SEC. 13 ( a ) An agency is hereby created to be known as the Federal Surface Mining Reclamation Board of Review, which shall be composed of five members who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. (b ) The terms of office of members of the Board shall be five years, except that the terms of office of the members first appointed shall commence on the effective date of this section and shall exp~ire one at the end of one year, one at the end of two years, one at the end of three years, one ~tt the end of four years and one at the end of five years, as designated by the President at the time of appoint- ment. A member appointed to fill a vacancy caused by the death, resignation, Yr removal of a member prior to the expiration of the term for which he was ap- pointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such unexpired term. The members of the Board may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. (c) Each member of the Board shall be compensated at the rate of $75 for each day of actual service (including each day he is traveling on official business) and shall, notwithstanding the Travel Expense Act of 1949, be fully reimbursed for traveling, subsistence, and other related expenses. The Board, at all times, shall consist of two persons who by reason of pi~evious training and experience may reasonably be said to represent the viewpOint of surface mine operators, two persons who by reason of previous training ~tnd experience may reasonably be said to represent the viewpoint of conservation interests, and one person, who shall be Chairman of the Board, who shall be a gi~aduate engineer, forester, land- scape architect, or attorney, with experience in the surface mining industry, and who shall not, within one year of his appointment Ss a member of the Board, have had a pecuniary interest in, or have been regularly employed or engaged in, or have been an officer or employee of the Department of the Interior. (d) The principal office of the Board shall be in the District of Columbia, When- ever the Board deems that the convenience of the public or of the parties may be promoted, or delay or expense may be minimized, it may hold hearings or conduct other proceedings at any other place. The Board shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed and which shall be preserved in the custody of the secretary of the board. (e) The Board shall, without regard to the civil service laws, appoint and p're- scribe the duties of a secretary of the Board and ~uch legal counsel as it deems necessary. Subject to the civil service laws, the Board shall appoint such other employees as it deems necessary in exercising its powers and duties. The com- pensation of all employees appointed by the Board shall be fixed in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. (f) Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum, and official actions of the Board shall be taken only on the affirmative vOte of at least three members; but a special panel composed of one or more members, upon order of the Board, shall conduct any hearing provided for in section 14 and submit the transcript of such hearing to the entire Board for its action thereon. Every official act of the Board shall be entered of record, and its hearings and records thereof shall be open to the public. (g) The Board is authorized to make such rules as are n~cessary for the orderly transaction of its proceedings, which shall include Fequirement for adequate no- tice of hearings to all parties. S (h) Any member of the Board may sign and issue subpoenas for the attend- ance and testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and documents, and administer oaths. Witnesses `summoned before the Board shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. (I) The Board may order testimony to be taken b~y deposition in any proceed- ing pending before it, at any stage of such proceeding. Reasonable notice must first be given in writing by the party or his attorney proposing to take such depo- sition to the opposite party or his attorney of record, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his' deposition. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose, and to produce books, papers, or documents, in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify and produce like documentary evidence before the Board, as provided in I PAGENO="0298" 292 REVIEW BY BOARD I subsection (h) . Witnesses whose depositions are taken under this subsection, and the persons taking such deposition shall be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like serwces in the courts of the United States ( j ) ~ In the case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a sithpoena served upon, any person under this section the Federal district court for any district in which such person is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by the United States and after notice to such person to appear and gii e testimony be fore the Board or to appear and produce documents before the Board, or both; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. (k) The Board shall silbmit annually * to the Congress as soon as practicable after the beginning of each regular session a full report of its activities during the preceding calendar year. Such report shall include, either in summary or dc- tailed form information regarding the cases heard by it and the thsposition of each. SEC. 14. (a) A state or an operator notified of an order of the Secretary made pursuant to Sec. 7 or Sec. 8 may apply to the Federal Surface Mining Reclama- tion Board of Review for annulment or revision of such order. (b) The state or operator shall be designated as the applicant in such proceed- ing, and the application shall recite the order complained of and other facts suffi- cient to advise the Board of the nature of the proceeding. The application may allege the Secretary s failure to approve a state plan or his withdrawal of such approval is arbitiary capricious or unreasonable within the intent and spiiit of Sec 7 of this Act that the state plan submitted to the Secretary substantially complies with the provisions of Sec 7 and should be approved that the state in administering a plan previously approved by the Secretar~v has complied sub stantially with it and has enforced it adequately and a revision of the state s pre viously approved plan is not appropriate or necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act that denial or revocation of a permit made by the Secretary pursu ant to Sec 8 is arbitrary capricious or unreasonable or that the action of the Secretary in denying or revoking such permit is not supported by a failure of the applicant to comply with the spirit and intent of this Act or the regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to Sec. 8. The Secretary shall be the respondent in such proceeding, and the applicant shall send a copy of such application by registered mail or by certified mail to the Secretary at Washington, District of Columbia. (c) Immediately upon the filing of such an application the Board shall fix the time for a prompt hearing thereof. ( d) Pending such hearing the applicant may file ~s ith the Board a written request that the Board grant such temporary relief from such order as the Board may deem just and proper. Such temporary relief may be granted jy the Board only after a hearing by the Board at which both the applicant and the respondent were afforded an opportunity to be heard, and only if respondent was given an~ple notice of the filing of applicant s request and of the time and place of the hearing thereon as fixed by the Board. (e) The Board shall not be pound by any previous findings of fact by the respondent. Exidence relating to the action complained of `and relating to the questions raised by the `allegations of the pleadings or other questions pertinent in the proceeding may be offered by both parties to the proceeding. If the respond- ent claims that the action complained of is substantially in compliance with Sec 7 or Sec 8 of this Act as the case may ~e the burden of proving such claim shall be upon the respondent and the respondent shall present his evidence first to prove such claim. (f) If the Board finds that the allegations of the applicant as described in Sec 14 (b ) are correct the Board shall make an order consistent with its findings revising or annulling the act of the respondent under review or shall order the respondent to take action in accordance with its findings. If the Board finds that the allegation's of the applicant are not correct, the Board shall make and order denying such application. (g) Each finding and order made by the Board shall be in writing. It shall show the date eli which it is made, and shall bear the signatures of the mem~bers of the Board who concur therein. Upon making a finding and order the Board shall cause a true copy thereof to be sent by registered mail or by certified mail to all parties or their attorn~ys Of record. The Board shall cause each such finding and order to be entered on its official record, together with any written opinion PAGENO="0299" 293 prepared by any mem~bers in support of, or dissenting from, any such thidiiig or order. (h) In view of the urgent need for prompt decision of matters submitted to the Board under this section, all action which the Board is required to take under this section shall be taken as rapidly as practicable, consistent with adequate con- sideration of the issues involved. JUDICIAL REVIEW SEC. 15. (a) Any final order issued by the Board under Section 14: shall be subject to judicial review by the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the state or mine affected is located, upon the filing in such court of a notice of appea's by the Secretary, or the state or operator aggrieved by such final order, within thirty days from the date of the making of such final order. (b) The party making such appeal shall forthwith send a copy of such notice of appeal, by registered mail or by certified mail, to the other party and to the Board. Upon receipt of such copy of a notice of appeal the Board shall promptly certify and file in such court a complete transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was made. The costs of such transcript shall be paid by the party making the appeal. (c) The court shall hear such appeal on the record made before the Board, and shall permit argument, oral or written or `both, by both parties. The court shall permit such pleadings in addition to the pleadings before the Board, as It deems to ~e required or as provided for in the Rules of Olvil Procedure govern- ing appeals in such court. ( d ) Upon such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the United States court of appeals may, after due notice to and hearing of the parties to the appeal, issue all necessary and ap- propriate process to postpone the effective date of the final `order of the Board or to grant such other relief as may be appropriate pending final determination of the appeal. (e) The United States court of appeals may affirm, annul, or revise the final order of the Board, or it may remand the proceeding to the Board for such further action as it directs. The findings of the Board as to facts, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. (f) The decision of a United States court of appeals on an appeal from the Board shall ~e final, subject `only to review by the Supreme Court as provided in section 1254 of title 28 of the United States Code. Sections 13 through 16 of the present Act ( S. 3132) should be renumbered re- spectively : 13 becomes 16 ; 14 becomes 17 ; 15 becomes 18 ; 16 becomes 19. STATEMENT OF PAUL TInELE, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, TuIELE KAOLIN Co., SANDER5vILLE, GA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Paul Thiele. I am President and Chairman of the Board of Thiele Kaolin Company at Sandersville, Georgia. I was a member of the Georgia Legislature Study Committee that inspected several different kinds of surface mining operations, determined that surface mining land rehabilitation was desirable, and proposed legislation. The proposed bill, with one amendment, was passed unanimously by our State Legislature. I am a nominee for the Board that will have responsibility for adopting rules and regulations and administering the Surface Mining Land Reclamation law under the Georgia Department of Mines, Mining and Geology. I am appearing before you today as a representative of the ~O mining corn- panies who are members of the Mining and Quarrying Committee of the Associ- ated Industries of Georgia. We take the position that rehabilitation of surface mined land is rightfully the responsibility of the individual states. We feel that federal legislation is unnecessary and a duplication of effort because the States and the mining operators are increasingly aware of the need to prevent pollution and to reclaim n~ined-out land. The mining industry has made tremendous progress in this matter during the past decade. Senate Bill 3132 is dangerous to the welfare and security of this nation. It proposes to give near dictatorial power to one man; namely the Secretary of PAGENO="0300" 294 Interior. Specific~d1y, it proposes to give him the following authority over the mining industry of this nation, and with no right of appeal: 1. The power to issue mining regulations with the forced cooperat)ion of the States; 2. The power to approve or disapprove, or approve and later disapprove, &ate plans; 3. The authority to judge whether administration of State programs is is adequate; 4. The power to assess fines and penalties; 5. The authority to evaluate the current and future needs and to evaluate the effectiveness of mining regulatory measures; 6. The right to specify a single State agency with which be may, or may not, cooperate ; and supervisors in mining and reclamations practices and techniques ; and 7. The right to establish training programs for operators; 8. The right of entry to any surface mine or upon any surface miiied area. Senate Bill 3132, as written, gives the Secretary of Interior sole authority for The future regulation of surface mining operations. This could be interpreted to mean the Secretary has authority to say who could operate a mine, where he could mine, what ore he could or could not mine, how much ore he could mine, et cetera. The members `of the Mining and Quarrying Committee of the Associated Industries of Georgia also feel that there are sufficient means of enforcement of any rehabilitation plan through fines and power of injunction to shut down an operation or prohibit the sale of the ores or minerals without the additional penalty of a performance bond. It is our feeling that States which are operating under land rehabilitation laws should be etem~pt from S. ~3132, unless the Secretary of Interior can show a Board of Review that the State plan is inadequate or that it is not being enforced. It is our qpinion that any rules and regulations proposed by the Secretary of Interior should first be approved by a Board of Review before they may be put into effect. Further it is our opinion that any penalty, such as refusal of a permit or a fine, should be subject to review by the Board and also the federal courts. Further it is our opinion that the Board of Review should include state rep- resentatives, mine operators of surface mines, and persons qualified by experi- once or `affiliations to present the viewpoint of conservation and other interested groups. _______ STATEMENT OF GENE LONG, GENERAL MANAGER, RECLAMATION AND LAND USE, TRUAX-TRAER COAL Co. My name is Gene Long, and I am the General Manager of Reclamation and Land Use for the Truax-Traer Coal Company, an operating Division of Con- solidation Coal Company, with mines operating in Illinois and North Dakota. ` Our general office address is 111 North Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. In North Dakota the company is presently operating mines at Stanton, Velva and Columbus, and our Division Office is located at Stanton, North Dakota. In 1966 an organization was formed in the State entitled, "The North Dakota Mined Land Conservation Association," and I am here representing this associa- tion. This association represents 95 percent of the lignite coal mined in the State of North Dakota, and the members of this association produce approxi- mately 3,100,000 tons of lignite coal annually, all by the surface mining method; employing approximately 300 persons, and approximately 210 acres of land are effected each year iii the total operations. The overburden or material being removed to expose the seam of lignite coal consist mostly of unconsolidated material with a top soil of 8 inches or less. The average rain fall is only 15 inches pe~ year, which sometimes occurs in a very short period. The basic cash agriculture crop of the area is wheat grown on that portions of land which is tillable and a minimum amount of row crops are produced which is used basically for animal feed. The topography is of a rolling contour and the natural vegetation on that portion which is not tillable consists mostly of prairie grass or western wheat grasses with a minimum amount of natural or controlled forestation. This area is used primarily for grazing. PAGENO="0301" 295 The reclamation of mined land in North Dakota has been carried on for many years in a voluntary manner on an experimental basis by most of the individual companies. At the present time one company has employed a full time geologist and another company has a full time reclamation and conservation employee, both of whom are assisting and counseling the operational personnel of their respective companies and are willingly exchanging ideas at all times for the benefit of the lignite coal industry. At the present time the Game and Fish Department of the State of North Dakota, in cooperation with the various lignite coal companies are operating from eight to ten public fishing areas throughout the State. Considerable work in grading and seeding has been accomplished and in excess of a quarter of a million trees have been planted as part of the work carried on in the past in reclamation and conservation. The lignite coal is of such a nature that sulfur and ash content are very minimal and does not require necessary washing and drying equipment, thereby eliminating the creating of refuse piles or slurry pits and thereby minimizing all types of pollutions from such operations. Most of the lignite coal mined in North Dakota is above the water drainage and in those areas where water can be impounded and because of the lack of pyrites in the seams the water is such quality that it will s'upport aquatic life. The majority of the tonnage mined in North Dakota is mined in the remote and rural areas and is also consumed basically in sparsely populated areas. The quality of the lignite coal is of such a low B.T.TJ. (British Thermal Unit) analysis and of such high moisture content and therefore must be mined as economically as possible and is limited to consumption in the general mining area because of the B.T.U. delivered cost. The Interstate Commerce Commission also recognizes the low quality of the North Dakota lignite coal when in granting the railroad freight increase on transportation of all lignite coal, limits the increase to 50% as opposed to the normal increase granting to other higher quality coals. The United Mine Workers of America also recognizes the low quality of lignite coal by assessing only one-half of the tonnage welfare fund as against the full asessmerit charged against other higher quality coals. The lignite coal industry of North Dakota has been asked to consider some type of control legislation governing disturbed land as the result of surface mining and therefore the North Dakota Mined Land Conservation Association intro- (laced and supported "Resolution K" in the 19G7 session of the legislature there- by creating and formulating a commission to study reclamation and conservation for the State of North Dakota as related to surface mining in the State,. Many field trips were made through out the State by the Commission to view first hand reclamation work that has been carried on in a voluntary manner and many meetings have been held with various governing bodies to consider the thinking of the industry in order that they might be incorporated into workable legislation for the mutual benefit of all interested parties concerned. At the pres- ent time the recommendations of the members of the commission formed by Resolution K have been assigned to the Natural Resources Committee of the Legislative Research Commission for evaluation. It is the opinion of the lignite coal industry that it is unreasonable and not practical from the standpoint of economics and manpower to have any duplica- tions or multiple authority of more than one governing body to implement and enforce this type of regulations. It is most important that serious consideration be given to any regulations enacted governing the reclamation of effected land as a result of the mining of lignite coal in the State of North Dakota which could seriously effect the indust~y by increasing our labor and supply cost and putting us in a more unfavorable competitive situation as opposed to high quality imported coals with higher mine realizations as well as the competition from other types of competitive fuels, including nuclear and hydro generation powers. It is the mutual agreement of the lignite coal industry that if compulsory legislation is forthcoming that a State Governing body is much more informed of the situation and muich more effective in administering the rules and regula- tions and should be the only legislative body empowered to see that these regulations are adhered to. Therefore the North Dakota Mined Land Conservation Association goes on record as opposing Senate Bill No. 3132. PAGENO="0302" 296 STATEMENT *i~ KENNETH B. POMEROY, FOR THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION Mr Chairman and members of the committee I am Kenneth B Pomeroy Chief :F orestor of The American Forestry Association The members of the The American J~ orestry Association are pleased to see the interest being taken by the Congress in the regulation of surface mining Ihe extraction of minerals by this method is an essential activity that contributes ~,reatly to the economy of the Nation At the same time it is an activity that can be and often is highly destructive of other natural resources such as soil water wildlife timber and recreation Our Association recognizes the legal right of the owner of a mineral resource to stiip away the surface of the land in order to make use of his property But \~ e feel the owner also has a moral obligation to do his work in a way that will leave the land in productive and useable condition for future generations The ~ ncr should not be permitted to destroy associated surface resources for all time. Reclamation is in our view an integral part of the strip mining operation We do not ask however that a mined area be restoied in all instances to its former condition We do ask that it be placed in a productive condition Such reclamation might be in the form of a lal . for recreation or a plantation or some other ictivity that makes productive use of mined areas Some States already have taken constructive steps toward control of strip mining This program should be extended to all States in which strip mining is practiced. We think S 3132 is a good initial step and we offer our support for its enactment ( Subsequent to the he'iring the fo11o~ ing additional inform'ttion was received : ) ~ THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, Wa~hvngton D U Aicty 2 1968 Hon HENRY M JACKSON (1 halrman Oonim~ttee on Interior aHd Insv~lar Affctirs U.s. Senate, Waslthigton, D.C. DEAR MR JACKSON We appreciate the opportunity to present a statement on S 3132 (control over surface mining) at the hearings on April 30 and May 1, 1968 Since then some additional suggestions have been received from our mom bers Therefore we would like to add the following recommendations to our statement regarding S. 3132: F~ectwn 5 (a;) page 4 lviies 20-21 should read ~ ~ ~ the Secretary shall cooperate with appropriate State agencies in developing and administering State plans * * &~ction 5 (b) page 5 hne ~ should read ~ ~ ~ Secretary shalt provide the agency ~ ~ ~ Also it is desirable to incorporate in S. 3132 the provisions of S. 217 under Section3 (a), (b) page 4asfollows: (a) * * * The Secretary of the Interior shall designate within the Depart ment of the Interior an officer with primary respons~bility to administer the provisions of this Act (b) "In administering this Act the Secretary shall cooperate to the fullest extent practicable with other departments agencies and independent establish ments of the Federal Government with State governments and agencies inter state agencies and compacts and all other interested agencies governmental and nongo~ ernmental He is authorized to request from any other Federal agency `tnv information data advice or assistance which he m tv need and which can reasonably be furnished and such agency is authorized to expend its own fund for such purposes with or without reimbursement Primary responsibility for administering control over strip mining should rest in an agency knowledgeable in all forms of surface mining This agency should be in the Department of the Interior and not the Department of Agricul ture as proposed in S. 3126. S. 3132 should cover all forms of present and future surface mining as well as reclamation of areas disturbed by past surface mining practices The bill also should cover all products of surface mining whether they move in interstate or intrastate commerce Sincerely yours, KENNETH B. POMEROY, Uhief Forester. PAGENO="0303" 297 STATEMENT OF CHARLES BALL, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY RENEWAL PROGRAMS, Ci~r PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC., MISHAWAKA, IND. This statement is presented in support of S. 312~G, the Mined Lands Conservation Act of 1968, introduced by Senator Nelson of WIsconsin, and is prepared for the hearings of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs scheduled for April 30 and May 1. Of the three bius before the committee, S. 3126 appears most appropriate to the problems afl(l opportunities created by surface mining. S. 3132, the Administra- tion bill, is inadequate since it deals only with the establishment of standards and carries no real enforcement capabilities. S. 217, that of Senator Lausche, is similar to Senator Nelson's bill, but is restricted to coal mining and ignores the equally serious land dereliction problems posed ~y copper, iron ore, gravel, limestone, sand, uranium and other surface mineral extraction activities. Federal regulation of surface mining activities backed with adequate funding, enforcement powers and appeal procedures is essential to the reclamation of derelict abandoned mines and the prevention of the continued rape of the nation's landscape. In his remarks before the Senate on March 8, 1968, Senator Nelson cited an estimate that placed the amount of land disturbed by surface mining by 1965 at 3.2 million acres. This figure is probably conservative since this nation does not possess a comprehensive land use inventory such as has been conducted by most northern European countries. Surface mining activities, will all of the attendant pro~lems, are devouring the land of many states like an animal going mad. The consequences are profound, since once disturbed and not restored to useful condition, these lands become a blight in the environment and are not productive. More is involved in this legislation than the mere desire to restore a pleasant and productive landscape. When coal seams are exposed to air and then to water, sulphuric acid is generated which pollutes streams and lakes and makes the propagation and development of domestic and wildlife difficult, if not unfeasible, and disturbs public water supplies. In some areas a serious safety hazard is imposed Ji~y the practice of augering in the side of coal seams and leaving in place an overhang on pillar supports that can easily collapse. Erosion problems are similarly created, the consequence of which are seen in the destruction of lands adjacent to mine operations and in the pollution of lakes and water courses. These are but a few examples of the consequencses of uncontrolled surface mining. At the same time, one must recognize that surface mining activities are es- sential to the industrial operations of the nation and that if properly conducted need not scar the earth as they have in the past. Under the Nel~on bill, the presence of derelict lands created by surface mining frequently will provide splendid opportunities for reforestation, the development of recreation sites and other productive land uses if the bill is properly funded and administered. A clear imperative argues the case for Federal legislation In this manner. State legislatio~i in the past has either been weak or nonexistent, and there is perhaps one strong economic reason for national regulation : in contiguous states that produce minerals for the same market, such as the coal mining activ- ities in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the imposition of appropriate regulations by one of these three states and not the other two would place its mining operators at a competitive disadvantage in relation to coal operators in the two remaining states. Coal is mined at the surface at Mahoning and Colum- biana Counties in Ohio for the Youngstown area steel producing market. It is also mined in adjacent Lawrence County in Pennsylvania for the same market. Were either Ohio or Pennsylvania to adopt the required regulations and not the other state, its coal operators would probably be placed in a com- petitive disadvantage in the Youngstown steel-orented market. Thus, national regulation is indicated as the necessary equalizer. S. 3126 should not appear as ominous to the coal or other mining industries as its tone suggests. Regulations will be promulgated only in consultation with regional advisory groups composed of representatives of mining and nonmining interests and regulation will probably vary from region to region. The Wyodak Coal Mine, formerly operated by the ilonestake Mining Company and now by the Montana-Dakota Utilities Company, near Gillette, Wyoming, is well removed from public view and is on former grazing lands that, at best, were marginal as to their productivity. Regulations applied to that operation cer- tainly would not be restrictive as those that would be imposed on the strip I PAGENO="0304" 298 mines near Youngstown, or in Belmient and Harrison Oountiies, Ohio. Nor woi~kI highly restrictive measnres ~eein appropriate to limestone areas near the surface in the Railbelt area of Alaska where an indigenous cement industry is now economically feasible a~id would be helpful in strengthening that state's economy. As a generalization, it would appear thnt any regulations that would flow from S. 3126 would be' tailored to `the economies of mineral extraction as balanced against the desired restoration and reclamation objectives of the bilL Were ten cents a ton added to the price of coal for restoration purposes within any economic region of the nation for the task of restoration and reclamation, the impact in benefits would be in geometric proportion to the investment. This becomes a social cost shared by all and of benefit to all. The only change of significance that I would recommend to S. 3126 would be to include within the purview of the legislation slag and waste dumps. The area immediately east of Deadwood, South Dakota, for example, is blighted by several hundred acres of slag from forn~er gold mine operations and that land is at best of marginal utility. Without restoration, a similar situation ob- tains in the eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania. Finally, I should note that although both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture have overlapping interests in the matter of surface mining, I would suggest more technology and expertise as to reclamation and restoration is to be found in the Department of Agriculture than in the Department of the Interior, particularly in the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. I would therefore urge in the implementation of this legislation that the primary burden for restoration and reclamation standards and research and development be conducted by the Soil Conservation Service. However, the role of the De- partment of the Interior, particularly of its Bureau of Mines, certainly is an important one. STATEMENT or THE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION The Conservation Foundation welcomes the opportunity to comment on the pending legislation dealing with surface mining regulation. The environmental implications of surface mining are significant, and the Foundation believes that a national policy is necessary to ensure suitable environmental safeguards. 5TATEMENT SUMMARY In summary, we believe that- 1. The cooperative federal-state approach to regulation of all surface mining operations, as embodied in S. 3132 is basically sound; 2. Although limited to future mining, S. 3132 would constitute a good beginning, is administratively workable, and would provide an appropriate responisibility for the Se»=retary of the Interior; 3. S. 3132 would build upon, and support, the few strong state laws that already exist; 4. To help assure strong state standard's and to protect future options, S. 3132 should be revised to prohibit any surface mining that would leave the surface less useful to man than it was before; 5. T~ stop further environmental damage from surface mining, S. 3132 should require regulation of surface mining as rapidly as possible ; effective regulation should begin o~iie yenr after passage of the act. Other vague time schedules in the bill should be clarified. Preliminary federal criteria for the states are unnecessary and woilid delay the program ; and 6. In addition to regulation of future mining operatioins, S. 312G also offers an opportunity for the Congress at least to begin to develop a recla- ination program for the millions of acres of land already altered by surface mining. A demonstration surface mine reclamation program should be authorized, enabling the states to conduct, with federal financial and technical assistance, a series of demonstration projects in cooperation with local governments on ways to put this derelict land to work to serve a variety of public needs. In addition, a Presidential `task force should be authorized to recommend within one year a comprehensive long-term program for recla- mation integrated with other programs including recreation, solid waste disposal and employtaent. Our detailed comments follow. PAGENO="0305" I 299 5. 3132 Is A SOUND BEGINNING Of the three bills being considered by the committee, S. 3126 and S. 3132 are directed toward surface mining alone, while S. 217 concerns only coal mining, both surface and underground. We believe the evidence is clear that eon- trols are needed for surface miming of all kinds, covering a variety of minerals. Consequently, we urge the committee to take the approach embraced by S. 3126 and S. 3132. In developing a national surface mine policy it is important that Congress not complicate its administration. S. 3126 might do so. Under its provisions both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture would be respon- sible for administering the program. The Secretaries acting together would establish federal st)andards and criteria for the reclan~ation of past and future surface mined areas. Together they would approve and constantly evaluate the state plans submittej for future mining operations. Finally, under S. 3126 the two Secretaries, acting individually, would divide the responsiibility for technical and financial reclamation aid. In initiating a new federal `program we believe that Ckngress should avoid such a cumbersome administrative approach. In general The Conservation Foundation supports the approach outlined in S. 3132. Its enactment would be a significant first `step toward a more compres- hensive environmental protection program relating to past as well as future surface mining. Under S. 3132 the Secretary of the Interior would cooperate with and provide matching funds for the states in the developmennt of state plans for the regu- lation of future surface mining. State plan would then be submitted to the Secre- tary. Those meeting certain listed guidelines would be approved by the Secretary. The Secretary would devise federal regulations for states which do not submit plans, do not abide by the plans submitted, or refuse to make certain revisions deemed necessary by the Secretary. The bill would establish an advisory group appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. It provides for injunctive relief by the Attorney General to prevent vio- lation of federal standards, or state standards where the interstate commerce is involved. It would authorize the Secretary to conduct and promote research to carry out `the purposes of `the act, and would establish a Mined Lands Reclama- tion Fund supported by Congressional appropriations and other fees collected under the act. In addition, the bill would require other federal agencies to regulate and `reclaim surface-mined areas on federal lands, provided that the standards prescribed are at least equal to the approved standards issued for the state in which the lands are located. S. 3132 recognizes the vital `role that must be played by the states in regulating surface mining. Recently Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia have made significant statutory and regulatory advances toward more adequate environ- mental protection in surface mining. It should not be difficult, in view of their extensive experience, for these states to expand their laws to encompass all forms of surface mining. An examination of some of the best existing state legislation indicates that enactment of S. 3132 would create no significant legislative dif- ficulties for these states. Indeed, states with progressive legislaion should wel- come the requirement that neighboring `states must likewise maintain high conservation standards, thus ensuring that there will be no competitive dis- advantage resulting from conservation practices. In requiring state standards and plans for future surface mining operations, the bill follows the general pattern of recent air and water pollution control legislation-that is, the states have the initial opportunity and responsibility to act. The bill recognizes, however, that surface mining controls require simpler administrative arrangements than those necessary to abate air and water pol- lution. There good reasons for a simpler approach: 1. The two reports by the Department of Interior-the interim "Study of Strip and Surface Mining in Appalachia", and final report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment"-indicate that we know a great deal about how to prevent environ- mental damage from surface mining opeartions and how to reclaim surface-mined land. There is, for example, no need for federal criteria on the environmental effects of surface mining comparable to that required in the field of air pollution. A requirement for development of such criteria in advance would unnecessarily delay the proposed program. 2. The proposed surface mining controls relate only to future surface mining operations. Whereas air and water pollution control may require the installation of new equipment at established operations, the surface mine program would 95-623-68-------20 PAGENO="0306" 300 affect only future mining, requiring reclamation and conservation practices be integrated into the process ot each new operation. 3. Because of the adequacy of existing information and the limited scope of the program, the states need not take long to develop their surface mining plans. Legislation and regulations already developed in some states can be useful to other states. Furthermore, the proposed regulations by the Department of In- tenor governing surface mining on Interior Department and Indian lands should indicate the kind of approach that would be expected of the states. Finally, the bill itself specifies useful legislative policy guidelines for the states. SUGGESTED REVI5ION5 OF S. 3132 It is appropriate at this point to suggest an important revision of these legis- lative guidelines. Section 7 (a) (1) (A) requires that the state plan include provisions that "promote an appropriate relationship between the extent of regulation and reclamation that is required and the need to preserve and protect the environment." This difficult language has dangerous policy implications. We know, for ex- ample, that the need to protect lands of Appalachia did not in the past appear as necessary as it does today. Does the language quoted mean that we can freely make the same mistakes today, in Alaska, for example, or in remote lands of the Southwest where vegetative cover may be extremely fragile? Is the "need for environmental protection" to be determined in economic terms, and if so in five or 50-year projections? We know too much history to be shortsighted now. Environmental factors listed by the bill must nowhere be ignored by surface mine operations. No area should be surface mined if doing so will make it less useful to man in terms of future options than it was before. That is the policy all state plans should implement Section 7 (a) (1) (A) should be revised to voice this policy, replacing the fuzzy reference to "appropriate relationships" between regulation and environ- mental protection. In this way the states will have a clear indication of the kind of policy approach the Congress considers necessary it state plans are to meet the requirements of the national policy as set forth in the bill. For the reasons outlined above, and with the policy guideline change recom- mended, the Congress should reasonably expect prompt legislative and regulatory response to the act by the states. However, the timetable for action by the states in the bill is too long and at times too vague. We therefore suggest the following changes in Section 7 of the bill, relating to state plans for surface mining controls: 1. We suggest that the Governor of each state be required, within 90 to [20 days after enactment of the bill, to send the Secretary of the Interior a letter of the state's intent to file a surface mining plan. This would enable the Secretary to have an early indication of the number of states for which federal standards wrffl have to be prepared. There is no such provision in S. 3132 as Introduced. 2. We suggest that each state be required to submit, after public hearings, its proposed plan for surface mining regulation within one year after enactment of the bill. If no plan is submitted, the Secretary of the Interior should then be required to issue federal standards for that state. S. 3132 now gives the states a minimum of two years and a n~aximum of three years after the bill's enactment in which to submit plans. This is an unnecessarily long time period. The suggested one year provision would still permit states to submit a plan at any time thereafter but it would have the advantage of provid- ing interim federal standards and thus prevent possible environmental destruc- tion from unregulated surface mining. 3. We suggest that each state be given 60 days in which to implement its plan after approval by the Secretary. S. 3132 does not specify when the state plan is to become effective. The bill does provide, in Section 9, that "federal regulations shall cease to be effective within the state 60 days after the approval of the state plan by the Secretary." The 60-day period for initial imple- mentation of the state plan would seem to be equally appropriate and would take care of this gap in S. 3132. 4. We suggest that Section 7(b) (1) be amended to give a state 60 days in which to comply after notification by the Secretary of failure to comply or enforce its plan adequately. S. 3132 now requires compliance "within a reason- able time." This is too vague for effective administration. PAGENO="0307" I 301 5. We suggest that Section 7(b) (2) be amended to give a state 60 days in w hich to revise a previously approved plan as duected by the Secretary Where the state agency believes new legislation is required a longer period up to 180 days, would be appropriate. S. 3132 requires such a revision "within a reasonable time"-a much too vague time period. One highly significant difference between S. 3132 and S. 3126 is the former's neglect of reclamation needs on lands already surface-mined. We recognize that a meaningful reclamation program would be costly and that current budgetary pressures may prevent enactment of such a program at this time. (The final Department of the Interior report estimated that a basic reclamation program for all surface mined lands would cost $757 million and that a more complete rehabilitation program would cost $1.2 billion.) Nevertheless, S. 3132 offers the Congress an opportunity to begin to develop a reclamation program for land already surface-mined. TASK FORCE ON SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION POLICT We recommend that the Congress authorize a one-year study by a Presidential task force to develop recommendations for such a reclamation program. We suggest that the task force report be centered around ways in which local state and federal governments could promote the reclamation of land previously surface-mined and, at the same time, derive the `most direct public benefit from any public money so spent. The tac~k force could for example examine the relationship between reclama tion and recreation opportunities, solid waste disposal problems, and employ- ment needs. The study could include identification of employment potential by areas, and by job skills which would be needed, and could be integrated with existing public and private manpower training and job-creating prograniz. The task force could determine the extent to which the total costs of various public programs might be reduced by fostering these interrelationships. It could study was in which surface mined lands could be considered in state outdoor recreation plans,, and how such lands might be purchased and developed with financial assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund the Open Space Land Program, and other federal and state programs. The task force could recommend funding arrangements, perhaps partly through royalties on mining operations that could be used for a surface mine reclamation program Because ef the broad nature of its mandate, the task force should include representatives from federal agencies such as HEW Labor OEO HIJD Agri culture and Interior as well as the Bureau of the Budget and representatives of state and local governments and the private sector. DEMONSTRATION SURFACE MINE PROGRAM In addition we suggest that the Congress authorize a demonstration program In cooperation with the states to test ways in which mined land reclamation can be integrated with social policies and programs Such a demonstration program would be limited in scope It might center around what the Department of the Interior S report noted are the widely scattered privately owned surface mine sites appropriate only to state or local management after reclamation Its object would be not only to reclaim the lands. It also would provide a mechanism for coordination of existing federal programs, along with federal planning `issistance and supplemental federal incentive grants Planning and administra tion of the actual reclamation program would be a state or local function. Such a demonstration program might require 1. The Governor to designate a single demonstration surface mine reclama- tion agency to plan and administer the state program. 2. Federal financial assistance for state planning and grants to supplement existing federal assistance programs. 3 A single federal officer to administer the demonstration program only `ippointed by and responsible to the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture The administrator would assist the states in tying existing federal programs into the demonstration projects He would in addition act as liaison between the states and the Presidential task force as useful lessons are learned. We therefore urge the committee to authorize the creation of a Presidential ftsk force for the purposes outlined above and to authorized a demonstration surface mine reclamation program to encourage and assist pilot projects looking toward broad public use of unreclaimed surface-mined land. PAGENO="0308" 302 FINANCING Finally, if the administration ocf surface mining control programs in states with g~ood legislation is any guide, an annual authorization of at least $20 million appears to be required for the federal program. STATEMENT OF JOHN T~. HALL, ASSISTANT ExEatiTIvE DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS S~CIEPY Mr. Chairman, my name is John L. Hall, Assistant Executive Director of The Wilderness Society, a 40,000-member national conservation organization with headquarters at 729 Fifteenth Street, NW., in Washington, D.C. The Wilderness Society's objectives are to secure the preservation of wilderness, to carry on an educational program concerning the value of wilderness and how it may best be used and preserved in the public interest, to make and encourage scientific studies concerning wilderness, and to mobilize cooperation in resisting the in- vasion of wilderness. The Society strives to support all sound programs for the conservation of fish and wildlife, water, scenic, and outdoor recreation resources in order to assure balanced use of our nation's natural resources and the preservation of a quality environment for this generation and generations to come. We are concerned about surface mining regulations because we know of the d~iimaging effect of surface mining to our environment. We are aware of the vast areas of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Southern Indiana and Illinois where the coal has been mined by stripping and where no reclamation Work or inadequate reclamation work has been done. This devastation has poi- luted the waters, made the laud worthless, and has changed the environment of many sections of these states. We are also aware of the effect the surface mining for other minerals including common varieties of minerals can and does have in other parts of onr nation. We are shocked at the total disregard some surface mine operators have for the other natural resources and for their fellow human beings. We appreciate the fine work being done by operators in some states who are concerned and who are doing an adequate job of surface restoration. We endorse the proposed strong federal legislation that will help control and correct the ravaging effects of strip and surface mining. The federal legislation must be as strong as the state legislation now in effect in Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia so as not to ~ndercut the strong state control in these states. Weak federal legislation would negate the work of the dedicated people in these states who with considerable courage and sacrifice have won such notable victories. In those states where strong surface mining laws are in effect, it may not even be necessary for the federal government to intervene. The strong federal control is needed in those states that have weak surface mining regulations that do not protect other resources, the environment, and the people. We are not opposed to mining, for the products of these mines and others are as necessary to us as to anyone. We are aware of the problems that face the coal mining industry in acid mine pollution and in air pollution. However, in some areas we question whether the stripping of coal or iron is worth the price. We ask, are the short term gains worth the long range detrimental effects on our total resources, and on the people who are left with a depressing, and uninviting environment. We have wondered, can the surface mining industry afford the cost of strong reclamation requirements. The Wilderness Society has been told that, in the states of Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia where there was much concern expressed by the surface mining industry after the laws were proposed- that the industry is doing a thriving business under these strong requirements. Also, the cost of reclamation is from one tenth to one fifth of what was estimated by the industry. In our suggestions for this legislation, we are guided by the Department of the Interior's report which recognized five major objectives that must be considered. They are: (1) Water quality control, (2) soil stabilization, (3) elimination of safety hazards, (4) conservation and preservation of natural resources and (5) restoration of natural beauty. PAGENO="0309" 303 We recommend these specific strong points as part of the federal legislation: (1) a strong preplanning requirement; (2) the protection of "esthetic" values; (3) the minimum bond of $500-$1000 per acre as required by the Pennsy1~ vania statute; (4) the zoning regulations as provided in the West Virginia law; (5) the special fee per acre for a reclamation fund for orphaned land such as in the West Virginia statute; (6) the treble drainage requirement in West Virginia law where damage has been done to others' property; (1) the requirement in Pennslyvania law that a permit be obtained from the water resource agency in addition to the mining permit; (8) the degree-of-slope restiction now in effect in Kentucky which restricts mining on slopes greater than 28°; (9) strong regulations controlling dredging operations; ( 10 ) the inclusion of haulage roads as part of the operation area to be bonded; (11) the requirement for a prospecting permit as in the West Virginia law; (12) the requirement that reclamation must be kept current with mining operation; ( 13 ) the refusal to allow mining by an operator whose permit was pre- viously revoked or bond forfeited without correction as stated in the West Virginia law; (14) the "high wall" and "back filling" treatment required by the Peinnsly- vania law; ( 15 ) and finally the important provision to protect unique and scenic areas and particularly wilderness areas from the effects of surface mining operations. We realize the magnitude and importance of the problem you are considering and recommend the adoption of the legislation based on Senate Bills S~ 217 and S. 3126 including the provisions described above with emphasize on the protection of unique scenic and natural areas. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. STATEMENT OF SAM S. STUDEBAKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS I am Sam Studebaker of Tipp City, Ohio, President of the National Associa- tion of Soil and Water Conservation Districts NACD) . Our Association is corn- posed of over 3,000 individual Conservation Districts, which are independent subdivisions of state government, and their asociations in the 50 state's, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Since the inception of our program some 30 years ago, the conservation, reclamation, and development of land has been a fundamental purpose of our work. We are curretly assisting over two million farmers, ranchers, `and other landowners in controlling and preventing soil erosion and in using land more wisely and productively. In areas where surface mining takes place, our Districts have taken steps to reduce the damage which results from inadequate restoration of mined sites. With assistance from the 11.5. Soil Conservation Service and other agencies, approximately 500 of our Districts in 31 states have provided services to over 5,000 landowners in reclaiming and improving mined areas. In some states, such as West Virginia, Soil and Water Conservation Districts have extensive pro- grams in this field that are most successful. A truly effective program of surface mine reclamation, however, will not be possible without adequate standards established by law-preferably state law- and a comprehensive long-range program of technical and financial assistance. The scars on our landscape left by past surface mining activities are contribut- ing to flood and sediment damages to roads, streams, water supplies, fish produc- tion, farms, and ur'ban areas. Current surface mining operations are damaging and rendering unsightly vast acreages of land. PAGENO="0310" 304 In our concern for preserving and cleansthg our environment, we must not neglect the serious damage resulting from uncontrolled surface mining. NACD believes that there is need for a comprehensive and effective cooperative program in this field, and applauds the sponsors of the legislation en this subject pending before this committee. Our Association believes that the best approach would be an amalgamation of the best features of the three principal proposals that you are considering: S. 217, S. 3126, and S. 3132. Specifically, we believe that the following considera- tions are fundamental in establishing a national program of surface mine rec- lamation and restoration: 1. The program should apply to all lands affected by commercial surface mm- ing of any kind. The problems resulting from coal stripping, gravel quarrying, phosphate mining, or any other form of mineral extraction are similar. We do not believe that any particular branch of the industry should be singled out for attention. 2. It is essential that the program deal not only with the prevention of future damages through the establishment of standards for reclamation and enforce- ment of those standards, but also the amelioration of damages that are presently :ccurring due to mining in the past. This will require a program of technical and financial assistance. According to the recent study by the task force representing the Interior and Agriculture Departments and other Departments and agencies, some two million acres of mined land in the United States are urgently in need of treatment. We must, unquestionably, prevent additional land from contribut- ing to problems that will result from unsupervised mining. But we must also rid the landscape of the existing open sores that are now eroding, polluting our lakes and rivers, and creating flood hazards. 3. The problem must be attacked on both public and private lands. Of the lands affected by surface mining to date, about 90 percent are in private owner- ship. No program can be effective if both types of land are not treated. 4. To be effective, the program must be a joint endeavor of both the Depart- ment of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. Each has experience and expertise that need to be brought to bear on the problem. The Interior Department has long been engaged in the development of efficient mining tech- niques and the enforcement of standards to promote safety in underground mining. The Agriculture Department, on the other hand, is the recognized authority in dealing with erosion, land reclamation, and land conservation. Working in co~peration with our Soil and Water Conservation Districts, it has built up a network of technical, financial, and educational arrangements which are being utilized in surface mine reclamation and would be available for an accelerated program. Virtually all of the research on reclaiming surface-mined lands is being done by USDA and cooperating Agricultural Experiment Stations. The Depart- ment has 20 plant materials centers where selection, evaluation, and develop- ment is in progress on suitable plants and cultural techniques for stabilizing critical sediment source areas, including lands affected by surface mining. The Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture has nearly 35 years of experience in the scientific planning of land reclamation and con- servation work, including the use of basic soils data, and the utilization of engineering and vegetative measures for restoration, erosion prevention, and site development. SOS has available a corps of nearly 8,000 trained technicians across the country familiar with the application of technology to land problems of this kind. A new USDA booklet, entitled "Restoring Surface-Minded Land," outlines the dimensions of the task and what can be done to solve the problem. Because of the experience of both agencies, and the contributions they can make, it is essential, in our opinion, that any national surface mine reclamation program utilize both agencies. 5. That reclamation and rehabilitation of mined lands be based upon plans developed on a watershed basis or other appropriate land unit basis by qualified units of local government, such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts, in consultation with private individuals and organizations, and state and federal agencies. Surface-mined areas constitute major environmental disturbances and need to be treated on a drainage area basis. Soil and Water Conservation Districts are qualified and experienced in preparing and carrying out scientific plans of this kind. They are also sponsors of many regional conservation projects which involve operations and skills similar to those in mined land reclamation-including over 825 watershed PAGENO="0311" 305 protection projects and 40 Resource Conservation and Development Projects. They are accustomed to working with and coordinating a variety of organiza- tions `and agencies in programs sponsored at the local level with state and federal assistance. They are responsible, under state law, for the conservation and deve1opmen~ of land, water, and related resources within their jurisdictions. The 3,000 Districts now operating include virtually all of the privately-owned land in the United States. In each District, there is a resident staff of professional conservation technicians from the Department of Agriculture and other federal and state agencies providing services in accordance with meinorandum~ of under- standing. Included are soil scientists, soil conservationists, engineers', geologists, economists, biologists, foresters, and agronomists. There are also personnel eiigaged in education and the financing of conservation projects. This vast array of talent, experience, and professional competence is at the disposal of Districts and can ~e utilized in the reclamation of mined lands. Using C~nservation Districts as local agencies in carrying out a national reclamation program would help ensure the most vigorous, competent, and effective program. 6. We would further recommend that the following considerations apply in any national reclamation program to be established: (a) That federal assistance be provided only after determination that the fed- eral, state, or local governments do not intend to acquire the lands involved. ( l~) That long-term (up to 10 years) agreements between the Secretary of Agriculture and landowners be used to provide for the orderly application of needed measures and practices. This is currently proving highly successful in the Great Plains Conservation Program and is ~eing considered for application in several other programs. (c) That the share of federal financial assistance in reclamation on private lands ordinarily not exceed 75 percent but that higher rates not be precluded where critical public needs warrant it. (d) That public investments in this work be protected by state statutes or )y agreement between landewners and the Secretary of Agriculture. ( e) That the funds used for the program be new appropriations authorized for the purposes of the act. The problems we are facing at home and a~ro'ad may make it impossible to begin immediately with a program of the magnitude necessary to reclaim our mined lands. But we believe it essential to authorize such a program and begin preparations to attack this problem in earnest once the fiscal situation permits it. And once the program is launched, we would suggest that a definfte timetable ~e established-perhaps 20 years-so that we can look forward to the final corn- pletion of this work in an orderly fashion. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this important subject STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS This statement is filed on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, a voluntary association of business an industrial enterprises, large and small, located in every State. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on S. 3132. As stated in Section 3 of S. 3132, the "extraction of minerals by surface mining is a significant and essential industrial activity and contributes to the economic potential of the Nation. Surface mining provides vitally needed raw materials and fuel for manufactturing industries. The economic development of each State has historically resided within the government and the people of the respective State, and this policy has led the Nation to a position of pre-eminent economic strength. S. 3132 would open the door to a large-scale intervention by the federal government in connection with the development and consevation of the natural resources of the respective States, and we respectfully submit that it should be rejected on this ground. Although Section 7 of the bill would provide each State with an opportunity to formulate a State plan for the regulation of surface mines and the reclamation of surface mined areas located within the State, the Secretary of the Interior would be given a broad power to approve or disapprove the State plan. If the Secretary disapproves the State plan, the Secretary would have the power under Section 8 of S. 3132 to issue federal regulations for the operation of surface mines and for the reclamation of surface mined areas in such State. The bill contains PAGENO="0312" 306 no procedure whereby a State could appeal a final disapproval by the Secretary, and apparently his disapproval would become final without recourse to any review by any administrative or judicial tribunal. The Secretary would not only be the lawmaker and administrator, but also would serve as policeman, prosectuor, and jury under S. 3132. Section 13 of the bill provides that if any person fails to comply with the Secretary's regulations within 15 days after notice, such person shall be liable for a civil penalty of $100 per day, and that the Secretary may assess and collect any such penalty. Viola- tion of the regulations would also be made a federal crime to be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both. We believe there is no justification for imposing criminal penalties in connection with activities presently being carried out by mining companies in cooperation with State regulatory authorities. The Secretary would have the right of entry to any surface mine or upon any surface mined area to make such inspections and investigations as he would deem appropriate to evaluate the administration of State plans or to develop or enforce federal regulations. The federal scheme of regulation would also involve a permit system. A federal permit system centrally administered from Washington would have a deadening effect on the dynamic charaëteristics of our mineral industries. The broad discretion granted to the Secretary to disapprove a State plan may be seen by analysis of the provisions of Section 7. It is provided that be shall approve the State plan if " (1) lIe determines that, in his judgment, the plan includes laws and regulations which" do six things. The first of these is that they "promote an appropriate relationship between the extent of regulation and rec- ]amation that is required and the need to preserve and protect the environment." Jnst what is an "apppropriate relationship? " It is obvious that this is some- thing on which reasonable men could differ, but the Secretary's decision would be final and without review by anyone. The six items under determination (1) contain other similarly vague and gen- eral phrases, such as "adequate mining plan," "in a manner consistent with said mining plane" "reasonably prescribed time limits," "effectiveness of the require- ments established," and "adequate measure for enforcement" The "laws and regulations" (presumably both) would have to contain criteria relating specifi- cally to the control of erosion, flooding, and pollution of water ; the isolation of toxic materials' ; the prevention of air pollution by dust or burning refuse piles or otherwise ; the reclamation of surface mined areas by revegetation, replace- ment of soij, or other means ; the maintenance of access through mined areas ; the prevention of land or rockslides ; the prOtection Qf fish and wildlife in their habitat ; and the prevention of hazards to public health and safety. There is also a requirement that "The Secretary determines that, in his judg- ment, the plan includes (A) adequate provision for State funds and personnel to assure the effective administration and enforcement of the plan and if needed, the establishment of training programs for operators, supervisors, and reclama- tion and enforcement officials in mining and reclamation practices and tech- niques ; ( B ) provision for the making of such reports to the Secretary as he may require ; and (0) authorization by State law and that it will be put into effect not later than sixty days after its approval by the Secretary." It is also provided that, after approval of a plan, the Secretary can, after certain steps, withdraw his approval of the plan, ~md issue regulations for such State under Section 8 of the Act. He could also withdraw his approval of the plan and issue his own regulations for such State if the State did not adopt a revision which he deemed appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the Act. It is apparent that what is proposed is one of the broadest delegations of legislative power ever considered. This would be a delegation of the legislative power of the Congress under which the Secretary of the Interior would be em- powered to write a comprehensive surface mining law for the entire Nation. It would also constitute a delegation of the legislative power of each of the State Legislatures, subjecting their efforts in the field of conservation to a review by a federal official who could approve or veto as he saw fit, in whole or in part. If such a delegation of both State and national legislative powers is indeed per- missible, under the various State and National Constitutions, it certainly is of dubious wisdom. We believe it is extremely undesirable and shouJd be rejected. Ironically, Section 3 (d) of the Act sets forth a finding and declaration by the Congress "That, because of the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical, and other physical conditions in mining areas, the establishment on a nationwide basis of uniform regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclama- PAGENO="0313" 307 tion of surface mined areas is not feasible ,..." Then, the bill proceeds to establish a mechanism whereby ~ the Secretary of the Interior could impose on a nationwide basis uniform regulations for surface mining operations and for the reclamation of surface mined areas. Section 8 does not set forth any requirement that the regulations promulgated by the Secretary be other than uniform for all States and types of operations. It provides that he shall issue regulations "in consultation with an advisory committee appointed pursuant to this Act," but this is a reference to only one advisory committee, and makes no provision for advisory committees for particular States or particular types of operations. We believe that the diversity declared by the bill itself is sufficient grounds to reject the approach embodied in the bill. In addition to the objections of the diversity of conditions to be regulated and the virtually uncontrolled power to be delegated to a centralized non-elective official, it is apparent that the interest and activities of the States and of the various af1~e~ted industries in regard to safeguarding surface mining operations are at an all-time peak. In this connection, we would like tc~ submit for the files of the Oommittee a copy of "Our Native Land," a basic handbook on the wise use and management of natural resources published by the National AssocIation of Manufacturers. We would especially call attention to the section on "Beautifi- cation," which includes a picture of a reclaimed surface mined area illustrating revegetation and recreational opportunities for fishing. The caption on the picture reads : "Beautification efforts are advanced by reclamation programs carried on by surface mining operators. Trees and forage crops turn the land into excellent pasture, and hundreds of lakes have been created like this one in Kansas which abounds with bass, bluegilJ and perch." The section on "Beautification" includes a quotation from Mr. Laurance S. Rockefeller, Chairman of the Oitizens' Advisory Committee on Recreation and Natural Beauty, at the 70th Annual Congress of American Industry sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, which states in part as follows: "I think a milestone was established when bi~siness and industry participated in the recent White House Conference on National Beauty. Leaders from the electrical, steel, automobile, scrap, outdoor advertising, and other industries were there working hand-in-hand with labor leaders, government officials and conservationists. There was some encouraging progress on common solutions to some long standing prdblems beyond individual interest." The section on "Beautification" also make reference to "the program of the Mined Land Conservation Conference, a voluntary organization formed by strip mine operators in the 22 states' where surface mines are operated, which promotes the restoration of mined lands' so that they will not only be productive of trees and forage but also pleasing to the eye." We would also like to call attention `to the article which appeared in the March 1968 issue of Coal Age Magazine entitled "Hyhrid Poplars Renew Mined Land." This article tells the story of how research developed a hybrid poplar which is ideally suited for reclamation of surface mined areas because it is extremely fast growing and can grow under extremely dry `and adverse conditions. It was written by Mr. John P. Kendig, Forester, Manheim, Pa. This article refers to the fact that "The Central Pennsylvania Open Pit Mining Association's Conservation Division has been working to get many strip-mined lands planted with hybrid populars, being aided by men from the U.S. Forest Service and the Pennsylvania State University. The article concJudes "At the present time, hybrid populars offer a very prom- ising opportunity to clothe spoil banks with a solid vegetative cover that con- serves soil, water and wildlife and makes strip~mined areas more attractive. In addition, a renewable resource is introduced on the coal-exhausted lands and with a little care and management it should produce valuable crops of pulpwood, saw timber, and veneer wood, over and over again." It is obvious that, not only are private industry and the State governments capable of handling all the problems involved-water pollution control, air p01- lution control, reclamation and beautification, and conservation of fish and wildlife-but are doing so. On the other hand, a perpetual, overhanging possibility of federal intervention with a set of differing regulations applicable to all these pro~lems would make realistic planning-from both the operational and economic standpoints-practi- cally Impossible. It should be noted that the Secretary of the Interior would presumably not be required to publish in the Federal Register the criteria by which he would PAGENO="0314" 308 make his determinatiens of approval or dimppro~ai under section 7 of the bilL This also contributes to a rule of men rather than of laws. An exactly analogous situation has developed under the Water Quality Act of 1965, in w~hich the Congress wisely gave the States an opportunity to develop water quality standards for interstate waters within their respective boundaries. Under that Act, ti~e Secretary of the Interior is directed to make a determination as to whether or not the State standards are consistent with the objectives of the Act. The Secretary has never published in the Federal Register the criteria by which he makes such determinations. As a result, the policy of the Secretary has been expressed in various documents and letters issued both internally and externally to various parties from time to time over the past two years, and considerable confusion has arisen both among state agencies and among industrial companies as to the exact policy which is being followed in regard to these standards. It appears that some of the state standards already deemed to be consistent with the Act are no longer considered as acceptable. The confusing, varying attitude of the Secretary is illustrated by the sentence in his letter of February 15, 1968 to the Governor of Alabama, in which he states: "In the course of approving the various standards submitted by the states, it has become obvious to me that some of those approved last summer were not of the same quality which we are now requiring." The record of the Secretary of the Interior in administering an analogous set of provisions relating to water pollution control would appear to demonstrate it would be unwise to establish a similar system ill regard to surface mining. Because of the diverse conditions under which various minerals are mined in various localities; because of the fact that private industry and the State governn~ents are handling the problems involved; and because of' the deadening and disrupting effect of both actual and potential regulatory intervention by the federal government, we respectfully urge that `the distinguished Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate not report S.3132 or similar bills. STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN L. ORTH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE AssoCIATIoN OF AMERICA The National Rifle Association of America is highly pleased to have the oppor- tunity to present this statement to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs supporting S. 3132, 5. 3126 and S. 217, bills for the protection and reclamation of land and waters affected by surface mining. Mr. Chairman, the National Rifle Asaociation, as the nation's largest sports- men's organization, represents hundreds of thousands of hunter-sportsmen wrho are vitally concerned with the provisions of these bills for these measures will be of immense benefit to outdoor recreationists, conservationists and other land and water users alike. We believe that the "Mined Lands Conservation Act of 1968", S. 3126, which provides for the conservation, acquisition and reclamation of surface and strip- mined areas, will inestimably further conservation and enhancement of our renew- able natural resources through the eventual return to productivity of these ravaged lands. The authorization of federal grants for investigations, experiments, demon- strations, studies and research projects to develop reclamation and conserva- tion practices on strip and surface mined areas and to develop improved mining techniques will prove to be of immense practical value in returning these lands to their highest level of productivity. Federal assistance provided in this bill for the reclamation and conserva- lion of surface or strip-mined lands will enhance its recreational value in addition to aiding the restration of the country's natural beauty. The National Rifle Association of America also feels that conservation of natural resources will be furthered immensely through the strong federal leadership voiced in S. 3132, the "Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968" in respect to the future regulation of surface mining `operations and assistance to the States in reclaiming surface mined areas and in setting up their own pro- grams for regulations and enforcement of surface mining laws. We commend the inclusion of the provision authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to promote, conduct, and accelerate research, studies, surveys, experiments and training in carrying out the provisions of the act as the findings from these activities will greatly improve the effectiveness of the States' regulations. PAGENO="0315" 309 And since the despoilation of our lands by unregulated surface mining has had a degrading effect on land water and our economy we feel that the inclu sion into the act the prospect of mandatory federal regulation of the surface or stri~p-mining activities if an adequate State plan is not submitted within two years and federal penalties for those persons failing to comply with federal surface mining regulations are indeed necessary for the action required to reclaim our ruined lands and to see that further surface mining is conducted in harmony with continuing land usage. We believe that the long-range comprehensive programs to reclaim lands and water damaged by coal mining to promote an effective continuing land use program and to prevent further detriment to the Nation from such mining operations contained in the Mined Lands Oonservation Act of 1957, will be supported by conservationists and sportsmen nationwide. The integration of reclamation work into the mining cycle with realistic time limits established for the completion of reclamation as provided in the bill will ~r~ve to be a definite aid to the prompt return to productivity of the coal minded area for wildlife. The long-range benefits such a~ halting erosion, pollution, damage to natural beauty and the loss of wildlife habitat are of immeasurable future value. Here too, authorization of federal grants for research projects and the rendering of technical advisory assistance to mining operators in States with approved standards for mining, reclamation, conser- vation, portection and management of coal mined lands, will provide an excellent base for new knowledge to be used in the reclamation and conservation of lands and waters adversely affected by the coal mining operations. The non-renewable minerals may have been stripped from the surface of strip mined lands but we feel that passage of the proposed bill will be of the highest value to renewing the land's productivity once more for recreational purposes. Again, Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our unequivocal sup- port of these bills, S. 3132, S. 3126 and S. 217. In terms of public benefit, logic and fairness~ this proposed legislation ought to be made public policy and public law. Senator BURDIOK. The committee will recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Thursday, May 2, 1968.) PAGENO="0316" I PAGENO="0317" SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1968 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSTJLAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 3100, New Senate Office Building, Senator Lee Metcalf presiding. Present : Senators Anderson, Metcalf, and Fannin. Also present : Jerry T. Verkler, staff director ; Stewart French, chief counsel ; Porter Ward, professional staff member, and E. Lewis Reid, minority counsel. Senator METCALF. The committee will be in order. This is a continuation and I hope the conclusion of the hearings on S. 3132, 5. 217, and S. 3126. You have all been very patient to wait through 2 days of hearings and we are delighted to see you this morning. The first witness is Dr. Agnew, director of water resources research at Indiana University. Dr. Agnew, we are grateful for your patience and we are glad to have you here. STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN P. AGNEW, DIRECTOR, WAPER RE. SOURCES RESEARCH CENTER, INDIANA UNIVERSITY I)r. AGNEW. Thank you, Mr. Senator. Senator Metcalf, I should like to make a few remarks here regarding my personal background and highlights of my prepared statement. I will not read the statement. Senator METCALF. We would be delighted to have that sort of mate- rial in the record and to know about your expertise. Dr. AGNEW. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions, too. My name is Allen F. Agnew and I represent and I am director of the Indiana University Water Resources Research Center, where I am also professor of geology and I have held this position since 1963. Previous to that I was director of the South Dakota State Geological Survey where 50 percent of our work was dealing with research and water matters. At that time as a member of the Western Governors Mining Advi- sory Council I not only had the pleasure of working with persons in your State and in several of the home States of other members of this commmittee, but also had the opportunity to observe first hand the differences that exist between the physical situations and the processes of mining, the occurrence and the production and the use of these materials, these natural resources of ours, throughout the different parts of the country. (8i11) PAGENO="0318" 312 Before I went to South Dakota in 1955 I worked for the U.S. Geological Survey for many years in the lead and zinc mining districts in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa, and in California and Iowa I worked in ground water. Before that I had begun my professional career with the Illinois State Geological Survey in 1939, where I worked with coal and with oil and gas matters, so I feel somewhat at home with both mining and water matters. Taking a brief look at some of the highlights of my prepared statement which you have before you, on the first page I introduce the philosophical goals that we have as well as the practical goals, the philosophical goal of attempting to maintain clean streams and restore scenery, and the practical goals of attempting to do this at the least possible cost to ourselves and our economy. Unfortunately, with regard to the matter of surface mining, we apparently want to have our cake and eat it too. We wish to keep our streams clean and to restore the land to an enjoyable state and we want to do this at minimum cost. Attempting to achieve these goals both the State regulatory agen- cies and the mining industry have been working on this problem for a long time. The coal mining industry, for example, has been reforesting and otherwise reclaiming surface-mined land for more than 40 years and several other States, as you have heard and as you know the last couple of days, have enacted recent legislation and are administering new regulations all directed toward this matter of providing cleaner water and better reclaimed land. The great differences, if I may depart here for a moment, in physical conditions in different areas of the country demand differ- ent approaches to the problem and this can best be done, I believe, at the State level. Turning to page 2, as you well know, many of these individual States have already enacted legislation for this purpose in the past few years and they are currently considering revisions. I think it is unfortunate that Senate bill 3132 does not recognize this. This point was well brought out I believe in the Department of the Interior's report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment," at pages 98 and 99, but the legislation itself does not recognize this. Senator MFJrOALF. Do you mind my interruption, Dr. Agnew? Mr. AGNEW. Go right `ahead, sir. Senator MEPOALF. Will you point out where there is a failure to rec- ognize that and make a suggestion as `to how to remedy that failure? Mr. AGNEW. Well, in some of the introductory sections of the legis- lation, I believe that such introductory material could well be taking cognizance of, as has been done with ot~her legislation, the efforts that have been carried out `and the progress in the various States. Senator METCALF. I didn't draft this bill. I think this came up from the Department. Mr. AciNr~w. Yes, sir. Senator METCALF. It is a bill from the administration. However, as you know, those whereas and so forth which are prefatory and pre- liminary in the bills `are of no legal consequence, I used to try to strike them out in executive sessions when I first came to Congress, but I PAGENO="0319" 313 have given up because everybody wants to make a speech in favor of his bill I am sure that those of us who are concerned with this prob lem of surface mining are also aware of the progress that you are t'iik ing about and are interested in having the States do the job It is only because of the failure of some States to do the job that this legislation has been introduced to provide for Federal regulations at all levels From time to time you have heard me mention the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act, which was passed before I came to Congress Con gress passed a Federal Act and made the States subject to Feder'tl in specition, but then turned the inspection and so forth over to the i espec tive States if they passed acts that complied with cetrain standards. That was also done in the Nonferrous Mine Safety Act. I introduced a bill for a severance tax, as you probably have heard mentioned and know about, which will try to encourage all the States at the various levels to impose the severance tax Then no one will be able to say, "Well, we can't mine coal because of the 5 percent tax so we will move over into some other State and mine coal I would like to have you supplement and point out what we should do in this c'ise because I think the members of this committee want to do just exactly what you are saying. Mr. AGNEW. Thank you, Mr. Senator. I appreciate that and I be- lieve yesterday and the day befoi e a couple of the witnesses have men tioned the fact that, although they appreciate the sentiments and the feelings of the members of this committee now and of Secretary UdaH, it is the change in personnel as times goes on that causes them to wish to have this kind of wording inserted. Senator METCALF. I have heard that several times. I hope that that is not an expression as to the curient political climate, a prediction of a change of administration Mr AGNEW I don't think so, sir I am recalling the time when I ~` orked in the mining district in Wisconsin I was working with the U S Geological Survey then and we were `ittempting to get mine records from some of the mining companies They were very tight with their information because they figured they had spent their own money for it, so why should they make it available to the Federal agency and to all mining companies ~ We told them that we would pro tect the sanctity, the confidential nature of these records, and what they said is substantially what you said here, that we trust you per sonally, but we don't know who is going to come along after you Senator METOALF Thank you Pardon me for interrupting Mr AGNEW The action that we Mve been speaking about here has been directed mainly at the problem of acid mine drainage by sev eral State and Federal agencies The problem of acid mine drainage, along with some attempt at reclamation, reforestation, seeding, et cetera, has been studied by Federal agencies, individual agencies such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and Interior, and some joint efforts have been made, such as the demonstration proj edts in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and not too long ago by sev- eral Federal bureaus and a couple of States In addition both Federal and State agencies have been active in the reforestation and reclama tion field We have had the Department `of the Interior's report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment," referred to many `times during the I' PAGENO="0320" I - 314 past coup1~ of days and I would like to note it again. It published this report recommending that we do two things, that we prevent future damage and repair past damage, and then it outlined the need for both fundamental and applied research to "insure technological prog- ress in mined-land reclamation and conservation." The report went on to cite several areas in which fundamental re- search should be expanded and I would like to stress two of them that I will speak briefly about, acid formation and ground-water hy- drology. This report noted that applied research, in addition to funda- mental research, should be investigated in several different areas. These I have itemized here, and stated that demonstration sites should be provided. Senate bill 3132, as you know, would provide the authority to put some of these recommendations into practice. This legislation pro- vides that State plans for regulation of surface mining should be formulated, and, going on down, it provides for a system of permits, control of adverse effects, reclamation of disturbed areas, evaluation of environmental changes, and adequate funding and staffing for the program, indluding enforcement. Indiana University Water Resources Research Center supports these provisions. With regard to another provision, however, that State plans must be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, one might question, as I do, the advisability of such apparently complete Federal control over regulatory matters, as specified in sections 8 and 9 of S. 3132, which belong, first of all, to the States. It is true that the bill provides ample mechanisms for the States to take the necessary positive steps which would avoid such heavy reliance on the Federal Government. These provisions should assure that we do continue to move toward this goal of the best reclamation of surface mined areas ; but even if it is held advisable that such Federal control should be exerted, we at Indiana University question the 2-year time limitation for the State to develop its approved regu- lations, else the Secretary of the Interior will develop his own set for that State. We question the present state of knowledge of many facets of the relationship of surface mining to the environment which we think is not sufficient to permit adequate regulations to be written regarding those variables. This knowledge is being provided by current research, hut often such research not only modifies previous views but may even threaten the existence of some of our sacred cows. Therefore, any set of regulations, whether they are Federal or State, should be looked upon as only provisional or temporary and subject to modification as the results of research become available. Accordingly, I should like to urge the committee to consider provid- ing for a national biennial review of research results with the view of possible revision of the State laws and regulations of surface mining reclamation. At this point, by the way, I might cite again the surface mining report of the Department of the Interior is stressed on page 76 and this would refer to section 14 of the act. Several examples of the sacred cows that I just mentioned could be cited in the area of hydrology as related to surface mining; but I PAGENO="0321" 315 will only mention a couple that deal with the quantity of water as a result of research that we have done at Indiana University under Mr. Don. M. Corbett. This previously cited Department o~ the Interior report mentioned our work on page 64 which showed that surface mining activity had a beneficial hydrologic effect by continuing to provide streamfiow during dry weather when streams in unmined areas went dry for periods of several weeks. This observation was corroborated in west- em Kentucky in the summer of 1967 by the U.S. Geological Survey, which is the same agency that had published the report on Beaver Creek in eastern Kentucky that reached opposite conclusions. In eastern Kentucky their conclusions were that the surface mining industry accentuated sedimentation, it aggravated the flood problem, et cetera. In western Kentucky the same agency, and also we in In- diana, have found that apparently not only is water supply created and supplied at low flow times of the year to the streams, but also these ridges of strip mining material act as flood retarding structures at certain times of the year. This again just points out the differences in the physical environment, the different conditions that must be taken into account. The other sacred cow has to do with the quality of water produced in the surface-mining process. Tuesday, I believe it was, one of the speakers equated yellow boy, the yellowish brown precipitate on the bottom of streams, with acid. Now, we in Indiana University and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration people have found that this association does not necessarily hold true. A stream that runs yellow may have a precipitated mixture of colloidal iron hydroxide and iron carbonates but it does not have to run high in acid or sulfate. On the other hand, a stream that looks very clear could be a stream of bad acid, pH, or bad sulfate, even if it doesn't have a yellow color. This, I believe, is another one of our sacred cows that we have to be aware of. Anyway, although we all recognize that acid-mine drainage is com- ing from surface-mined areas, it does have many sources, such as old iTline shafts, mine-haulage roads, old mine-waste piles, and so forth, and it need not be caused by the present surface-mining process if the recommendations of both the coal industry and the State regu- latory agencies are being followed. ~ Nevertheless, despite these many sources, the causes of acid-mine drainage can be isolated by a careful study. Here I think I would like to briefly mention a statement by Secre- tary Udall a couple of days ago. He said that in Appalachia it poisoned most of the rivers there. rfhis was his quote. "The most poisonous effect I know of is acid-mine drainage. In Appalachia it poisoned most of the rivers there." But I looked over the Appalachia study, which is embodied in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 526, again because I didn't recall that statement in there. I found that this study showed that in only 60 percent of the reconnaissance locations in that study, and they admit- A ted it was a reconnaissance study because of the great need- A here, the water did not meet the drinking water standai Public Health Service. This is cited in the abstract to that re 95-623---68------21 PAGENO="0322" 316 You and I know that drinking water standards and being poisonous are two different things For many years when I lived in the West I drank water that would not qualify-all the time I drank it-by drink- ing water standards and I don't feel that I have been unduly poisoned I feel that our choice of terms, our choice of words here, might best be looked at pretty carefully. However, mere generalizations are not enough. I have another citation of a generalization from a very respected agency, from the publication "Soil Conservation " I am going to be praising the Soil Conservation Service in just a minute ; but I would like to point out that in the January 1968 issue here is a quotation from page 143 of the magazine "Soil Conservation." It says;: "The pH of water"-it is talking about the saline content-"in streams which carry mine drainage is consistently below five and fre- quently three or lower." Now, the Department of the Interior report, the massive compilation we have talked about, on page 24 says, on the other hand, that more than 50 percent of the streams had a pH of five or less, so in one case we are talking about apparently 100 percent of the streams, `md in the other case, just more than 50 percent. In the one case we are saying pH worse than three and in the other case pH worse than five. There is a large difference here in the way we cite these figures. That is what I am saying : mere generalizations are not enough. The quantity of acid load calculated for a stream, when based on in- adequate sampling, is not only highly erroneous but causes us to adopt unwarranted and ineffectual means of remedying the problem. Indiana University has recently prepared a report that will be given at a technical meeting here in a couple of weeks. This report points out that when you take mean daily flows of streams and calculate the acid load ~ on the basis of a 24-hour mean daily flow, you have taken the sample at just one instance during that 24-hour period. It is very necessary that you take an instantaneous discharge measurement of the stream at the moment you take the sample to run the water quality analysis because that water quality analysis is valid only for the amount of water that is flowing in that stream at that moment, not during the whole day or sometimes during the mean month or even the mean yearly data if these are all the data we `have available I am not saying that we should not use these data, but we should know the re- strictions or the tolerances within which these data are applied In any event, in our recent study in western Indiana, using the in- stantaneous discharges that we were able to measure with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration people in the field at the time we took the samples, we have found that there would have been errors as great as 200 percent if we had taken the mean d'uly dis- charges. Here again is one of our sacred cows or one of our warnings on the type of data that we gather and the type of interpretation that we make from these data. Continuing at the bottom of page 5 of my statement the ~i oeful in adequacy of such data is amply documented in a second report that is being written right now by Mr. Corbett and myself concerning a re- search project that is an excellent example of voluntary cooperation of industry and several Federal and State agencies. PAGENO="0323" 317 This is in the Busseron Creek Watershed, and there is an index map attached at the back of my statement here if you wish to refer to it, Busseron Creek Watei shed in ~ estern Indiana, which is a Public Law 566 project of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Because of the 26 projected flood-control structures in this area that contains underground mines, part of which were surface mined, part are now being remined, arid part will probably not be mined in the future this is a natural laboratory to study and evaluate the effects of surface-minini~r activity on a small watershed project. Mr. Kenneth Grant, who you recall was one of the gentlemen testi- fying a couple of days ago-he was then Soil Conservation Service State conservationist for Indiana-saw the possible applications of this study to other small watershed projects in areas of surface mining and his agency provided funds to construct and install six stream gaging stations in this watershed. The construction was done by the U.S. Geo- logical Survey and the stations became part of the cooperative network of that agency, the USGS, and the Indiana Departmen.t of Natural Resources, which will now have to pay the cost of maintaining them. In addition, Mr. Max Noecker, chief of the Evansville Field Station of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, accepted the challenge of obtaining such closely controlled data to supplement his agency's studies. Thi.s group has made countJess sample runs and has analyzed their samples together with many more that have been pro- vided by our university personnel. Many of these sample runs were made jointly in the field and numer- ous conferences have been held regarding the relationship between quantity and quality of water. This has resulted in very close coopera- tion in the acquisition and interpretation of a huge amount of data. The Indiana State Board of Health, even though it has limited funds for such work, has shared in some of the sampling and analytical ef forts, and just as important, the three mining companies that are sup porting our research-and these three are Ayrshire Collieries Corp., Enos Mining Corp., and Peaibody Coal Co.-have willingly permitted their personnel to work with us in identifying chemical problem areas and have supplied much critical information. Well, with this natural laboratory of the Pusseron Creek watershed we have learned several things that cast a cloud over some of our cher- ished beliefs Four of these are cited in the following paragraphs and I will just mention the names of them and you may read them at your leisure. Impoundments, such as the Soil Conservation Service reservoirs, of acid waters in permanent-pool reservoirs that have no out1et-regula~ tory mechanism may provide no relief from acid mining drainage In fact, during periods of no flow, which are common in late summer and fall, downstream acid condition$ may really he aggravated if there is a flash-flood runoff that stirs up this stored water in a reservoir. In an acid producing area, acid water is not discharged from all mines and by careful study we can isolate the troublemakers and also those that are good, and we think that we can use the water that is impounded by the mining companies as part of their processing as a regulatory mechanism to help dilute some of the bad water at various times during the water year. I PAGENO="0324" 318 ~ Point 3. In watersheds that contain acid water, some areas of sur- face mining do not produce acid and can be isolated, and this was the point I was just mentioning about regulation. The fourth point regards "flushouts" and here we have actually very little information. We have a lot of generalizations but we have very little specific information. Our `study in western Indiana shows that a flushout, by the way, is due to a sudden surge of runoff caused by a real intense storm or possibly due to the inadvertent dumping of a reservoir or something like that. A flushout can flush into the streams the acid-forming, iron-bearing-if you want to consider color-mate- rials that are collected on the banks or on the flood plain since the last storm. It can also do it by aggitating the acid-forming and iron-bearing materials that have settled out on the streambed during the sustained periods of low flow and thus the acidity and iron content of a stream can be increased by the introduction of nonacid and noniron waters long before the acid waters and the iron contributions from known sources could reach this point of sampling. Well, these aforementioned illustrations have discussed only the hydrologic facets of surface mining but, nevertheless, they are basic `to other reclamation facets. Furthermore, they are examples of need for additional research to provide new answers to old questions that have been incorrectly answered in the past, and to reinforce other answers that have been standing on rather shaky ground. This, after all, is the purpose of all research, to provide new knowl- edge, as you know, and in the Busseron Creek watershed of western Indiana we have a marvelous natural laboratory for continued research and demonstration of surface-mining reclamation. Many other universities are studying additional phases of reclama- tion. We heard some of this yesterday from Mr. Leirfallom from Minnesota, about the work that his State agency is sponsoring, and from Mr. Eckles, I believe in `Colorado. His work is being sponsored at Colorado State University. These other univesities are studying the botanical effects of reforest- ation. They are investigating the biological effects of the surface mining process such as wildlife, and here, by the way, I would like to recall a statement that Senator Nelson made a couple of days ago when he was talking about the fact that 34 percent of the land re- claimed is a misleading figure, that half of the reclamation is natural. Then he went on to say it is a green lie. It has crabgrass and quack- grass and so forth, and then he made the statement that I want to take issue with. Tile said surival of wildlife is not provided for. Only sparrows and rodents inhabit that country. I am afraid that Senator Nelson hasn't visited much of the strip mining area that I have seen because this is a wildlife habitat. We have deer. We have all sorts of small animals and birds, and these are areas where people are going to attempt to build summer cottages for recreational purposes. So here again, I think is a generalization that seems to creep into the statements that appear in the press and many people read, but if we analyze them closely we can find different interpretations and excep- tions to them. In addition to the biological effects, some people are studying the physical rehabilitation of the cast-overburden areas, other people are PAGENO="0325" 319 studying the chemistry of the waters, but relatively little attention has been paid to the `total hydrologic picture, the total water picture of the problem of surface mining. The Indiaith~ University research results have shown that this phase of the effects of surface mining on the environment is providing many new answers and some of them have been startling ones. The results of this research have already provided significant contri- butions to our enjoyment of living, as we have seen in the testimony given the last couple of days and also as is shown in the Department of the Interior's report. There are three things that I want to stress that can result from the hydrologic aspect of surface mining. One is water supply. We can cite, and I believe one of the witnesses did cite, a city that was receiving a water supply from a blast-cut lake in one of the mining areas in Indiana, I believe this was. In addition there are many unknown cities downstream that are receiving `their water supply at low-flow times of the year when the streams are low and this water is b'eeding off from the piles of cast-overburden or spoil `banks. We feel that these create a natural man-made ground water acquifier because we have the mou'tainous areas or the hills of disturbed hetero- geneously mixed material that is open and porous. It receives the pre- cipitation and it builds up a ground water mound underneath it and when the streams go dry in the unmined areas late in the summer and the fall this water continues to bleed off into the streambeds and feeds the cities downstream, whether they know it or not. They probably don't have cognizance of the fact that this is where their water is coming from, but they have been drinking it for years. `The next point is flood control, Flood control obviously depends upon the physical situation but nevertheless we have found that flood con- trol is very definitely a factor that should be investigated. In a report published a year and a half ago I cited this. This is a report called "A Quarter to Zero," that was published in the Mining Congress Journal and, as I mentioned, the paper that is to be given next week will dwell a little `bit more on this particular facet. The recreational facet of hydrology, of course, is obvious to all of us because even in the arid States of the West, if we do not possess a boat that we can haul on a trailer, now we feel somewhat out of place. Certainly in the Eastern part of the country, `where the precipitation is greater and where we normally think of hydrologic problems as being much greater, recreational advantages are just as important. Certainly, much additional research needs to be done in all of these areas by universities, by industry, and by governmental agencies. With the answers thus produced, we will be able to understand more fully the total effect of surface mining on the environment and to design better ways through which this process can and should be regulated. In the meantime, awareness of our ignorance of the answers to some of these questions and awareness of the need for acquiring such answers should provide the incentive for us to enact worthwhile legis- lation such as that embodied in Senate bill 3132, which the Indiana Ijniversity Water Resources Research Center recommends, subject to the reservations and modifications that I have discussed, dealing with Federal versus State regulations, and with the need to reevaluate PAGENO="0326" 320 these regulations every 2 years on the basis of new knowledge that results from research. Thank you, Senator. Senator METCALF Thank you very much, Dr Agnew Senator Anderson? Senator ANDERSON. No questions. It is a very good statement. Senator METCALF. I think all of us appreciate the scholarly state- ment that you have presented. You have also raised some questions about, I suppose you could say, precipitant action in dealing with water erosion. However, even though we know some of the testing has been inadequate and some of the sampling has been not quite accurate, you have acknowledged that there are conditions that need to be alleviated. Mr. AGNEw. Oh, yes. Senator METCALF. And while we may in the next 2 or 4 or 6 years or in the next decade, as a result of the kind of activity that you are carrying on at Indiana University, rather radically change some of our concepts and some of our ideas, it seemS that, nevertheless, we should go forward with some legislation or at least encourage the States to go forward with some legislation. Isn't that the sum of your remarks? Dr. AGNEW. Certainly encourage the States, from my viewpoint, and take full cognizance of the fact that many of the States have just done this in the last couple of years. We in Indiana, although the new law has been in effect only a short time, are finding it very workable. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much. I know that this dis- cussion of the activities that you have had in your research will be very helpful to the committee. Dr. AGNEW. Thank you, sir. Senator ANDERSON. May I just say we have had hearings previously on the same subject matter many years ago. Senator METCALF. Yes, Senator; this is not completely the new idea that some of the people have advanced here. This has been before the Congress at other times and the problem is still with us. (The full statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. ALLEN F. AGNEW, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER, INDIANA UNIVERSITY THE IMPORTANCE OF HYDROLOGY IN SURFACE MINING The problem of clean streams and restored scenery IS reeognized as' important to us all, a~ we search to obtain greater enjoyment from our environment today. In addition to this philosophical goal, many of us attempt to ~e practical also, and recognize the importance of defining the degree of cleanliness and reclamation that we hope to achieve and are willing to pay for. Similarly, most of us recognize the Importance to the Nation of the fossil fuel, coal, which provides us with much of the energy needed to produce the material possessions that we bold dear. With regard to the mater of surface mining, then, we want to have our cake and eat it, too. We wish to keep our streams' clean and to restore the land to an enjoyable state, and we wish to do this at minimum cost. In attempting to achieve goals, both the State regulatory agencies and the mining industry have `been work- mg on the problem, for a long time ~ the coal-mining industry has been reforesting and otherwise reclaiming surface-mined land for more than 40 years, and several States have been enacting new laws and State agencies have been admInistering new regulations, all directed toward the matter of providIng cleaner water and better reclaimed land. PAGENO="0327" 321 Many individual States have enacted legislation for this purpose in the past, and are currently considering revisions. It `is unfortunate that S. 3132 does not recognize this. Recognition of the need for coordinating efforts, and for rectifying problems of long standing, has caused several Federal agencies to take action regarding the matter of surface mining and the enVIronment. This action has been directed mainly at the problem of acid-mine drainage, both ~y indivithial Federal agencies such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad- ministration, and by joint efforts such as the demonstration projects involving the FWPOA, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the States of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In addition, the Federal and State agencies have been active in the reforestation and reclamation field. The U.S. Department of the Interior report, "Surface Mining and Our Environ- ment", puhlished a year ago, recommended that we (1) prevent future damage and (2) repair past damage, and outlined the need for both fundamental and applied research to "insure technological progress in mined-land reclamation and conservation". Areas in which fundamental research should be expanded were listed (Report, p. 107) to include : (1) acid formation, (2) nutrient deficiency, (3) bacteria' action, (4) ground-water hydrology, and (5) classifica- tion of waste or spoi1-~ank materials. The report noted (p. 107-8) that applied research areas which should be investigated include : (1) improving mining equipment and procedures, (2) slope stabili~iation, (3) erosion control, and (4) prevention of acid-water production. The report also recommended (p. 108) that demonstration sites should be provided to : (1) explore research possibilities, and (2) educate personnel in effective mined-land conservation techniques. Senate Bill S. 3132 would provide the authority to put some of these recom- mendations into practice. This legislation provide's that State plan~ for regulation of surface mining `should be formulated, designed to promote a `balance between natural resources value and environmental values. It provides for : ( 1 ) a system of permits based on mining plans, (2) control of adverse effects' of aurface mining, (3) reclamation of disturbed areas, (4) evaluation of environmental changes, and (~5) adequate funding and staffing for the program, including enforcement of regulations. The Indiana University Water Resources Research Center supports these provisiion~. With regard to another provision, however, that State plans must be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, one might question the advise~ility of such apparently complete Federal control over regulatory matters as specified in Sections 8 and 9 of S. 3132, which belong, first of all, to the States. It is true that the bill provides ample mechanismis for the States to take the necessary positive steps that would avoid such heavy reliance on the Federal government, and these provisions should assure that we do continue to move forward toward the goal of the best reclamation of surface-mined areas. Even if it is held adv1sa~le that such Federal control should be exerted, we seriously question the two~year time limitation for the State to develop its ap- proved regulations, else the Secretary of the Interior will develop his own set for that State. Our question, here, is that our present state or knowledge of many facets of the relationship of surface mining to the environment is not sufficient to permit `adequate regulations to `be written regarding those varia~bles ; this knowledge is being provided by current research, but often such research not only modifies previous views hut may even threaten the existence of some of our sacred cows. Thus any set of regulations, whether Federal or State, should be looked upon as only provisional or temporary, and su~4ect to modification as the results of research become available. Accordingly, I should like to urge the Oommittee to consider providing for a national biennial review of research results, with the view of possible revision of the State laws and regulations of surface-mining reclamation. Several examples of the "sacred cow" mentioned above could be cited in the area of hydrology as related to surface mining, ~ut I will mention only `a couple dealing with quantity and quality of water, as a result of our research by Mr. Don M. Corbett of the Indiana University of Water Resources Research Center. The previously cited Department of the Interior report noted (p. 64) that our work in Indiana had shown that surface-mining activity had a beneficial hydro- logic effect by continuing to provide streamfiow during dry weather when nearby streams in unmined areas were dry for periods of several weeks (Don M. Corbett, "Water Supplied by Coal Surface Mines". Indiana University Water Resources Research Center, Report of Investigations No. 1, 1965, 67 pages). This observation was corroborated in 1967 in western Kentucky by the U.S. Geological Survey's PAGENO="0328" 322 study of the Tradewater River Basin, (U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 575~-A, p. A30, 1967). This infornTation is contrary to that obtained by the same Federal agency in its study of the Beaver Cree1~ Watershed in eastern Kentucky (U.S.G.S. Pro- fessional Papers 475-A and B, 1903 and 19G4) , and which had been quoted ~y others as widely applicable-a sacred cow. This illustration shows graphically what mining men have known for some time and what hydrologists have come to realize-that the hydrology of the surface-mining process in different topographic and geologic regions will likewise be different ; accordingly2 laws and regulations must take tM's variability into account. The other sacred cow has to do with the quality of water produced in the surface-mining process. Although we all recognize that acid-mine drainage is coming from surface- mined areas, it has' many sourcea-such as old shaft mines, mine-haulage roads, and old mine-waste pile~s-and need not be caused by the present surface-mining process if recommendations of both the coal industry and the State regulatory agencies are followed. Nevertheless, acid-mine drainage exists and its causes can be isolated by careful study. However, mere generalizations are not enough. The quantity of acid load cal- culated for a stream, when based on inadequate slampling, is not only highly erroneous but causes us to adopt unwarranted and ineffectual means of remedying the problem. It has been common practice ~y regulatory agencies to compute acid loads from mean-daily discharges when available (U.S.G.S. records provide this Information for many gaging stations in surface-mined areas) , or from even more general data, such as mean~month1y or even mean-annual discharges. The woeful inadequacy of such data is amply documepted in a second report being written now `by Mr. Oorbett and myself, ~oncerning an Indiana University research project that is an excellent example of voluntary cooperation of industry and several Federal and State agencies. rlbe Busseron Creek Watershed, in west- em Indiana, is a small-watershed project of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Because its 26 projected flood-control structures are in an area that contains underground mines, part having been surface mined and part now being re-mined, and part probably will not be mined, it is a natural laboratory to study and evaluate the effects of surfaee~mining activity on a small-watershed project. Mr. Kenneth Grant, then S.O.S. State Conservationist for Indiana, saw the possible application of this study to other small-watershed projects in areas of surface mining, and his agency provided funds to construct and install six stream-gaging `stations in the watershed by the U.S. Geological Survey. These stations became part of the network of the U.S.G.S.-Indiana Department of Natural Resources cooperative water-resources program~ and yearly operation- and-maintenance costs are being paid therefrom. Mr. Max Noecker, Chief of the Evansville Field Station of the F.W.P.O.A., accepte~d the challenge 0 obtaining such closely controlled data to supplement his agency's studies, and his group has made countless sample runs and has analyzed their samples together with many more that have been provided by Indiana University personnel ; many of the sample runs were made jointly, and numerous conferences regarding the rela- tionship `between quantity and quality have been held, resulting in close coopera- tion and in the acquisition and interpretation of a huge amount of data. The Indiana State Board of Health, though with limited funds for such work, has shared in some of the sampling and analytk~al efforts. And just as important, the three mining companies that are supporting our research-Ayrshire Collieries Corporation, Kilos Mining Corporation, and Peabody Coal Company-have will- ingly permitted their personnel to work with us in identifying chemical problem areas and have supplied much critical information. With this natural laboratory of the Busseron Creek Watershed, we have learned several things that cast a cloud over some of our cherished beliefs ; four of these are cited in the paragraphs that follow 1. Impoundment of acid waters in permanent-pool reservoirs may provide no relief from acid-mine drainage downstream. In fact, during periods of no flow, which are common in late Summer or early Fall, downstream acid conditions may be aggravated by the impact of flash-flood runoff into the reservoir that could stir- up the stored water. 2. In an acid-producing area, acid water is not discharged from all mines; by careful study the offenders can ~e isolated from the good thus permitting better reclamation efforts. 3. In a watershed that contains acid water, some areas of surface mining do not produce acid and can be isolated; in fact, if the discharge of this' good-quality PAGENO="0329" 323 water could be regulated, it could provide the dilution water needed to alleviate the acid problem farther downstream during much of the time. 4. "F1usho~uts" due to large and sudden incre'a~es in runoff caused by sudden excessive precipitation, or due to inadvertent causes such as the "dumping" of a reservoir, can drastically change the quality of the water in the receiving stream. This appears to be caused iy at least two factors : (1) ~y flushing into the stream the acid-forming materials that have collected on the banks and on the flood plain since the last storm of consequence, and (2) by agifation of acid-form- ing materials that had settled out on the streamhed during sustained periods of relatively constant low flow such as droughts. Thps the acidity and iron content of a stream can be increased ~y the introduction of non-acid and non-iron waters long before acid and iron contributions from known sources could have reached the point of sampling. Although the aforementioned illustrations have discussed only the hydrologic facets of surface mining, they are basic to other reclamation facets ; furthermore, they are examples of the need for additional research to provide new answers to old questions that have been incorrectly answered in the past, and to reinforce other aimwers that have been standing on rather shaky ground. This, after all, is the purpose of all research-to provide new know1edge-~and in the Busseron Oreek Watershed of western Indiana we have a marvelous natural laboratory for continued research and demonstration of surface-mining reclamationL Many other universities are studying additional phases of reclamation such as the botanical effects of reforesting surface~mined areas, some are investigating other biological effects of the surface-mining process such as wildlife and lac- teria-and a few are studying the physical rehabilitation of the cast-overburden areas. Other universities are conducting laboratory studies of the chemistry of acid waters. However, relatively little attention has fren paid to the total hytho- logic picture as related to surface mining, and Indiana University's research results have shown that this phase of the effect cxf surface mining on the environ- ment is providing many new answers, some of them startling. Results of such research have already provided significant contributions to our enjoyment of living, and we have every reason to believe that continued research will enable us to enjoy our environment even more. Of first importance is the matter of water supply. We can cite several examples of individuals and towns in Indiana that are directly using water supplies, developed by the surface-mining process ; and there are many additional towns using river water, which is supplied at low-flow times by ground water contributed naturally from surface-mined areas. The very important matter of flood control is also involved, for it appears that under certain hydrologic conditions the ridges of cast-ovei~burden material can act as flood-retarding features. Recreational use of surface-mined areas is a burgeoning thing, as people seek out watery and wooded areas for fishing and deer-hunting and bird-watching. Furthermore, many such areas have already been developed privately into income- producing parks, lakes, and playgrounds that rival other types of park areas in terms of beauty and enjoyability. Moreover, for the person who wants to have a cottage retreat, or one who wants to live permanently with water at his dOorstep, reclamation of surface-mined areas for housing developments is already upon us. And the hydrology of surface-mining reclamation is the basis for all of these uses. Certainly, much additional research needs to be done in all of these areas-by universities, by industry, and by governmental agencies. With the answers thus produced we will be able to understand more fully the total effect of surface mining on the environment, and to design better ways through which the process can and should be regulated. In the meantime, awareness of our ignorance of the answers to some of the questions, and awareness of the need for acquiring such answers, should provide the incentive for us to enact worthwhile legislation such as that emboided in Senate Bill S. 3132 which the Indiana University Water Resources Research Cen- ter recommends subject to the reservaions and modifications suggested above, dealing with Federal versus State regulations, and with the need to reevaluate the regulations every two years on the basis of new knowledge that results from research. Thank you. PAGENO="0330" I 324 (Subsequent to the hearing the following additional information was received:) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ALLEN F AGNEW DIREcToR INDIANA UNIvERsITY WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER My earlier statement, relating only to S. 3132, addressed itself to the fact that ( 1 ) recently enacted State laws and regulations have made and will coninue to make significant strides in the matter of the restoration of surface-mined lands particularly as they affect coal, and that (2) new research findings are causing us to revise or completely throw out previously held answers dealing with the matter of hydrology as related to the alteration of our environment. Accordingly, I stressed the variability of physical conditions between different States and the differences in methods of mining, and questioned the desirability of a Federal Act ; nevertheless, I urged that any act, and regulations promulgated as a result, should be subject to biennial scrutiny and opportunity for revision based on new research knowledge acquired during the preceding two years. Testimony of several witnesses and questions put by Senator Nelson raised a very critical point, it seems to me, the full significance of which I had been pre- viously unaware. Whereas the testimony at these hearings was addressed to S. 3132 regarding future mining activities, many of the witnesses stated that we are actually in pretty good shape with our current State laws and regulations and with the attitude of the mining companies today. The overriding problem is the orphan area, resulting from past mining efforts, when neither the mining corn- panics nor society at large was aware of the magnitude of the problem of reclama- tion, and when special circumstances caused us to extract the minerals quickly, as we needed the coal for energy, in the national emergency of World War II. Thus our problem is with our past, not our future. Accordingly, it seems to me that this problem, is addressed by S. 3126 and S. 217 rather than S. 3132. Senator Nelson reminded us of the stellar work of the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in reclaiming land subject to erosion, and stressed the fact that S.C. S. experts are available in every county of the Nation, where for many years they have worked actively with in- dividuals and local groups in attempting to solve such problems. Furthermore, during the course of the hearings I had the opportunity to read the just issued U S D A report Restoring Surface Mined Land (Misc Pubi No. 1082) , which is an excellent statement of the problem as seen through the eyes of a Federal agency that has helped remedy problems rather than police those who create them This it seems to me is the difference in philosophy in this particular matter between the two Federal Departments-Interior and Agriculture-as brought out by these three bills. You will recall that both my original statement on S. 3132 and my discussion at the hearings emphasized the cooperative effort that we have been able to achieve in the Busseron Creek Watershed in Sullivan County Indiana The S C S with fine leadership from State Conservationist Ken Grant initially and now Torn Evans, has invested funds and manpower in providing equipment and installa- tions necessary to produce the basic data that are needed, and in discussing with us the ramifications of the mining process on the conservation structures that S.C.S. is building there, as dam construction, mining, and our study, and all three progressing. Similarly, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's Evansville Field Station, with knowledgeable and sympathetic understanding of hydrologic matters through the eyes of Max Noecker, has been most cooperative in providing our project with massive analytical assistance in handling several hundred water samples and making several thousand analytical determinations, and in discuss- ing their application to the problem. Accordingly, I urge that the Committee consider applying the many talents and huge experience of the Soil Conservation Service to the matter of surface mining reclamation, not from the standpoint of Federal policing now and in the future (because I feel that the States have made it clear that they can handle his part of the matter ) , but from the standpoint of Federal support of reclamation and con- servation efforts. The discussion of the problems of restoring surface-mined land, given in U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1082, deserves the close scrutiny of your Committee as it attempts to decide what kind of Federal legislation If any, is needed at this juncture. PAGENO="0331" 325 In closing this supplemental statement, I should like to stress again the need for research to provide the new knowledge that we require Some representa tives of industry mentioned ongoing research within their companies some State agencies (Minnesota Colorado) mentioned iesearch being funded by them at urn versities and several witnesses stressed that a valid Federal operational area in this matter is by carrying out inhouse research and by funding extramural research. rlhis testimony magnificently reinforces the thrust of my earlier pre- pared statement-and the plea of James Cox of the Floride Phosphate Council- that we need new knowledge. If Federal legislation were to be enacted, a major effort should be directed to- ward carrying out research and demonstration activities within the agencies, and in providing funds for research by other organizations. And, certainly, a periodic review of these research results would be if immeasurable benefit in helping the industry achieve its objective of providing the Nation with its needed mineral resources, while at the same time enabling us to live with the results of our attaining this affluent society, by conserving the beauty of our environment. Thank you? Senator METCALF. Unless there is objection at the present time, I am going to pass over the next witness, Mr. Peplow, temporarily and call on Mr Roger Tippy, assistant conservation director of the Izaak Walton League. Mr. Tippy? Well, we will pass over Mr. Tippy, too. Mr. Auvil, I thank you, too, for your patience in waiting. Mr. AnvIL. Thank you, sir. Senator METCALF. We are glad to have you before the committee. STATEMENT OP JESSE H. AUVIL, JR., CHIEF GEiOLO~IST, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OP MINES AND MINING, ATLANTA Mr. AnvIL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jesse H. Auvil. I am chief geologist of the Georgia D~partment of Mines, Mining, and Geology. This title carries with it the duties of deputy director of the depart- ment and assistant State geologist. Professionally, I am both a registered mining engineer and certified geologist. I was a member of the Georgia Legislative Study Committee which drafted our strip mining legislation. The most onerous facet of the legislation under consideration here at the Federal level and the thing th'tt frightens us most is the over ~helming power over the surface mining industry which would be vested in one individual ; namely, the Secretary of the Interior. This bill would take away completely the State's right to administer its own affairs in the area of surface mining True, the bill says that the States have the initial responsibility, but voids this immediately by gong on to say-~only with the approval of the Secretary The bill further goes on to say that the Secretary may appoint an advisory committee but does not say shall, nor dOes it say that the Secretary shall be governed or regulated by such a committee What has happened to checks and balances for which our Government has long been noted? We in Georgia have recognized the problem and the need to reg ulate and control surface mining We have accepted the responsibility as evidenced by the e~nactment of legislation which created the mined land use board to control surface mining and the reclamation of mined lands. This board is empowered to administer and enforce the provisions of the act and all rules, regulations, and orders promulgated thereunder. PAGENO="0332" 326 But it is difficult to see how this newly created Georgia surface mined land use board can develop acceptable standards for Georgia with such Federal legislation pending. Should the Georgia board develop an ade- quate State plan which would accomplish the desired results in this field, there is no assurance it would meet requirements as set forth in the proposed Federal bill. In the light of the legislation to control surface mining passed by the 1968 session of the Georgia General Assembly, we see no need or justification for S. 3132. We feel that the State should have the right- and the time-to work out its own particular problems, problems which are peculiar only to the State of Georgia. At the very least we feel that those States which have enacted legis- lation to control and regulate surface mining shoul d be exempted from the act. Failing this, it is felt it should be spelled out in the Federal act that: (1) Regional boards of review be made manadatory and that rules and regulations affecting the various regions be presented to the board for approval before being put into effect. (2) The Secretary of the Interior first convince the regional board that a State plan is not adequate or not being properly enforced before Federal intervention. ( 3) Members of the boards be selected from nominations of lists of names submitted by the Governors of the various States within a region and that these lists should include State representatives, operators of surface mines, and persons qualified by experience and affiliations to present the viewpoint of conservationists and other interested groups. ( 4) Boards be allowed to elect their own chairman and other officers. (5) An operator or State have the right to review by the board in the region in which he or it operates and also to appeal to the Federal courts for grievances on assessed penalties. Thank you very kindly for allowing me time to express these views. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Auvil. I am informed that you are a native of Senator Jackson's home State of Washington. Mr. Auvir~. Yes, sir. Senator METCALF. And instead of going west, young man, you went east to Georgia. Mr. AuviL. I was fortunate enough to marry one of the fair flowers of the State of Georgia. That is how I am down there. Senator METCALF. My congratulations. Senator Anderson? Senator ANDERSON. Have you had any experiences in these problems before where you thought the Federal Government hurt you ? Is the Federal Government hurting you at all? Mr. AUVIL. I am very sorry; I don't understand you. Senator ANDERSON. Well, you are objecting to the bill. What experi- ence has caused you to object to the bill? Mr. AUvIL. Well, we have in Georgia no experience. Our legislation has just been enacted and actually is not yet in effect and it will not be in effect until January 1, 1969. We hope to have enough time to prove that we can handle this problem within the State. PAGENO="0333" 327 Senator ANDERSON. Have you had difficulties with the Federal Gov- ernment before? Mr. ArryIL. Personally, no. Senator ANDI~RSON. Officially? Mr. AuvIL. Officially, no. Senator ANDERSON. Then why worry? Mr. AUvIL. The language of the bill, Senator, worries me. I mean this gives almost complete power to one individual and I am against this in principle. Senator METCALF. Senator Fannin? Senator FANNIN. No questions. Senator METCALF. I believe you have been here during the hearings and I know that you have heard most of the testimony. This sug- gestion of yours has been made by others, that we have a board of review, and I think every member of this committee for many, many years has been committed to a judicial review and some of us were here when the Administrative Procedure Act was passed to try to get uniformity of review of procedures. I am sure that before any legis- lation finally is reported there will be appeal procedure provided. Now, if such a procedure were provided would that alleviate some of your misgivings? Mr. AUvIL. Yes ; it certainly would. The fact that the language of the bill as it is presently written, where a State or an individual or even an operator does not have any right to `appeal, bothers me very greatly. Senator METCALF. I know that all of us are concerned about this dele- gation of too much power to any individual and as I facetiously men- tioned a few minutes ago, many people seem to fear that we are going to have a change of administration and a new secretary that they may distrust. We have had Secretaries of the Interior who have abused some of their powers. I am `pleased for you to raise this question and I congratulate Georgia for passing new legislation `and moving for- ward as a State in this area of reclamation. Mr. Auvir4. Thank you, sir. Senator METCALF. Thank you. Senator Fannin, do you want to introduce the next witness? Senator FANNIN. Thank you very much. I am very pleased to intro- duce Mr. Edwart Peplow of Arizona, executive secretary of the An- zona Mining Association, a gentleman of wide experience in mining, highly respected in our State of Arizona, whose counsel is solicited generally throughout the mining industry. I believe he will express the concern of Arizona's mining industry about the impact of this proposed legislation. I think I express our general concern that legislation, such as the matter before us, centralizes too much power in a department of the Federal Government to the possible detriment of the mining industry. We must be competitive with the other nations of the world and main- tam a domestic mining industry that can provide our needs without having to depend on imports dependent on imports. We should realize that the `mining industry often processes low- grade ore on marginal production. We cannot place economic barriers upon them that would inhibit competition. I am very pleased to have Mr. Peplow here with us this morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator PAGENO="0334" STATEMENT OP EDWARD H. PEPLOW, JR~, EXECUTIVE SEcRETARY, ARIZONA MINLNG ASSOCIATION Mr. PEPLOW. Mr. Chairman, Senator Fannin, I am embarrassed, I hope I can live up to the advance billing. I am, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the executive secretary of the Arizona Mining Association I would like to interject here in my prepared statement that we endorse the constructive suggestions that have been made by such people as Joe Abnor from the American Mining Congress, Mr. Moody of the National Coal Policy Conference, Mr. Johnson, and yesterday we had some excellent testimony from Don Emigh and the Phosphate Lands Conference and so on. I hope that my testimony this morning will not only support these statements, but will amplify them and refocus them. The Arizona Mining Association, sir, i's composed of 12 member companies and, as Senator Fannin has just told you, the annual pro- duction of copper within the State of Arizona which is achieved by these companies exceeds that of all the other 49 States put together. I appear here today in behalf of this association and in opposition to Senate bill 3132 and similar legislation. Our opposition is based on three general considerations: ( 1 ) Our abiding faith in the free enterprise system on which so much of this country's greatness has been built; ( 2) A deep concern for the continued industrial strength of the United States, without which our military competency would disap- pear; and (3) A pragmatic and realistic conviction that passage of such legis- lation as Senate bill 3132 would not only fail to accomplish the objec tives its proponents say it is designed to accomplish but that it very quickly, directly and effectively would deliver such a quietus to the mining industry that the United States as a whole would suffer immeasurably. First, may I assure you that the member companies of the Arizona Mining Association, their executives, and I myself share the wide- spread concern over the preservation of natural beauty, the ecological amenities, expanding recreational resources, the prevention of the extinction of various species of flora and fauna, and the restoration to usefulness of any land anywhere damaged by `any activity. Yet as good Americans I think we must all be similarly concerned ~ ith the establishment and preservation of certain comparative na tional values This is the greatest culture the world has ever begotten It is a metals-based culture. Every facet of our national life is dependent upon a continuing ade- quate supply of metals and minerals, and every thinking man must ieahze that, in today's volatile international world of tensions, we must achieve and maintain as close to a self sufficient domestic minerals industry on the mainland of the United States as is humanly possible to attain. 328 Anderson, and I would like him to come forward and give his testimony. Senator METCALF. Mr. Peplow, with that accolade we are delighted to have you before the committee `and are looking forward to your testimony. 1 I PAGENO="0335" 329 For many obvious economic and military, reasons we cannot afford to count on foreign sources to fill our needs In this context, then, it is obvious that very high in the list of our national values must be included the encouragement of a continuing healthy minerals industry This becomes even more important in the light of the best predictions of national needs in the immediate future The most conservative estimates we have seen of the future needs for copper, for instance, indicate that the United States-simply to con tinue to maintain its present standards-will have to be producing within less than 32 years four times as much newly mined copper as it is producing today. This tremendous increase may be met, in part at least, by production from such now exotic sources as mining the Continental Shelf, by the use of nuclear energy to glean presently unrecoverable metals from presently unmineable deposits, perhaps even by mining the Moon or Mars. But the lessons of history demonstrate clearly that the one depend- able means of meeting constantly increasing demands is the improve- mont of technology to allow us to mine today what just yesterday was considered waste rock. Older mines today are producing from areas which had to be left untouched yesterday, and new developments are opening up deposits of such low grade that they were passed over with scarcely a second glance up to now. For example, in Arizona today there are two major copper proper- ties under development which will mine rock containing less than seven-tenths of 1 percent copper. Not many years ago, as I am sure you are aware, 6 percent was the cutoff point, the minimum grade that could be mined economically. At one of these, the Anaconda Company's Twin Buttes property, development costs will run well over $75 million , at the other, the Duval Corporation's Sierrita property, the development costs will be about $150 million. These two properties lie within easy sight of each other, about 3 miles apart. Yet the conditions and problems faced by the two corn- panies are so essentially different they might as well be on different continents. The Duval ore is easily leachable for the recovery of copper ; Ana- conda's ore has entirely different characteristics The Duval body `has a significant molybdenum content ; Anaconda's has much less. Ana- conda is removing some 230 million tons of alluvial overburden to get down to its ore, and from this valley fill it is building earthen dikes behind which to impound its tailings ; the Duval ore is overburdened not with alluvium but with hard rock Anaconda is making remarkable progress in a very expensive pro gram of planting these dikes with grasses, trees, and shrubs, despite serious problems of soil sterility and so on But not even nature has devised means of growing anything but mosses and lichen on hard rock And not even that in the semiarid desert of Arizona. I cite this example as prime evidence of the virtual impossibility of writing a workable code to regulate the surface mining operations of these two properties alone and the reclamation of their surface mined areas. PAGENO="0336" 330 Obviously the task of preparing such a code to cover all of the mining operations in Arizona-including everything from the giant Morenci Mine to each sand and gravel pit or flagstone quarry-is fraught with such complexities as to make it unworkable. Mu'tiply these problems by 50 for the 50 States and you have utter chaos. I hasten to recognize, of course, that Senate bill 3132 states in section 3, subsection (d) that the diversity of conditions in the various mining areas makes the establishment of uniform regulations on a nationwide basis infeasible. Yet the bill does indeed, in all of its provisions, vest the Secretary of the Interior with the power to require, approve, and oversee the administration of State plans which meet criteria he establishes. I submit, gentlemen, that this could and probthly would be tanta- mount to investing the Department of the Interior with the authority to establish and enforce a uniform, or very nearly uniform, plan on a nationwide basis. No individual secretary and no single department of the Federal Government possibly could be sufficiently knowledge- able about the many intricate and often subtle problems involved in the successful operation of every individual mine in any given State to promulgate and enforce workable rules and regulations. This is, in our view, a matter which does not now need in Arizona, legislative control. Cei~tainly not in Arizona nor in any other non- ferrous metals mining area have there been any significant problems of land reclamation. In those areas where any additional legislative control might be indicated, and I am not at all sure there are any such, in view of the testimony I have heard here, we feel it is patently a matter which can be dealt with successfully only at the most local feasible govern- mental level. Even a State code would have to delegate insofar as possible the authority to deal with individual situations to the county or even the city levels. Only the people most intimately involved can make re- sponsible judgments concerning comparative values ; only they can know fully how many jobs are involved, what ecological values will be affected, what environmental ammenities are actually at stake, and what effect certain proposed regulations will have on the opera- tions of a specific property. And, gentlemen, we point out and urge your most serious considera- tion of the fact that a large percentage of the mining operations in this country today are marginal or nearly so. It has been for many years a race between constantly rising costs `and lowering ore grades on the one hand and technological advances on the other hand. Only virtual miracles of technology have enabled us to continue to extend the life of properties which already have faced a number of times the likelihood of being shut down permanently. We point out further two facts : One, that the prepl'anning of the detailed operations of a given hard rock, open pit mine over the pe- nod of even a year is at best a flexible, changeable thing. TJn'predicta)ble facts of geology, economics, personnel, technology, and so on force every company I know of to be extremely versatile and adaptable in meeting the exigencies of the moment. From a purely practical point of view, therefore, the conception of such a detailed conservation and reclamation plan `spanning the I PAGENO="0337" 331 entire predictable life of a given property as would be required by Senate bill 3132 would be in large part infeasible and futile. Second, we point out that open pit copper mining today is a mass production operation involving the handling of staggering tonnages of material with the utmost of efficiency. After years of diligent study the decision to undertake the development of a new property or the expansion or extension of an old property often hangs on the smallest of cost factors. The imposition of unrealistic requirements for preplanned pro- grams of reclamation of surface mined areas very easily could dis- courage management from recommending the needed investment of stockholders' money. Please do not draw from what I am saying, however, the inference that the mining industry in general, or the Arizona copper mining industry for which I speak specifically, is unmindful of the need for the preservation of natural beauty, watersheds, and the many other values we are considering here today. We have already demonstrated on a voluntary basis our abiding in- terest in such values. For example, the Anaconda Co.'s Twin Buttes operation was named the Arizona Conservation Organization of the Year 1966 by the National Wildlife ~ Federation, the Arizona Game Protective Association, and the Sears Roebuck Foundation. This award was made in recognition of the company's extensive, expen- sive, and purely voluntary program to preserve as many of the en- vironmental ammenities as possible. I feel entirely justified in saying that today the niining industry across-the-board is fully aware of the need to preserve insofar as it possibly can the environmental values of this Nation. It is already accepting its share of the responsibility to do so. But it is at the same time very actively conscious of other obligations: The obligation of mine management to earn for the owners of the company, the stockholders across the country, a fair return on in- vestment, or lacking reasonable expectation of such, to reject expan- sion plans: The obligation to produce for the United States a reliable and ade- quate supply of the metals and minerals which are absolutely incUs- pensable for the industrial and military welfare of the country; The obligation to meet these demands in future as in the past by way of the free enterprise system of economic development; And the obligation to point out to you, the members of this impor- taut committee, what we are convinced would be the inevitably extremely harmful effects upon this vastly important industry of such legislation as Senate bill 3132. I would like to interject here, sir, a note which does not appear in the typed version of my testimony that you have before you. It has to do with another reason we feel that such legislation would be ill advised. The proposed permit system would seriously discourage exploration for such minerals as copper. Today a company spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long and complex process of exploring a body of metal-bearing rock to determine the size, shape, grade, and other characteristics before a decision can be made whether the body is minable. 95-623-68---22 PAGENO="0338" 332 Mr. Power, of the Phosphate Lands Conference, described this exploration process extremely well, as you will recall, yesterday. Ours is a very similar problem. This is at best a gamble. You have to risk important amounts of capital in order to find the body which will pro- duce the Nation's vital metals, but the odds are strongly against it and management must constantly be conscious of the need to justify such gambles to stockholders. The addition of another element of uncertainty, the requirement that a permit be issued to allow the development of the rare property which is deemed minable, could easily discourage the development of exploration which otherwise might be productive. This I feel is an important reason for considering such legislation as ill advised. We, therefore, respectfully submit, in the light of this testimony, that su~h legislation is unworkable, unnecessary, and very ill advised. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Peplow. Senator Fannin? Senator FANNIN. Mr Peplow, I think the committee would be inter- ested in hearing how Arizona has handled the problem of slag pro- duced as a result of mining. Mr. PEPi~ow. Yes, sir. At Miami, for instance, there is an area of 500 acres, a 500-acre tailing pond, which was abandoned in 1959. The company, at great expense, has gone in and planted and it is now, oh, similar to a beautiful mountain park. Once a tailings area has been abandoned it can be planted and we have been for 8 or 9 years, as `an industry, very `actively researching the problems involved `in getting vegetation to grow on such areas. It is a new field of technology. One company in the State that I know of offhand has a full-time agronomist on its staff, a highly paid man, who is researching the problems involved in establishing vegetation on ground-up rock. There is an active interchange of information among-I am sure you are aware of this, sir-4he various States. We have just recently, for instance, had people from Colorado, members of the Colorado Open Space Foundation, in Arizona. We have shown them what we are doing. We have shown them everything from our successes to our utter failures in an effort to learn from them what we might do better. I think that the industry has demonstrated and is continuing to demon- Strate its active interest in this field. My concern, Senator Fannin, is if we had to write a bill in Arizona to control surface mining what could we say? Senator FANNIN. I realize the problems and they are vast. For in- stance, the problem of stream contamination is the most obvious. I know in our State ~t happens that the Salt River Water Users Assothation and the mining industry have not only cooperated to co- ordinate their efforts and avert stream contamination, but to provide for good water supplies to `communities and to industries that, cer- tainly, is a significant example of sound conservation `by the mining companies in our State. Mr. PEPLOW. In support of what you say, Senator, the `mining indus- try `has built, for the Salt River project, three dams, the most recent I PAGENO="0339" 333 being the Blue Ridge Reservoir, a beautiful reservoir created in a water exchange. This is common practice which has extended over the years. The Roosevelt Darn was the first major project under the Reclamation Act of 1940. The reason it could be built and projected `as a paying proposition was the existence of `the mines which would use the power it generated. I would point out further, sir, that the mining industry of Arizona reclaims and reuses 8 out of 10 gallons of water. Now, I would like to say the reason we do this is we are such good citizens Actually, sir , it is that we are very selfish It costs us about a third as much, I think, to reuse water as it does to generate new water, so we are actively conservation minded. Senator FANNIN. I know too that the Salt River project entered into a beautification program working with the communities, with the coun- ties, and the State. It is some:thing that is very much needed and I hope will `be continued. Mr. PEPLOW. Yes, sir ; we do. Senator FANNIN. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Peplow. I can recall that when I was growing up the Anaconda Co. polluted the streams in and around the copper mines of Butte, rea~hing out about 35 miles, clear down to the confluence of the Clarks Fork River. Then someone came along and, as you `reca:ll that story, found out that `the tin cans thrown in the river came out coated with copper and they decided that they would recover all that effluent that went into the river. I read the other day in the paper that a boy caught an 8-pound trout in the city of Ana- conda. But the Anaconda `Co. `also, as a result of their efforts which are very admirable, has made a profit out of recovering some of that copper. The same was `true, of course, of the spoil. When I `was growing up in Montana you couldn't grow a flower or blade of grass in Butte, Mont. Now, after recovery processes, it has become one of the garden cities of the State. The Anaconda Co. is now in the fertilizer business and one of its largest producer.s and making `a profit out of the recov- ery that they have This business of reclamation and restoration isn't ~dways ~an added cost. Sometimes it comes back in dividends as well as in an esthetic appreciation. I know `that many of the problems of reclamation have been cured and voluntary efForts are, of course, corn- mendable. I join with my friend from Arizona in appreciating your testimony. Mr. PEPLOW. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Senator. Senator METCALF. The next witness is Mr. William Waugaman, who is director of the Alaska Miners Association and a State senator from Alaska Mr Waugaman, Senator Gruening, our colleague, is the chair man of the S~bcommi'ttee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels of this committee and he had to be out of town. He regrets very much not being able to greet you and listen to your testimony He is interested and concerned and he informed me that he is a long time friend of yours. He did want to present you to the committee, so on h'is behalf and on our behalf we welcome you `to the committee. PAGENO="0340" 334 STATEMENT OP HON. WILLIAM WAUGAMAN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION Mr. WAUGAMAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, my name is William Waugaman, a director of the Alaska Miners Association, the chairman of the Surface Mining Committee, also manager of the TJsih~lli Mm- ing Co., Fairbanks. I appear before you today to testify in opposition to Senate bill 3132. My testimony here has been not written by myself. It was written by the directors of t~he Alaska Miners Association. However, I certainly agree with it whoieh~artediy. The Alaska Miners Association is adamantly opposed to Federal contrc~l of the mining industry regardless of the names and terminology used. This bill, 5. 3132, while it claims to vest the regulation of surface mining in the various States, is a thinly veiled reach for Federal con- trol of all surface mines on the flimsy excuse that the materials so mined are conunerce. This law will completely destroy our present system of private ownership along with the free enjoyment and use of private lands by individuals. The mere ownership and mining are made black vii- hans and made to appear against the public interest even though section 3 ( a ) states to the contrary. In our State, which contains 365,481,600 acres of land and 9,814,000 acres of inland water, approximately 12,300 acres of land have been disturbed by placer, strip, or open-pit mining. In addition to producing more than $11/2 billion worth of mineral wealth, this "disturbed" land was transformed from unoccuplied un~ usable desolate muskeg, tundra, and swamp-permafrost areas into well drained, usable, and productive ground. For example, prime building ground around our major cities is ground that has been used for mining. At Nome, the airport, FAA buildings and Beltz Vocational School are all located on worked-out placer ground because it is ideally suited for the erection of pemma- nent community improvements. Many Government buildings placed on the surrounding permafrost have been damaged beyond repair by frost heaving and melting of the permafrost. Near Fairbanks the satellite tracking station is built in a valley on worked-out placer ground because reiiable foundations were needed. At Juneau, our State capital, most of the city is built on mine tailings. All of our roads and airfields are built from tailings or open gravel pits. I could go on and on with examples. We have adequate laws in our State for the regulation of surface mining and our industry cannot stand the added weight of the dead hand of the Federal Government enforcement. Mineral exploration is increasing in our State. Technology and better methods are just now making it worthwhile for production companies to extensively explore our State in the hope of establishing new mines which will add to our national wealth. Mining unlike government must be able to show a profit. Mineral commodities ar~ competitive on a worldwide basis. I would like to call your attention to the statements of Senator Gruening in the Congressional Record of March 22, 1968, in which it is pointed out I PAGENO="0341" 335 that the United States is acquiring an unhealthy dependence on for- eign sources of minerals Equal]y alarming is the article in the April issue of the Engineering and Mining Journal that Japan is turning to Siberia for mineral sources. If our industry is to compete on the world market and Amer- ican capital is to bring gold and dollar flow into the United States we must produce on a competitive world market. While we agree that some regulation may be necessary in some portions of the United St'~tes at some future time, in AI'tska perhaps, the additional costs both to industry and Government which would be occasioned by this bill ~i11 most likely be of sufficient magnitude to adversely effect the mineral development of Al~ska There has developed a str inge dicotomy in the Department of the Interior's attitude toward mineral resource development. We urge you to consider our Nation's well-being foremost. If the U.S.S.R. succeeds in developing Siberia while we fail to develop Alaska, Japan will swing into the Communist orbit and our tremendous investment in the redevelopment of the Japanese nation will become a community prize. Mr. Chairman, Alaska is vastly difFerent from the other 49 States. It is the only State in the Union that is within the Arctic Circle and the subarctic regions We have an area the size of Texas that is perma nently frozen through our underlay of permafrost All our major drainages are glacier fed and are already contaminated according to the Department of the Interior with sediments We have had a little experience with the Water Pollution Act as far as the Department of the Interior is concerned. We have a water pollution law in our State. We think it is a good one. We think it fits Alaska. We think we know more about Alaska than the Depart- mont of the Interior, strange as it may seem, but yet the Department of the Interior has chosen to deny us this right to regulate our own water based on the excuse that they contend th'it stirring the gravel in a stream is pollution Now, in an area the size of Alaska, as I s'rid before, one fifth the size of the United States, our main river drainages are all glacier fed They carry many thousand times more sediments every day than we could possibly put in those rivers by any mining operations We are afraid that if such a bill as this becomes law it will be an added detriment to the development of our State Our mining com merce it appears as though will be derived from the other countries in the Pacific Basin To add $1 a ton to any of our ore is liable to kill our goose that hid the golden egg, and I appreciate the opportunity of being able to testify before you today Thank you very much Senator METCALF Mr W'~ugaman, thank you very much for your testimony Senator Fannin ~ Senator FANNIN Thank you, Mr Chairman Senator Waugaman, I had the privilege of being in your State a short time ago and listen ing to some of the people testify on another m'~tter They brought out the great amount of exploration that is going for ward in Alaska From your testimony I gather you feel that the ]egisl'ition no~ before us i~ ould deter that ne~ development PAGENO="0342" I 336 I was trying to think of the percentage of land in Alaska under Federal ownership. Is it about 95 percent? Mr. WAUGAMAN. Ninety-five percent of our land is still under the Federal Government. We were allowed 103 million acres under the Statehood Act. However, we have a land freeze on and it has been on for the last year. Senator FANNIN. Your selection program has been stopped at the present time? Mr. WATJGAMAN. Yes, sir. Senator FANNIN. I know that you still are in the process of making a selection. Do you feel that there will be extensive mining in that area? Mr. WAiJGAMAN. Oh, yes, sir. Senator FANNIN. And this would not then be under the Department of the Interior if that occurs? . Mr. WAUGAMAN. We certainly hope we can get out from under the Department of the Interior but I doubt it very much. Actually, on the other hand, too, Senator, our regulations in Alaska and our mining laws in Alaska are very close to the regulations that have been promulgated by the Department of the Interior for the Federal lands. Senator FANNIN. I think we all realize the tremendous need for a good Federal-State cooperation in these programs. From your testi- mony and that of others, I gather they are very desirous of having this type of cooperation and what you are concerned about now is the amount of power this proposed legislation would give to the Secretary. Mr. WAUGAMAN. That is correct, sir. Senator Fannin. I commend you for your statement. We are very desirous of having a supply of ore and all types of ore available at all times, not only from the standpoint of the economy of our country, but from the standpoint of our Nation's defense. That is what you are thinking about when you refer to development going forward? Mr. WAiJGAMAN. That is certainly correct. Senator FANNIN. Thank you very much. Senator METCALF. I thank you. I want to thank you, too, Senator, for your statement. I heard Senator Bartlett yesterday tell the North- west Rivers and Harbors Conference people who are meeting here and developing a water resource development program for our North- western States-and we feel that Alaska is a companion State-that some States are underdeveloped and some regions are underdeveloped, but Alaska is undeveloped. I am reminded of a story about Justice Holmes. He was sitting on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court and one of the counsels mis- quoted that frequently used, statement attributed to Justice Marshall that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Justice Holmes stopped the lawyer and said, "Not while this court is sitting." And I want to admonish you that as long as Senator Bartlett and Senator Gruening are sitting around here, I know how much money they have obtained for Alaska and I don't think that you need to fear the dead hand of the Federal Government. Thank you very much. Mr. WATJGAMAN. Thank you. Thank you, sir. PAGENO="0343" 337 Senator METCALF Senator Bartlett has forwarded a letter to the committee from the president of the Alaska Miners Association With out objection, it will be printed at this point in the hearing record. (The letter referred to follows:) ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION, Anchorage, Alaska, April 3, 1968. Hon. E. L. BARTLETT, $enate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BARTLETT : Senate bill 3132 has been introduced in Congress at the request of the Department of Interior. This proposed legislation provides very stringent control over all surface mining. The Alaska Miners Association is concerned about this legislation in that it does not take into consideration Alasha's unique problem-huge areas of swamp land covering perma-frost and silt. As you may know, only 12,800 acres of land in Alaska has been disturbed by placer, strip and open-pit mining. In addition to producing more than 1'/2 billion dollars worth of mineral wealth, this "disturbed" land was transformed from muskeg to well-drained sand and gravel areas. At Nome, the airport, FAA build- ings, and Beltz Vocational School are all located on worked-out placer ground as it is ideally suited for the erection of permanent improvements. Near Fair- banks the satellite tracking station is built in a valley on worked-out placer ground because reliable foundations were needed. The streams that drain the muskeg areas prevalent in most of Interior Alaska frequently are naturally polluted by organic material and by intermittent flood- ing and caving of silt banks. Placer mine tailings filter and aerate streams that flow through them. Underground water is obtainable from wells in valleys that were formerly frozen and incapable of producing water. A new growth of alder and aspen replaces the virgin cover of muskeg and black spruce. The Museums and Universities of the world have been enriched with the fossil remains of animals recovered from the frozen mucks. We urge you to oppose 5.3132. Best personal regards. Sincerely, LEO MARK ANTHONY. Senator METOALF. Did Roger Tippy come in ? Mr. Tippy, you are the witness that we have been waiting for Mr. T~rrr. My apologies, sir. Senator METCALF. No ; I believe that unless there are some other witnesses~-aud if there are any other witnesses that are on the list and haven't filed their statements, and so forth, please identify your self to Mr French-on my list Mr Tippy, you are the last witness We are especially pleased to come to the end of the long list. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OP ROGER TIPPY, ASSISTANT CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE Mr Ti~r~ Mr Chairman, I am Roger Tippy, assistant conserva tion director of the Izaiak Walton League of America, a national orga- nization of persons interested in conservation and outdoor recreation I thank you for this opportunity to present our views on the relation- ship of surface mining to environmental quality and I can summarize this rather briefly since so many words have been spoken on both sides of the issue already. Senator METCALF You have waited so long and so patiently we feel you are entitled to use as much time as you want. Mr ~ We principally feel this is a serious problem today be cause of contour strip mining for coal. Some of our members in other PAGENO="0344" 338 regions, such as the Florida people near the phosphate deposits, potentially the Colorado and Utah residents around where the oil shale may be mined if the retort system is used to refine it, are also worried about the surfacie-mining impact on fish, on wildlife, on the natural beauty of the oountryside, but while, although for these reasons we would support a general bill, we feel that the primary focns of any national legislation should be on coal mining as was suggested to the exclusion of other forms of mining in S. 217. As I said, contour stripping is considered a more serious problem than area stripping in flatter terrain. Our membership feels that in certain types of terrain contour stripping simply should not be allowed the way it isi presently practiced. It is fruitless and futile to talk about reclamation. The Kentucky law forbids contour stripping on any grade more than 28 degrees in steepness. We feel such regulation by the appropriate authority may be necessary. Another point we wish to make is that we think State actions in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania may he sufficient to deal with this contour stripping problem. New and strong laws are all fairly recent, and the time to see whether they are going to be suffi- cient without further public action has not yet passed. Since West Virginia enacted its law, which our West Virginia divi- sion feels to be the strongest coal mining control law in the Nation, not even a single growing season has passed and it does take time to see how laws work as well as to see how methods such as reseeding by airplanes would work. Briefly analyzing the legislation then, we state that, if congressional action were necessary, not to supplant these good State laws in the name of uniformity but to prod the other States who are ignoring problems caused by surface mining at the present time. We think S. 3132 presents a more workable approach, that is, rather than laying down standards nationwide in the Federal Register as the othei~ bills l)rovide, the administration bill suggests that each State submit a eon- trol plan which is tailored to its topography, its own mineral deposits, and so forth, and departmental review would be based on this~ ad hoc sort of circumstance. We would like to see the Agriculture Department involved, partic- ularly in the Appalachian region, where we do think reclamation of orphan lands should be seriously considered as a national responsi- bility. The profits were taken out of Appalachia sometime many years ago to enhance the general economy and the taxpayers of the entire Nation could make some kind of contribution to reclamation of orphan lands in the Appalachian regions. Here we think the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service are orgamzed in counties and on every State level, have years of expe- rience, know the vegetation and the topography as well as anyone in this entire region does, and we feel they should have an active role in reclamation. I believe I can let my summary rest at that point. Senator METCALF. You have also a statement from Mr. Grover C. Little. You wish to file that for the record? Mr. Tipp~. Yes; both statements stand as the Izaak Walton League's statement. PAGENO="0345" 339 Sonator METCALF. I see. They will be iiicorporated in the record immediately after your statemeflt. Senator, Fannin. Senator FANNIN. Mr. Tippy, I agree that we certainly do have some problems and I think that most of the States are vitaJly inter- ested in conservation. The people are making demands now at the State level that I think are assisting greatly in bringing about coriec- tion of some of the problems we~have had in the past. Water is a scarce commodity in many areas and an extremely scarce commodity in the West, I was wondering, when you mentioned this Colorado oil shale, just what you had in mind. Mr. Tirri~. According to the information I have been able to read on the subject, Senator Fannin, if the shale is mined off the surface in conventional methods and extracted through the application of heat only a few gallons of oil are produced per ton of rock and the rest must of course `be dumped somewhere ar;ound the refining site. Certain persons have proposed that something like Operation G-asbuggy be experimentally tested in the oil shale lands to see if the in situ process could liquify the oil beneath the surface of the earth and not create this problem of disposal of spent rock. Senator FANNIN. I know that experiments are going forward in that direction. I agree with you that we should do everything within our power not only in the oil shale industry but in all industries to see what can be done without disturbing the areas. In your testimony you stated you do not favor national standards and that they could cause some serious dislocations in some of the areas of the country. Have you been out in the oil shale area of Cob- rado? Mr. Tippy. Senator, I grew up in Arizona and have vacationed in Colorado a number of times. Senator FANNIN. The possible problems inherent in overburden are yet speculative. I think we should certainly take every precaution but we still do not have a proven economic process for obtaining the oil from the shale, so I think that your thoughts are good from the stand- point of trying to utilize our modern devices, our nuclear energy and all to process, but we still have the problem of economics at all times to consider, You know how difficult it would be to continue our copper mining in Arizona if this proposed legislation were passed. It would just be impractical and economically impossible to carry through. Mr. Tippy. I really don't know who, Senator, is suggesting that all open pit copper mines be filled. Senator METCALF. We use the oil shale residue to fill those big pits. Senator FANNIN. We need a cooperative program to do that. I think you probably have been down in the Bisbee area and have seen some of the open pit mines there and the wonders of that area. Whether or not mother nature produced them or they were produced by mar', they are still beautiful sites to me. rphank you very much. Senator METCALF. I want to thank you, Mr. Tippy. I have been im- pressed as these hearings were going along that, while this legislation is prospective in character, and the Secretary made a strong point that it was prospective, although some of the witnesses suggested that per- haps it had to be strengthened, many witnesses have pointed out what PAGENO="0346" 340 I know from my own experience in Montana, that we are doing some- thing. Industry and the States are taking care of some of this surface mm- ing pollution at the present time and the greatest evil is the so- called orphan lands that have been abused, exploited, and abandoned in the past The gold dredges have been up and down the streams of Montana and there are still scars there after many years, whereas new mining operations have been reforested or reclaimed and smoothed off. I think it has been helpful, during the course of this testimony, to have state- ments such as yours point out the special needs in various areas I agree with Senator Fannin we are moving into new developments in oil shale, perhaps significant production there, and at least there we have an opportunity to do what we did in the coal lands of Appalachia. A little planning at the State level and some research and consideration will prevent the destruction of the environment as was done in some cases in the past~ Thank you very much, Mr. Tippy. Mr. Tippy. Thank you. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF ROGER TIPPY, REPRESENTING THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA Mr. Ohairman : I am Roger Tippy, Assistant Oonservation Director of the Izaak Walton League of America, a national organization of persons interested in conservation and outdoor recreation. I thank you for this opportunity to pre- sent our views on the relationship of surface mining to environmental quality. Briefly, we believe surface mining practices must be regulated by governmental authority in order to prevent serious damage to the environment. We recognize that the seriousness of the problem varies widely from one region to another, from one mineral to another ; even within the, coal industry we find area strip- ping involves far fewer problems than contour stripping. This does not mean contour stripping on the Appalachian ridges is the only serious surface mining prohiem today. Florida phosphates, Maine zinc and copper, and Oolorado oil shale, are just a few of the other mineral deposits which are creating or may create severe disruptions of the natural environment. We therefore respectfully sub- mit that all surface mining activities should be covered by any Congressional legislation on this subject. APPLICATION OF NATIONAL STANDARDS Nationwide standards governing surface mining pi~actices would, under certain conditions be desirable National standards would keep the mining industry competitive in states which have already moved to control the abuses of surface mining, and states now lacking effective controls would be encouraged to provide them However if federal standards are not going to require as much control as the most effective state laws now in existence, we do not favor national legis- lation. The single most serious surface mining problem-coiltour strip mining for coal-is now under fairly effective regulation in the states where it is most widely practiced. Weaker federal standards would bring strong pressure to relax these existing state laws and regulations. The administration bill, S. 3132, is the only bill which does not propose publicly announced federal standards before a state respons!e is required. This provides the flexibility needed for surface mining regulations : each state's plan can be evaluated in terms of its particular topography and minei~al resources. On the other hand, many states whose experience with surface mining problems may be meager would probably prefer some form of advice as to what sort of regula- tory scheme would be acceptable. Section 7(a) of S. 3132 sets out a few gener~i indications of acceptability ; these principles are not an adequate statement of all the general principles any regulatory scheme should include. We suggest specifi- cally that they should further include recognition: PAGENO="0347" 341 (1) that certain types of terrain should not be mined at all due to the ineffec- tiveness of reclamation attempts ; (2) that important natural areas and esthetic values should be protected by prohibition of surface mining; (3) that the state agency enforcing water pollution laws should have a voice in granting permits to activities which could result in acid or sediment pollution; (4) that permits be required for prospecting activities'; (5) that reclamation be preplanned and integrated into the mining cycle ; and (6) that penalties be stringent enough to assure complIance. S. 217 and S. 3126 propose federal standards, for coal mining and for all sur- face mining respectively, which would apply in every state until a state sub- mitted equivalent or stronger standards. This formula would create a gre)ater risk of weakening the effective state laws now in effect ; it would also put surface mining controls in many states where they would be rather irrelevant. We know of no contour strip coal mining in Rhode Island, for example. These two bills do set out superior guidelines for effective state programs. Control programs should include preplanning or reclamation and integration of reclamation into the mining cycle and prohibition of strip mining where reclamation is infeasible. If the regulatory requirements of these bills were stated in sec. 7 of the adminis- tration bill, the committee would have the best elements of the several bills' before it. The criteria in S. 217 and S. 3.126 should include additional provisions' to pro- tect asthetic values and water quality. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY The three bills have different suggestions as to who should hdminister a fed- eral surface mining program. S. 3132 provides simply that the Secretary of the Interior should have the authority created by `the act. Routine administration, would presumably be handled by the Bureau of Mines. We question the propriety `of asking an agency which promotes the prosperity of an industry `to become a regulatory agency for that industry. S. 217 is sounder in that it directs the Secretary of the Interior to appoint an officer to administer the programs authorized by the bill. This would apparently create a separate bureau for surface mining under the Secretary. We find much merit in Senator Nelson's suggestion that the Department of Agriculture should share with Interior the Administration of a federal program. Several agencies under the Secretary of Agriculture are especially qualified to work with landowners in the eastern United States The Soil Conservation Serv ice and the Forest Service for example have many employees in Appalachia who know the soils and vegetation of that region as well `as anyone does. The ob)ection will doubtless be heard that to give two Secretaries )oint re sponsibility for certain activities as Title I of S 3132 provides goes against the principles of efficient public administration. The committee may wish to consider combining the approaches of S. 217 and S. 3132 in an innovative way-directing the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to jointly appoint an officer to administer the authorized programs. An interdepartmental agency could be crc- ated to conduct the regulatory program in Title I the established resources man agement agencies could operate the rehabilitation programs while the new inter departmental agency coordinated these `activities This would be a novel arrange men't But surface mining like many other current conservation problems' does not fit neatly into an institutional structure designed fifty years ago. ADVISORY COMMITTEES The Izaak Walton League favors the advisory committee approach of the ad ministrhtion bill. This is the only bill which specifies that persons qualified to present the viewpoint of conservation and other interested groups should sit on these committees. S. 3126 has the defect of requiring that exactly fifty percent of the National Advis'ory Oommi'ttee's membership shall be qualified by experi- ence or affiliation to represent the viewpoint of persons or operators of surface or strip miners. If the qualifications of just one member of `this committee were chal- lenged, the committee would run the risk of being fOund illegally constituted. REHABILITATION OF PREVIOUSLY MINED LANDS The "orphan lands" which were stripped in the past and now lie neglected are a more serious unmet problem today than `the regulation of current mining activities. The 700.000 acres left derelk~t after contour strip coal mining opera- S PAGENO="0348" 342 tions continue to damage water, farm land and wildlife habitat long after the miners have left. We have been disappointed to note that at some time between publication of the 1967 report, Surface Mining and Our Environment, and the drafting of the bill which was introduced as S. 3132, the Department of the Interior forgot about the need for a rehabilitation program. Under these circumstances, we favor Senator Nelson's proposal that the Department of Agriculture be given a major role in the reclamation effort. Title IV of S. 3126 has the additional merits of deal- ing with state governments and developing project plans, each to cover a number of landholdings. This procedure is preferable to direct arrangements between the federal government and individual landowners. S. 217 contains several worthwhile provisions which should be incorporated in the legislation. Section 404(b) , providing for public access, section 405, governing rights to remine land$ which have been reclaimed, and Section 502(e), providing for revenue sharing with counties are all sections which we support. My remarks are followed by a statement of Mr. Grover C. Little, Jr., of Kenova, West Virgina. Mr. Little is the Executive Director of the West Virgina Division of the Izaak League and has devoted much of his time and energy over the past several years to the goal of securing effective regulation of strip mining in his and neighboring states. He serves as chairman of the League's national Sub- committee on Mining and is generally considered our most knowledgeable mem- ber on strip mining problems. STATEMENT OF GROVER C. Livmn, JR., ExECUTIvE DIRECTOR, WEsT VIRGINIA DIVISION OF THE IZAAIC WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA Very briefly the Izaak Walton League of America is a citizen organization con- cerned with the conservation and wise use and management of the Nation's natural resources for the benefit of all the people, today and throughout the future. We appreciate the privilege of appearing before you. In some ways we feel that we are qualified to be of some benefit to this Corn- mittee for many of our members know first-hand something about the damaging effects of surface mining. For several years our chapters arid members have been observing and studying the magnitude of problems involved in the stripping for coal and other forms of surface mining. We have seen and read some things which pleased us but at the same time we have observed operations and received reports which were shocking--shocking because of the lack of concern by some surface mine operators for human beings themselves and for the total disregard displayed for other natural resources that were sacrificed to extract one par- ticular mineral. We have come here today to give support to proposed, strong federal legisla- tion that will help control and correct the ravaging effects of some types of strip and surface mining. The legislation that we are seeking must be broad enough to encompass all forms of surface mining but should emphasize primarily the strip mining of coal since it is here where critical circumstances are evident, and where prompt federal concern is needed. Such federal legislation must be so written and strong enough in content so as to prevent the undercutting of strong state controls presently in effect in Kentucky, Pennsylvania. and West Virgina. Weak federal controls would betray the dedicated people in these states who with considerable courage and sacrifice have won such notable victories. We want to make it very clear that we oppose the intervening of the Federal government to regulate surface mining in the states where strong laws are in effect and enforced. We are requesting federal legislation ~ts an omen to those states who are dragging their feet, that it should be clearly understood that unless they move now to regulate surface mining and establish high reclamation standards, then the Federal government will assume the task. Certainly we are not opposed to mining, for the products of mines are as nec- essary to us as to anyone else. We sympathize particularly with the problems that confront our deep mining industry and their efforts to cope with acid mine drainage and air pollution. We are not opposed to surface mining as such, for we know that it is often the only feasible and economical method of producing needed materials. We have not come here today to ask our congressional repre- sentatives to outlaw an indusry, but rather to control the devastating effects of surface mining that is evident across this land. There are regions, however, where we feel that a hard look is needed. The ghettoes of our metropolitan areas and their depressing effects on our society are readily discernible to the populace. However, the impoverished areas of PAGENO="0349" 343 Appalachia, for instance, partially created by uncontrolled strip mining, is riot so evident-~only a few of our citizens are aware o~f damages caused by strip mining because such operations are usually not evident from primary thru-ways, etc. However, in a flight over the mountains in the Appalachian region and parts of Illinois and Indiana, it is clearly evident to any discerning observer that the damages sustained by the land and its people are almost beyond belief. Such observation compels us to question ourselves if the stripping of coal is worth the price in parts of these regions. And we are forced to ask ourselves if the short~term gains are worth the long-range detrimental effects on our other resources and to the people, foremost, who are left with an empty, depressing and purposeless environment. Can we justify to the future generations such churn- ing of the bowels of the earth, in parts of our country, that in effect dim man's desire for dignity and his chances for a good living as well as social and spiritual advancement? Our economic system is the best in the world but it sometimes exposes a questionable face-for it is paradoxical that we are destroying the beautiful mountains and valleys of one area to create an Eden in another. Such a practice is not consistent with the Federal government's declared concern for resource management nor the President's concern for natural beauty. It can and must be said that some surface mine operators have shown great concern about the problems arising from surface mining and their efforts to re- claim mined land should be extolled. But not enough of these mining conservation- ists are in a position of influence within their own industry. If such were the case there would be little need for the hearing here today. The efforts of this segment of the industry have been overshadowed by the image created by the less con- cerned-~for the latter have created an image that labels all operators in some regions as being rapists of the land and greedy grabbers of resources. In some instances the operator is ignorant of the total damages done-that is to day he does not understand the extent of damages caused by land erosion, water pollution and long-range effects caused by major soil disturbances. This situation has been readily recognized by reclamation associations where, in some states, symposiums have been and are being conducted to educate the operators. Then there exists the problem of geographical land structure where no amount of Conscience or physical effort can completely correct or prevent widespread devastation from surface mining. This situation exists in mountainous and hilly terrain where contour stripping on some localities is a disgrace that, in our opinion, supersedes the right of mineral ownership. Even under strict laws and regulations now~ in effect in Kentucky and West Virginia it is questionable whether such practices can continue for long. Since the inception of the strong Kentucky law additional regulatory measures have been necess!ary to further restrict mining on steep slopes reducing the degree of slope from 33° to 28~ where contour stripping can he reasonably practiced. Certainly more time is needed by these states to give their law and strict regulations a chance to work. Then too reclamation methods presently being used must have the benefit of some average climate seasons before they can be judged fairly in these states. The problems involved in area surface mining ( flat or rolling terrain ) are relatively few when compared to contour strip mining. The rolling or fiat terrain makes reclamation not only feasible but frequently leaves the land in an improved c~ondition compared to the unmined land of the same area. Such reclamation successes have presented opportunities for coal publications to refer to the surface mining indi~stry as "The Total Benefit Industry" since it is not difficult to provide improved recreation opportunities in seine regions where area surface mining is carried out. Then too, in the arid western part of our country there is less soil erosion and contamination of the streams. As reported, the mining carried out there is more in harmony with the land but not without its own peculiar problems and need for controls. The large open pit mines are considered to be long-term operations with most of them lasting for several years. These too, present specific problems that should be included in any federal legislation. We must remember that the need for state controls was recognized ~nd initi- ated something like 30 years `ago and since that time a few states have been able to gradually strengthen their laws to where effective controls are now in exist- ence, as in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. In some cases industry supported these trends towards more stringent laws but all too often every little item of improvement was strongly opposed by an alliance of related industries and associations whose repetitious cries of woe extended from one state to PAGENO="0350" 344 another as stronger reclamation laws and controls were pro~osed. Such un- rea'sonlahle opposition has greatly retarded the establishment of lawis 1y mdi- iridual states ancj has perpetuated the accnrnulation of a vast aerea~e of derelict lands across America. With such advanced techniques in use today, we cannot afford this "inch-by-inch tug of war" for the acreage of devastation will 1e ten- fold the present in a much shorter period of time-thus the need for federal legislation to accelerate state action no'w~ One might ask can the surface mining industry afford the costs of strong reclamation requiremeiits? The answer to that question is that the "proof is in the pudding." For even though there was much apprehension in the surface mining industry when strong laws were first proposed `and then adopted in Pennsylvania, Kent~cky `and West Virginia, the industry is presently doing a thriving husiness under these strong requirements. It has been reported numerous times by reclamation agencies of these `states that the cost `of reciaiming the mined land is running approximately O.11~ to O.l5~ per ton of coal mined rather than the exorbitant costs ranging from 500 to over $1 pier ton as predicted by the industry. Then one might ask what will happen to the future of coal from a competitive standpoint ? From all unbiased and objective reports that we have seen, the predictions are bright for the future of the coal industry. Reports indicate that the demand f~r coal as a fuel for the generation of electric piower alone will require every effort to meet the needs of an exploding population. In snp~ort of the above statement we present a statement by Fred B. millard, President of the Kentucky Ooal Association, as part of his remarks at `the Strip Mining Symposium held July 13-44, 1967, at Owenshoro, Kentucky : "As I have mentioned some of the plus values' in the coal picture, I `am s~ire some of you have wondered `about the other `side of the coin. What about the threat of nu- clear power for exam~ple? Unquestionably increasing amounts of electric power will be prodi~ced `by nuclear plants in the years ahead. The effect on coal must be viewed however, in the light `of the ever-growing demand for electric energy. Coal today produces 54 percent of the niation's electric power. It is' ehtim!ated that by 1980 nuclear competition will reduce this to 47 percent, but this 47 per- cent will require twice as mu~h coal as today due t~ mushrooming power demands." We recognize that ea~ch mining region aiid sometimes each operation has 4ts own unique characteristics and that it is diffici~lt to establish `a criteria so `de- tailed as to consider every peculiar regional characteristic. However, as pro- sented in the Department of the Interior's 1967 report there are certain major objectives that must be consideed. These are (1), water `quality control, (2) `soil stabil'i~ation, (3) eliminatiOn of safety hazards, (4) `conservation and preserva- tion of natural resources, and (5) restoration of national beauty. More `specifically we recommend that in states where strip and surface mining for coal is practiced that requirements be modeled after the surface mine con- trol laws presently in effect in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, `and West Virginia. We recon~mend that specific sitrong points in ea~h of these laws be considered by the Federal government and states as they prepare regulatory measures. These strong features are as follows : (1) The strong preplanning required by all three states, (2) The protE~ction of "esthetic values" as required by the West Virginia law, (3) The minimum bond of $500-$l000 per acre required by the Penn~sylvania statutes, (4) The respmsibkility for `administration is lodged in a single agency and that the "agency head" have the right to refuse a `mining permit as provided for in the la~ws of Kentucky `and West Virginia, (5) The right of the regulatory state agency to select and fund its own `legal and prosecution counsel such as that of the Kentucky law's, (6) The zoning regulations as provided for in the West Virginia law, (7) The regulation in the West Virginia law requiring pay- ment by current surface mining operators of $80 per acre `a's a special reclamation fee, such fund's now approaching one million dollars in West Virginia are to be used to help reclaim orphaned, previously mined lands and can be used `as match- ing funds in cooperation With the Federal government, (8) The requirement in the West Virginia law that the operator be liable for treble d'amages where `dam- ages have been done to the property of others, (9) In the Pennsylvania law the requirement that a permit be obtained from the water resource's agency in a'd'di- tion to a mining ~ertmit before ope~atio'n can `begin, (10) The "degree of slope" restriction now in effect in Kentucky which restricts mining on slopes greater than 28°, (11) Strong regulations controlling dredging operations should be included In state and fedei~al reguilatlo'n's, (12) The inclusion of haulage roads PAGENO="0351" 345 as part of the operation area to be ~onded, (13) The requirement for a "p:ros~ p~cting permit in the West Virginia law ( 14) Requirements that reclamation must be k~pt current with the mining operation as stated in the West Virginia and Kentucky laws, (15) The refusal to allow mining by an operator whose permit was previously revoked or `bond forfeited without correction as stated in the West Virginia law (16) The high wall and back filling treatment required by the Pennsylvania la~v. We believe most firmly in the people s expressed desire to protect unique and scenic areas from surface mining operations and in the most appropriate revala- tion that man does not exist by bread alone We therefore recommend that the Federal government make available matching funds to those states that have high, enforced reclamation standards and to others as they adopt them to be used to reclaim orphaned-mined lands that exist on both public and private lands. It is high time that we remove these ugly scars that blight the land and depress the economy. We also recomemnd that the Federal government seriously con- sicler the establishment of a "mineral bank" similar to the soil bank but restricted to only those lands where mining is not recommended because of the inability to restore the land and to protect areas that have irreplacable scenic and unique values. While we have dealt mostly with the strip and surface mining of coal in this report, we have stated the need to have federal legislation covering all forms of surface mining. As reported in an Interior report, while the history of Appa- lachia is bound to coal the histories of other regions are tied to other mineral deopsits. The iron ranges of northern Michigan and Minnesota, copper from northern Michigan, Arizona, Montana, Utah, and Nevada ; precious metals from Colorado, California, Idaho, South Dakota, and Nevada ; and led-azinc from Idaho, South Dakota, Colorado and Illinois ; phosphates of Florida ; the stone quarries, clay and gravel pits, all have contributed to the economics of their present regions and the mining of each has left scars on the landscape and to- gether a vast acreage of derelict lands. It is recognized that surface mining of some form or another, and to some degree, is practiced in all 50 states and approximately 39 states have no reclama- tion standards or requirements-proof enough that we need federal involvement. The League endorses `the concept of states participating in interstate compacts and agreements if there are assurances that no one participant will be able to dominate or have a veto over action necessary in the public interest. If such a compact would require that its members adopt surface mining controls on a level with those now in force in West Virginia Kentucky and Pennsylvania it could do much good. But the present Interstate Mining Compact is not a regulatory body and only requires that each state adopt minimum standards of reclamation. Any recommendation put forth by the Compact must first be acted on by each of the member states before such regulation can be enforced in said state-and therein, we believe, lies the "Achilles heel" of the Interstate Mining Compact. State action and Compact agreements should work in cooperation with federal controls, not replace them. Government and mining officials tell us that we haven't yet begun to strip and surface mine the coal deposits and other minerals located near the tops of our mountains and across every region of our nation As one native of Appalachia put it This could be a blessing to our people or a damnation depending on how we go about mining it and the degree of reclamation required In this respect we recall a statement made by the president of the Harmon Creek Coal Company That if for some ieason the land cannot be restored it should not be mined." All of us recognize the magnitude of the problems with which we are dealing While none of us have all the answers we do believe however that if the Congres'~ adopts legislation as recommended in Senate Bills S 217 and S 3126 we will have taken a giant step forward towards a solution to many of the prob lems related to strip and surface mining. Mr Chairman we trust that in some degree we have been helpful to this Committee Once again we express to you and the members of this Committee our appreciation for the opportunity of appearing here and the privilege of pre- senting our views on a most critical issue. Senator METCALF Are there any other witnesses ~ I know that many of the witnesses patiently waited and finally after a long wait filed their shtement If there are my other witnesses here, however, we will be glad to hear them at this time. PAGENO="0352" 346 If there are no further witnesses, all will have an opportunity to review or correct their printed testimony and the record will be kept open for 10 days for submission of additional material or supplemental material or `such special matter as may be deemed necessary. That will be submitted to the committee. The staff will review it and include such as is deemed important and significant as a part of the record. Many of the Western States or State associatiQfls have sent state- ments or letters making known their position on this legislation. With- out objection they will be printed at this point. ( The communications referred to follow:) STATE OF MONTANA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Helena, May 1, 1968. Hon. LEE METOALF, ~enate Office Bnildin*g, Waslvington, D.C. DEAR Li~i~ : I have been invited to comment upon the proposed "Suilace Mining Reclamation Act ~f 19G8" ( S. 3132 ) , now under consideration by Congress. The purposes of the bill `are laudable and should be given effect. In many states the scars of strip mining are constant reminders of the failure to ade- quately protect our environment. Even in Montana we can still see the havoc left by gold `dredges in many our our otberwjs'e beautiful little valleys. Montana is aware of the problem and has taken positive action with respect to it. After a great deal of consultation with public agencies, mining companies, wildlife organizations and the Bureau of Mines and Geology at Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, the Montana Land Board adopted modifica- tions to its mineral leases, providing for restoration under euch prescription as might be made by that board. Gopies of pertinent language from Montana's uranium and coal lease forms are attached. We now stand on the threshold of development of great coal deposits ~ituated in Easter Montana. These deposits will be developed through strip mining. In recognition of the need for reelamution of affected areas, the Montana legislature paissed an act in l9~l7 relating to the restoration o~ lands surface mined for coal. A copy of that statute is also attached. Assuming that additional problems may exist, however, that will not be solved by these means, I could support legislation at the federal level which would in turn support ai~d assist development of state laws and the administration thereof. I do not believe that S. 3132 meets that requirement. It would allow the See- rotary of the Interior to establish standards which must be met or exceeded `by the states. It would seem far better to me for Congress to establish broad guide- lines, `and then to provide machinery to approve state originated regulations consistent with those broad outlines. Frankly, S. 3132 as written give's too much authority to the Department of Interior and too little to the states. The bill recognizes, in Section 3(d) , "That, because of the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical, and other physical coi~ditio'ns in mining areas, the establishment on a nationwide basis of uniform regulation's for surface mining operation~ and f~or the reclamation of surface mined areas *iS not feasible." Then it goes on to lodge nearly total ai~thority and responsibility `With the Department of Interior. The delegation of authority to the Secretary of Interior is so board as to raise serious questions concerning the real part the states might play. The concept of the bill tends to ignore the fact that any surface mining opera- tion will necessarily cause some temporary adverse effects on `the environment. In Montana we are convinced that a reasonable program for restoration of mined areas can enhance the environment and improve on nature in many areas. In other `area's-~where large, open pit mining is conducted, for example-the damage will be more permanent. I have grave concern that `the timetable proposed will lead only to chaos and confusion. The Department of Interior does not `have the capacity to complete such a program in two years, either in terms of essential research and informa- tion or in terms of the techniques that will be necessary to bring about restoration. I know from our experience in Montana how complex `such regulation can become. PAGENO="0353" 347 The Treasure State has much undeveloped mineral reseurcesi. That develop- ment is essential to our economic life. We are equally cognizant of the value of our aesthetic resources and intend to guard them jealously. Kind personal regards, CHAPTER 245 TIM BABCOcK, Governor. An Act to Provide for the Reclamation of Lands on Which Strip Mining of Coal Has Been Cenducted; to Authorize the Montana Bureau of Min~s and Geology to Enter Into Contra~ts for the ReclamatIon of Lands on Which Strip Coal Mining Has Been Conducted: Authorizing a Credit on Coal Mines License Tax for One-Half (1/2) of the Amounts Spent on Land Reclamation, and Amending Section 84-4303. R.O.M. 1947. Be it enacted by the Legi8lative Assembly of the ~itate of Montana: Section 1. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of Montana: The vast deposits of bituminous, subbituminous and lignite coal underl~4ng the state of Montana are one of its most valuable natural re~ources and greatest as~ets. The development of th~se coal deposits will contribute greatiy to the economic welfare and prosperity of the people of this state, in that such develop- ment Will attract new industry to this state and assist in the ezpansion of existing industry. It is the policy of this state that the development of these coal deposits be encouraged, and that such deveiop~nent be brought ahout at the earliest possible date and in a manner most beneficial to the people of this state. Many of these coal deposits are susceptible to development by strIp mining methods, and, in fact, due Ito other factors certain of these deposits can be developed economically only by strip mining methods. Any undesirable results from sti~ip mining can be to a great extent prevented or avoided by a proper program of reclamation in those areas where strip mining has been conducted. In order to reduce any ffl~desirab1e effects of the strip mining of coal and in order to minimize any pollution of the soil and `streams of this state by strip mining of coal, and to return to useful production lands which have to be strip mined, and to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of this state, it is the policy of this state to provide for and encourage the reclamation of lands on which the strip mining of coal has been conducted. Section 2. The Montana bureau of mines and geology is hereby authorized and directed to enter into contracts in the name of the state of Montana with strip coal mine operators which will provide for the reclamation of lands on which the strip mining of coal has been conducted by ~u~h operators. The Montana I bureau of mines and geology is authorized to sue and be sued in the name of the s~ate of Montana to enforce the provisions of any strip mined land reelama- tion contract, and the bureau of mines and geology shall bring such court actions and take such other steps and actions as may be necessary to enforce the pro- Visions of such contracts. Section 3. All agencie~ of the state of Montana concerned with reclamation, soil or water eonlser~ation, recreation, fish, game, and wildlife, state parks, state I forests, and state lands, shall cooperate with and assist the Montana bureau of mines and geology in carrying out and enforcing contracts for the reclamation of lands on which the strip mining of coal has been conducted. Section 4. Any strip coal mine operator who shall enter into a contract with the Montana bureau of mines and geology providing for the reclamation of lands on which the strip mining of coal has been conducted, shall annually receive credit toward the payment of the coal mines license tax provided for in chapter 13 of title 84, R.C'.M. 1947, in an amount equal to one-half (1/2 ) of the reasonable value of the reclamation work performed on such land~ under such contracts during the prec~~ding year. The Montana bureau of mines and geology shall annually inspect each strip mining operation for coal in this state, and shall, if the operator of such mine ~ has entered into a contract for the reclamation of strip mined lands, determine ~ the reasonable value of all reclamation work performed * by such mine operator during the preceding year. The bureau of mines and geology shall iromptly after each annual inspection, report to the state board of equalization, the state treasurer, and the operator the reasonable value of reclamation work per- formed on strip mined lands during the immediately preceding year by each strip mine poerator, and one-half ( 1/2 ) of the amount so reported shall be deducted from coal mines license tax due from such strip coal mine operator pursttant to the provisions of chapter 13 of title 84, R.C.M. 1947. 95-623-68-------23 PAGENO="0354" 348 Section 5. Section 84-1303, R.C.M. 1947, is amended to rend as follows: "84-1303. Payment of annual license tax. Such annual license tax shall be paid in quarterly installments for the quarters ending, respectively, March 31st~ June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st in each year, beginning with the quarter ending March 31, 1921, and the amount of the license tax due for each such quarter shall be paid to the state treasurer within thirty days after the end of each such quarter provided that one-half (1/2) of the amounts reported to the state treasurer by the bureau of mines and geology as being the reasonable value of reclamation work performed by a licensee on lands on which strip mining has been conducted shall be credited to such licensee on the first quarterly pay- ment of the license taa~ due after such report is received, and on such subsequent quarterly payments until the licensee has received credit for the full amount thus reported." Approved: March 1, 1967. STATE OF MONTANA COAL LEASE * * 10. PROTECTION OF THE SURFACE, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND IMPROVEMENTS. The lessee agrees to take such reasonable steps as may be needed to prevent operations from unnecessarily : (1 ) causing or contributing to soil erosion or damaging any forage and timber growth thereon ; (2) polluting the waters of springs, streams, wells, or reservoirs ; (3) damaging crops, includ- ing forage, timber, or improvements of a surface owner ; or (4 ) damaging range improvements whether owned by the lessor o~ by its grazing permittees or lessees ; and upon any partial or total relinquishment or the cancellation or expiration of this lease, or at any other time prior thereto when required by the lessor and to the extent deemed necessary by the lessor, to fill any sump hoies~ ditches and other excavations, remove or cover all debris, and, so far as reason- ably possible, restore the stripped area and spoil banks to a condition in keeping with the concept of the best beneficial use, including the removal of structures as and if required. The lessor may prescribe the steps to be taken and restora- tion to be made with respect to lands of the lessor and improvements thereon. * STATE or MONTANA URANIUM MINING LEASE * * 8. Lessee shall prospect and explore for uranium with minimum disturbance to the surface of the land, all drill holes shall be securely capped when not in use. In any drilling operations, lessee shall comply with all of the provisions of law governing ground water, especially the provisions of Sections 89-2911 through 89-2936 of the Revised Codes of Montana (1947) and lessee shall at all times exercise due care to avoid contamination of ground waters. If the lessee wishes to mine uranium it shall first submit a comprehensive plan of its proposed mining operations, including plans for restoration of the surface at the termination of said mining operations, to lessor and thereafter lessor shall have the right, at any time and from time to time, to impose reasonable restrictions on said mining operations for the protection of the land, water, livestock and persons on the premises. * STATE or MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS AND INVESTMENTS, Helena, April 18, 1968. Senator HENRY IACKSON, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DE~i~ SENATOR JACKSON : As Commissioner of State Lands for the State of Montana, responsible for the management and development of almost 6,000,000 acres of state owned grant lands, I would like to comment on S. 3132 known as the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968. Federal legislation, at this point of time, is unnecessary and will continue to be so until the states have shown that they are unable to cope with the problem. The problem insofar as the Nation is concerned is presently located mainly in the anthracite coal areas of the Appalachian region and is one of long standing. In Montana the problem is minimal as there are only two strip coal mines in exist- * * * * * * * * * * * PAGENO="0355" 349 ence, one is inoperative, the other is operating and has recently entered into a reelarnation agreement with the School of Mines, under the provisions of the recently passed Montana Strip Mines Reclamation law. With this law our state . has assumed leadership in strip mine reclamation in the West and we, as well as other states in a similar position, should be allowed to demonstrate what we can do before enacting federal statutes setting up standards that would not be feasible ~ for semi-arid areas such as ours. Under the proposal the states would be given two years to come up with satisfactory state regulations and there Is no as'sur- ance at the present time that the Montana regulations w;ould be satisfactory from the National standpoint. In my opinion the administration bill actually only provides token acknowledgement of the prerogatives and eights of state govern- ment for, if the state's laws, do not conform exactly to the federal standards promulgated, the federal law will `take precedence. I would like to suggest that consideration of this type of legislation be deferred for at least five years in order to give the states involved with this problem an opportunity `to come up with procedures of their own to accomplish the objectives of the act. If this would be impossible to achieve then I sincerely request that the semi-arid western states be removed from consideration under this bill. Your consideration of this request would be earnestly solicited. Sincerely yours, MoNs L. TEIGEN, G'omfnvissioner, State Lands and Investments, MONTANA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, Butte, Mont., April 30, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairmaia, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON : This letter is in reference to U.S. Senate Bill 3132, also known as the Jackson Bill and the Administration's Bill on Mined-Land Conservation. The bill speaks glowingly of cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the States, and of States taking the initiative in promulgating the rules and regulations on mined-land reclamation, yet a careful reading of section 7 of the bill entitled "State Plan" shows that the Secretary would have absolute and unequivocal power to approve or disapprove the State plan unless it follows strictly the guidelines set in section 7. Where is the "cooperation" and the "State initiative" in a course of action in which the Secretary spells out in detail what the States shall do, leaving up to the State only the choice of words in which to express the actlon-words on which he himself will ultimately pass with approval or disapproval? Section 7 would positively negate Montana's current plan of voluntary mined coal-land reclamation which has the approval of our 1067 Legislature. Section 7A calls for promotion of "an appropriate relationship between the extent of regulation or reclamation that is required and the need to preserve and protect the environment." Let us see how this would work with the Berkeley Pit at Butte. There is an unquestioned need for the copper of Berkeley Pit, and the only way to get it is to mine it by open-pit methods. The pit is in an area now treeless and with but sparse surface vegetation on a sandy, rocky soil. Obviously, it would be pointless to try to reclaim this land (the mine waters are being reclaimed) : yet section 70 insists that the State plan contain criteria relating specifically to (among others) " (iv) the reclamation of surface-miiied lareas by revegetation, replacement of soil, or other means, (v) maintenance of `access through mined areas, (vii) the protection of fish and wildlife and their rnbitat." The Berkeley Pit could not operate under such regulations unless ISection 7A were strengthened to specifically exempt certain classes of mines Ifrom provisions of section 7C. ~ There are other mined-land reclamation bills before the Senate : No. 217 (the I~ausche bill) and 5-3126 (the Nelson bill) . Mr. Lausc'hc's and Mr. Nelson's names also appear on 5-3132 (the Jackson bill) , which is being discussed. resent comments are being confined to Senate Bill 3132 which is the least ob- ectionable of the three. The other two are far too restrictive for Montana mining ndustry. S-3132, if passed, will require State legislative action to set up a single State gency as the administrator of the "State Plan," and will require State funds PAGENO="0356" PETER J. ANTONIOLI, gecretary-Matn~7er. 350 to match Federal funds fifty-fifty in training personnel in this administration to suit the Secretary of the Interior-otherwise the Federal Government takes over. It is a bad bill for Montana. 1~ ar better let the States do their own regulating on mines and the mining industiy so that each area can pass laws suitable to its environment There are other objectionable features of this upon which I a ill not comment as I know others in this State are doing so I wish to keep this statement biief enough so that, perhaps, some notice might be taken of it. Sincerely, UtmO K SAHINEN, Associate Director Montana Bureau of' Mines and Geology and Director Montana Coal RP~soiirces llesearck Council MINING AsSoCIATIoN OF MONTANA Butte, Mont., April 29, 1968. Hon. HENRY JACKSON, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON The Mining Association of Montana would like to ~comment on Senate Bill 3132. This bill, which was introduced on March 11 as S. 3132 provides that a state ~wi1l come under federal control if it fails to submit an acceptable state program ~or mined land reclamation to the Secretary of the Interior within two years after the effective date of the Act. Although the states are given the opportunity to devise their own plans such state plans must comply with fairly detailed federal requirements spelled out in the Act Thus the choice is between federal regulation by federal officials or federal regulation by state officials ~ The mining industry accepts the idea that mining should be carried on so as not unreasonably to damage other resource values However because of the extreme diversity of land use, land values, surface area disturbed in relation to value of minerals extraded and esthetic standards it is usually recognized that national standards governing mined land reclamation are Impractical Regardless of whether or not the proposed law provides for recognition of local conditions we can reasonably expect standards to be imposed on the mining operations in the semiarid western states based on the experience of Depait ment of Interior officials more familiar with the problems of other areas Most of the abuses which have occurred and which have been well publicized have occurred In the Appalachian areas in eastern United States and involve the consequences of surface mining of anthracite coal The problems of mining and reclamation here in the West are so totally different that they almost defy I comparison. We strongly urge the defeat of S 3132 It is our opinion that any necessaty regulations for mined land reclamation should be enacted at the state level The 1967 Montana Legislature enacted a law providing for the reclamation of strip coal mined lands This Act Is a suitable vehicle for amendment to provide for the reclamation of all mined lands S 3132 provides only token state participation in solving this important problem We urge genuine state initiative and independence in approaching and solving this problem. Any federal participation in this area should be limited to federal grants for the purpose of financing the reclamation of old mined areas As far as the current mining and reclamation activities are concerned the states can do a better job on their own. Very truly yours, STATEMENT BY HoN. STANLEY K. HATHAWAY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF WYOMING The State of Wyoming is vitally concerned and Interested in proposed Federal legislation to regulate surface mining, with special reference to S. 3132 and also to any similar legislative proposals. Wyoming is concerned because of such important factors and considerations as (1) the economic impact on our state and our mining Industry, (2) the conservation of the surface natural resources I PAGENO="0357" 351 of our state, (3) the responsibility of the state for the control of its resources, (4) the further abrogation of state authority by federal agencies, and (5) a coercive approach to a problem rather than the encouragement of a cooperative approach at the grass roots levels. We are not unmindful of the problems in some areas of this great nation resulting from surface mining. We note that states have already made great progress in solving those problems, and we have no doubt that many others are at work on the problems and are preparing to adopt the necessary legislation. For these and other reasons, we do not believe that S. 3132 is necessary, nor do we believe it to be the proper solution for the problem. I should like to emphasize that conservation and conservation problems are of concern to all citizens of Wyoming. As we seek to develop Wyoming's natural resources and build our state's economy, we most certainly want to preserve Wyoming's beauty and grandeur. We want to conserve its natural resources. There is no question in our minds that some regulation of surface mining is required. Each state in which there is surface mining has problems unique to its conditions. This is primarily the responsibility of the state. Another factor which is of importance in some areas is the competitive situ- ation resulting from mining the same mineral under similar conditions in two or more neighboring states. It is recognized that the failure of one competing state to enaet adequate control measures ~an have a significant effect upon the competi- tion for markets by a neighboring state. This, we are convinced, can be corrected without the establishment or expansion of administrative edicts. Further, we wish to emphasize that surface mining regulation should not be used to equalize competitive situations. It should be limited to its stated purpose-to conserve natural resources. Until recent years there was a very limited amount of surface mining in Wyoming. Now our surface mining is increased and has become an important factor in our economic development. For some time we have realized that the rehabilitation of surface mined areas would cause increased concern. We knew that our soil, climate and moisture conditions would result in different land use and revegetation problems than those found in the Middle West and in the Eastern states. Four years ago, one of Wyoming's major coal companies provided for a grant of $25,000 to the University of Wyoming for research in the reveg~tation of cUs- turbed lands. This res~arch is being continued. Other mining com~panies have been experimenting With various rehabilitation practices. Some have had eucour- aging results. A FOderal Field Study Team from the Department of the Interior, acting under the Appala'~hian Regional Development Act of 1965, inspected a number of our surface mine operations. This team was very favorably impressed by one surface mine rehabilitation project in particular. The members of the team stated it was one of the finest examples of rehabilitation that they had seen in their extensive travels to surface-mined areas. We ~tres's this because this work was done on a voluntary hasis. There was no compulsion. We should like to emphasize that the interest of our mining people and their cooperation, along with that of the various conser~ation groups, can contrThute much to the success of any regulatory pi~ogram. We in the West believe this to be the most desirahle method of attacking our problems. In Wyoming, as we gain more knowledge of our problems in the rehabilitation of surface-mined land, we plan to take the necessary steps to develop a sound program. We believe that we have much of the information needed to aid us in establl~hing standards for rehabilitation practices. We shall seek state legislation to establish the regulations required to ensure compliance. I should state that our mining Industry has kept us informed on Its progress in securing voluntary cooperation in research and experimentation. The industry has met with various conservation groups and di~cu~sed its prob- lems with them. I have personally been assured of the industry's co~peration in seeking legislative action to ~stab1i~h the authority of the state in this field. It is my conviction that our state can and will do the job in rehabilitating lands disturbed by surfa~e mine operations. We do not believe it is necess'ary for the federal government to encroach in the area of conser~ation of a state's `resoure~s for the followinig stated reasons: 1. States are aware of the problems and are working on solutions; indeed, some states already have satisfa~tory programs for the regulation of surface mining. 2. The states can regulate surface mining effectively. In each state there can be found the necessary expertise and competence to develop effective control measures. PAGENO="0358" 352 3. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish a nationwide program which will ha~e the fLexibility needed to meet the widely varied condi- tions throughout the nation. The Rocky Mountain Region has enitirely different geographical, geological and climatic conditions than do the Middle West and Apj~alachian ~tates. Even within individual st~tes there are many different con- ditions to consider. In Wyoming there is a wide variation in altitude, raini~a11 and soil conditions, and what will prove an effective control measure in one area may be entirely unsatisfactory one hundred miles away. 4. State regulation can be accomp'lish~d with mu~b less expense than federal regulation. The separate states can assume the additional responsibilities with a minimum of additional employees. A federal program would require a new agency, or a widely expanded existing agency. 5. Additional research in problems of revegetating lands in the semi-arid ai~eas of the West can be conducted by the several state universities. This research should be a responsibility of the individual states and should not be dependent upon federal subsidy. 6. There is much merit in encouraging the states to accept full responsibility for the rehabilitation for surface-mined laiids. The cooperation of the people at the grass roots level to Solve a problem is to be preferred over a federal coinpul- sory pi~ogram. 7, S. 3132 does not adequately protect the state, the mine operator or the land owner from arbitrary decisions or actions by the Secretary of the Interior or his agents. We in Wyoming would like to respectfully suggest and urge that states with Similar problems resulting from surface mining be allowed the opportunity to eooperaite reglonally in solving their problems in this field. States could cooperate in developing legislative objeectives. State regulatory agencies could be recom- mended. Rehabilitation standards could be adopted. Duplication in research work could be avoided. Above all, by common agreement and action any competi- tive advantage to one state over another resulting from regulations could be prevent~d. Activity in this regard in the Rocky Mountain area, for example, could be coordinated through the Federation of Rocky Mountain States, of which I have the pleasure to serve as chairman. The Natur!a1 Resources Council of the Federa- I tion would be niost eager to work With member states in cooperative efforts lead- ing to state legislation which would establish uniformity among Rocky Mountain states in solving the problems that are common to all of them. Thank you. STATEMENT 01? R. W. BEAMER, ExEcUTIvE SECRETARY, THE WYoMING MINING AssoCIATIoN To the honorable chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs : The Wyoming Mining Association is an organization of 32 mining companies, the allied industries, ai~d individuals. It includes all major mineral producers in the State of Wyoming. The minerals produced by these com- panies include : bentonlite, cohl, gypsum, iron ore, limestone, trona, uranium, and miscellaneous quarry products. Many of these minerals are produced from surface mine~. Much of our mineral development has occurred during the past 15 years. The mining and processing of minerals has become an important factor in the economy of our State. It provides employment for approximately 4,000 men and adds sub- stiantially to the tax base. Its products are utilized in the industrial life of this Nation. The State of Wyoming has endeavored to encourage those developing mineral resources so that its economy may grow and prosper. Proposed legislation, such as S. 3132 and similar bills, is of concern to our industry. We do not consider it to be the best approach to correcting problems Which may result from surface mining operations. We suggest that the several States, wlth the cooperation of the surface mine operators and other interested parties, can solve any problems with a minimum of administrative costs. It is a function which the States can and should be permitted to perform. Approximately four years ago, the Wyoming mining indu's'try began working on problems connected with surface mining. It was found that the most difficult problem was the revegetation of disturbed lands. Most of these lands were sparsely vegetated and may be called "sage brush lands" because of limited rain- fall and the predominance of sage brush. One mining company granted the Uni- I PAGENO="0359" 353 versity of Wyoming the ~um of $25,000 to conduct a 5-year research project on the revegetation problem. Other companies experimented with various types of reclamation practices. In our efforts we found the great majority of our surface mine operators to be cooperative and willing to conduct surface mine reclama- tion on a voluntary basis. To us, this indicated that our reclamation problem could be solved readily on a State basis and we have been proceeding along this line. When the Honorable Clifford P. Hansen, a Member of your Committee, was Governor of Wyoming, we conferred with him relative to our views on this prob- lem. He was aware of our efforts and gave encouragement to us. In a similar way, we have cooperated with Governor Stanjey K. Hathaway. It is contemplated that legislation will be adopted by our Legislature which will be adapted to Wyoming prohlems and conditions. We are confident that our State Government, our University, and our industry have the competence to handle our surface mining problems. It is our understanding that a number of States have adopted surface mine regulations. Others are preparing to do the same. It does not appear that F1ed- eral regulation, as proposed in S. 3132, is required. We recommend that the States be given an opportunity to develop programs which will meet their problems and conditions. Of special concern to us is the desire to establish nationwide standards for reclamation practices. It is our belief that such an approach lacks the flexibility to meet the many conditions that will be encountered. The widely varied condi- tions within our own State indicate the need for flexibility within our own boun- daries. This situation is even more difficult when comparisons are made with the Middle West or with the EaSt. Further, the type of mineral being mined creates its own special problems. This wide variation and multiplicity of reclamation prob- lems and practices is a strong argument in favor of State control as opposed to nationwide Federal control apd standards. It ha s been suggested that States with similar problems, such as our semi-arid Rocky Mountain States, be given the opportunity to cooperate in solving the problems peculiar to the Region and in establishing regulatory standards for the Region. We favor such an approach to the surface mining problem. In conclusion, may we emphasize our belief that the efforts of the States, the mining industry and other interested parties, can provide the leadership re- quired to bring about surface mine reclamation practices in all mine operations. We urge that your Committee defer `action on S. 3132 and similar proposals so that further study may be given to placing a greater degree of responsibility and authority with the States for the development of programs, standards and regu- lations relating to surface mining activities. STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO MINING AssoclArroN The New Mexico Mining Association is opposed to S. 3132 and similar legisia- tion and respectfully urges the Senate Interior Committee to consider these points: 1. This legislation obviously is intended to deal with a specific problem affect- ing a limited geographical area. The net effect, however, is to apply a national solution to an essentially local problem. As often happens in such eases, some of the proposed legislation makes allegations and provides regulation which- probably inadvertently-will create more problems than solutions. 2. We do not deny that in some parts of the United States certain problems may e~tist. These problems do not now exist in New Mexico, however, and it is unlikely that they ever will exist to any large degree. Should difficulties eon- nected with surface mining arise within the state in the future, we believe ap- propriate state agencies already are aware of the potential problems and are prepared to take such action as may be desirable. Such action would, beyond doubt, supply more effective solutions to specific 1~eal problems than any regu- lation enacted at the federal level or forced upon the state by a federal agency. 3. The allegations contained in S. 3126, Sec. 2, amount to a declaration by the Congress that surface mining is generally reprehensible. These are both unfair and inaccurate. To the charges that this mining "destroys natural beauty," "damages the terrain for an indefinite period," and "adversely affects conimer- cial and industrial development", we would point out that the largest mining opertion in the state actually has added to the interest and beauty of the area PAGENO="0360" 354 and has been a major tourist attraotion. Surface mining in New Mexico, far from adversely affecting commercial and industrial development, has been the basis on which the economies of entire areas have rested. 4. The surface mining carried out in New Mexico to date consists mostly of metal mining from low grade ore deposits which cannot be mined economically any other way. The largest of these mines is more than fifty years old and prob- ably will be mined for many more yearn to come. Typically, these deposits have long lives and quite often the estimated life span of these mines increases as the ore body is studied and as technology improves. Secondary recovery of minerals from waste dumps is a common practice and can be expected to in- crease in coming years. 5. In a survey made two years ago, the State Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources determined that in the strip and surface mined areas in New Mex- ico, which included waste dumps from such operations, the land involved coin- prised between 6,000 and 7,000 acres. This acreage is less than .01 of one per cent of the state's total land area. This, an all-time total, is of a magnitude little, if any, more than that of the virgin land which Is disturbed annually in nor-. mal urban development. In New Mexico and similar western states, much of this land is only sparsely covered by vegetation and some of this is of a type which conservationists have considered predatory growth. 6. The allegation is made that surface mining also contributes to water p01- lution. Where such problems have existed in New Mexico, prompt action has been taken by the operators of the properties involved to prevent damage. In addi- tion, federal and state legislation dealing with water pollution already is on the books. New Mexico mine operators also have taken `action to prevent soil erosion and, working in cooperation with federal and state agencies, have been conducting experiments in planting on waste and tailings disposal areas. It js our opinion that nationwide standards and regulations governing cur- face mining are inadvisable unless they adequately take into account the con- ditions existing in New Mexico regarding climate, topsoil, population density, land value, and ultimate potential use of reclaimed lands. We submit that such regulation is better left to the states to enact at such time as it may be needed. We would like to add, also, that we who operate mining propertias in New Mexico are jealous of our state's natural beauty and many of us have taken jobs here with the intention of spending our lives In these mining areas. We believe that we have a greater stake in preserving a good living environ- mont than anyone from another area who may, or may not, visit our region in their lifetimes. STATEMENT OF THE UTAH MINING ASSOCIATION The Utah Mining Association, representing the major portion of the mining Interests in the State of Utah, respectfully submits the following comments on S. 3132, which would provide for federal regulation of surface mining operations. and the reclamation of surface mined areas. Where mined land reclamation is a problem it should and can be handled on the state level. In Utah, for example, there is no strip mining ; the only surface mining is by open pit. Notwithstanding the fact that the largest copper mine on the North American Continent is situated in Utah, the total land area disturbed by surface mining is less than 2/100 of 1% of the total land area of the state. In Utah, a much larger land area has been disturbed by the Interstate Highway System. The Utah Mining Association opposes enactment of S. 3132 and pending related bills for the following reasons: 1. Utah and the several Western States are capable of regulating surface mining operations within their respective jurisdictions. All surface mining oper- ations affect other surface values. The efficient regulation of surface mining requires practical accommodation of the various uses and values. The several states are intimately familiar with local conditions and are therefore in a better position to make a reasonable and appropriate balancing of interests among af- fected resources values. Even though S. 3132 recognizes that uniform national regulations are not feasible because of diversity of conditions in mining areas, the ultimate control would reside in the Secretary of Interior, and the bill would establish elaborate criteria for all state plans. The states would. be required to conform with uniform legislative and administrative standards set by the Federal Government and the determination as to whether or not a state is proceeding PAGENO="0361" 355 properly would rest solely within the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior. ~s. 3132 prescrIbes no limitation on the Secretary's actions and does not provide for judicial review of the Secretary's decisions. We oppose this usurpation of regulatory authority by the Federal Government. 2. The bill would Initiate a new federal spetiding program at a time when Congress is under heavy pressure to cut federal spending and to increase taxes. Expenditures by the Federal Government for regulation and supervision of ~surface mining operations are unwarranted. 3. S. 3132 would give the Secretary unreasonable regulatory authority over surface mining operations in the following particulars: (a) The bill does not limit the activities which may be required or prohibited. For example, a plan must "preserve and protect environment." Under such a standard an administrator could make requirements so costly that recovery of the minerals in the land would be uneconomic. We acknowledge that mining operations should be carried on so as to minimize damage to other values in the land, but regulations should be subject to a requirement that they recognize the necessity for a reasonable and appropriate balancing of interests among all ~ affected resource values. (b) The bill would permit the Secretary to make (without recourse) many important determinations solely on his own judgment or on the basis of what he "deems necessary." For example, he may assess, collect, remit or mitigate penalties for failure to comply with the federal regulations. (c) The bill would provide for unnecessary and unreasonable regulation and control of extraction of minerals and of mining methods employed. No longer would the ownership of land vest in the owner the right to mine. Before surface mining operations could be commenced, the owner or operator would be required to submit a mining plan, have it approved, obtain a permit to mine and post a bond. Under established bonding procedures, this would prevent many mining operations. (d) Such regulations would create problems which would serve to restrict and reduce exploration and development so critically needed to provide the natural resources essential for our domestic economy and national defense. CARsoN Cir~, Nzv., ApriZ 26, 1968. Hon. HENEY M. TACKSON, Chairman, U.S. senate, Interior arul Insular Affairs Committee, Wa$hington, D.C.: It is my understanding S. 3132 on surface mining controls is coming up for hearing. Nevada is 87 percent federally owned and Federal agencies already possess authority to control surface mining operations. There is no provision in bill to take into consideration economic effect on local government and no pro- vision for local government particip~ation in restoration areas. Economic effect is most significant in Nevada. Our major mineral producing areas would not have been possible if such legislation existed during their discovery and develop- ]nent. Nevada recreation master plan identifies all areas here which have high recreation and aesthetic values. Balance of State, about 90 percent of it, would not have great values in esthetic considerations. We can only look on S. 3132 as needless handicap on Nevada's economic growth. Our old mining develop- ments such as Virginia City, Berlin, and others possess some of our highest recreational values. Surely there should be no Federal objection or control over mining developments in areas where recreational and aesthetic considerations are not a factor. I am confident S. 3132 would depress the exploration programs of entire mineral industry. There may be merit in bill for control of coal and iron strip mining in East, but to impose such controls in the West where no problems exist will only create a great problem. Our experiences with many pieces of Federal legislation aimed at control of State functions is sufficient grounds to oppose this bill. If surface mining is also to be under Federal control, the highly mineralized States will be handing over to Federal Government control of their economic and social growth. The bill is comparable to the highly obnoxious Wholesome Meat Act and other recent legislaiton and, like it, will only force prices higher, and add to the burgeoning Federsi bureaucracy and cost of Federal operation. We must maintain our ability to compete in worldwide market. This bill can only add more grief to the U.S. balance of payments difficulties we face currently. Thank you. PAUL LAxALT, Governor of Nevada. PAGENO="0362" 356 STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES, Portland, Oreg., April 24, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, senate Interior and Insular Affair$ Committee, Senate Office Bnilding, Washington, I~.C. M~ DEAR SENATOR JACKSON : This communication is in regard to the hearings your OommilJtee is holding on Senate Bill ~132 and other bills pei~taining to the control of surface mining and the reclamation of mined lands. I would aI~preciate your consideration of the following and express the wish that you will include it in the testimony given at the heartngs. Governor Tom McCall of Oregon recently addressed a letter to Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall in regard to proposed legislation concerning regulation of surface mining as follows: "My DEAR MR. SECRETARY : Thank you for your letter of Mar~th 15 inviting me to comment on the proposed legislation reg~arding regulation of surface mining. "I share with you and the officials of many other states the realiRation that the abatement of many unwholesome side-effects stemming from certain sur- face strip mining operations and other related stream and air pollution situa- tions represent a matter of vital importance on a nation-wide scale. I recognize also that it is to the public interest that every effort be made to adequately conrol surface mining. "The work of various Federal agencies in calling attention to the problems and the urgent need for remedial action I feel merit the ~tmost commendation The State of Oregon is glad to have been of assistance in providing some of the data used in these studies. Ceoperaition of this type and collaboration in other similar ways I regard as an important and essential relationship between Federal and State governments. Furthermore I concur with the premise that the 1~cdera1 Government should assume the role of leadership when it comes to providing counselling and guidance concerning oi~timum standards and doing basic research pertaining to implementation problems of a technical nature. "As you are aware, the State of Oregon has made great strides and is a leader in legislation concerning environmental control. My inqufries regarding regulation of surface mining show that here too strong controls nc~t only exist bt~t planning is going forward which will strengthen and broaden the existing legislation, rules and regulations. Consequently I was most concerned with the proposed legislation which you enclosed with your letter for my evaluation of it indicated that it places too much reliance on Federal control and does not give the State the flexibility which I feel is desirable and necessary. Frankly I think this matter can best be handled by stringent monitoring at the State level. "I do want you to know the State of Oregon looks forWard to cooperating with you in this field. I appreciate your calling to my attention the proposed Federal legislation." The State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries joins with Governor McCall in opjiosition to the proposed legislation you are considering today. In reviewing the summary of the act under Sec. 3, Congressional Findings, Par. B, I find that we can agree with most statements contained therein. How- ever we strongly believe that in the main this paragraiph today applies to a relatively small segment of the total surface mining industry and that in those states where this does apply, steps have already been taken to coriitrol the problem. We cannot argue with the concept that control is needed where the effe~ts of surface mining contribute to degradation of the property of others but we cannot for any reason see why this problem requires Federal regulation of all surface mining oper)ations. In the section concernIng the requirements for the plan that the Secretary of Interior shall require, we find very little `that is not already controlled and regu- lated by various agencies of Oregon State Government, such as the State Sani- tary Au~thority, the State Board of Health, the State Fish Commission, the State Game Commission, the State Division of Lands, and the State Bureau of Labor. This being the case, we see no r~ason for the Fe'dcral Government step- ping in and usurping our authority as it has done in the field of water pollution and noncoal mine safety, amongst others. We find this rapid erosion of State responsibilities by the Federal Government to be most discouraging and feel that it `should stop. PAGENO="0363" 357 Sec. 5 speaks of Federal-State cooperation. Actually this bill does not give the states any authority to control surface m4ning inasmuch as the sole author- ity i~ vested in the Secre'tary of the Interior. The Secretary, according to this proposed legislation, will approve any S~tate plan and monitor the operatfon of the plans within the states, will determine the amoullt of Federal assistance that will be given, and may, at any time, wltbdrhw his approval of a State plan as he sees fit. The Secretary is authorized also to impose monetary penalties as well as civil and criminal penalties. Frankly it depressed me to read that the mining industry in our State is held in such poor esteem at the national level that it is felt criminal penalties will be necessary to control it. My point here is that this is not a bill to allow for State conitrol of surface mining within our boundaries but rather a device by which the Federal Government will pre-empt State control. The State of Oregon has an excellent record in the control of air and water pollution, land use, fish and wildlife protection, and reforestation. Our State agencies have demonstrated that they are staffed by dedicated people whose interest is in the people of the State of Oregon and who have time and again demonstrated their willingness to work with the people and with the diverse industries of the State in solving State problems. Each and every individual mining operation will have its own specific set of problems, including those which apply to adverse effect on the public good. In our estimation there is only one reasonable means by which these problems can be solved-that is, by cooperation between the State and the particular mining operation. In any individual case there will be strong economic overtones involved in reclamation and we strongly believe that our State should have the right to d~termine for itself what manner these economic considei~ations best serve the needs of the people of Oregon. For these reasons we find tha~t we must strongly oppose the bills you have under consideration today. Bills such as these, we feel, do not encourage strong local government and if it is the purpose of this proposed legislation to weaken local authority they should be dismissed by your Corn mittee. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to submit this testimony. Sincerely yours, H0LLI5 M. DoLE, state Geologist. STATEMENT OF HON. JACK WILLIAMS, GOvERNOR, STATE OF ARIZONA As Governor of the State of Arizona, the nation's largest producer of copper, I welcome this opportunity to present Arizona's views on the proposed Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968. The position of the State of Arizona is that Senate Bill #3132 is not in the best interest of this state. On behalf of Arizona, I wish to formally express my opposition to this bill. While recognizing the needs for land reclamation in some areas, we feel that specific reclamation projects must be designed for the specific industry and ter- rain to which it will be applied. To date, Arizona does not have a problem with surface mining land reclama- tion. If such a problem develops at some future time, the people of Arizona feel that they are competent to recognize it and to correct it through appropriate state legislation. We presently feel that the contributions of the mining industry to the Arizona economy far outweigh the existing or contemplated disturbances which occur on desert tracts. Thank you for your consideration. IDAHO MINING AssoCIATIoN, Boise, Idaho, April 29, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New ~enctte Offi~ee Building, Washington, D.C. Dii~is SENATOR JACKSON : We have been requested by our State Governor, Don Samuelson, to review and submit to the hearing before your Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on April 30 and May 1 our comments on the proposed "Surface Mining `Reclamation Act of 1968" (S. 3132:). PAGENO="0364" 358 Pursuant to that request we have analyzed the bill carefully and it is our sincere conviction that, If enacted, it woula severely handicap the surface mining industry which it recognizes as "significant and essential" and would substan- tially reduce `that industry's contribution to the "economic potential of the Nation." We regret that we cannot at this time send a representative to appear at the hearing in Washington and present our views on the many deficiencies and unde- sirable provisions we find in this legislation. However, we have read the state- ments that will he presented by the Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology and by the Phosphate Lands Oonference, and we would like to state for the hearing record that we strongly endorse and concur in those statements. It would serve no useful purpose to reiterate in this letter the many valid objec- tions and criticisms presented in the testimony of these representatives of Idaho interests. They have made an excellent case for the mining industry's position with respect to this legislation. There are a few major faults and shortcomings, however, that warrant addi- tional emphasis. One of the most unacceptable features of the bill is its application of the now- familiar "carrot-and-club" concept of Federal-State cooperation, under which the States must submit to the "club" of federal `domination and control or lose the "carrot" of federal financial assistance. Under this concept, the bill's recog- nition of the desirability of state administration of pi~ograms for mined land reclamation and the need for adaptation of such programs to local conditions is meaningless and futile. Eventually, federal requirements will have to be met or they will `be Imposed and the states have no recourse iecause there are no provi- si'ons for judicial appeal from the unlimited discretionary authority of the exec- utive department. This "carrot-and-club" concept has already been proven unduly cumbersome and onerous in the case of water quality control, and in several situations has delayed rather than accelerated, progress toward the intended objective of that program. Experience under the highway `beautification and air quality control programs has been little, if any, `more satisfactory. We seriously question the advisability of this approach to the problems of mined land reclamation. We believe it will impede rather than stimulate progress toward their solution, because we doubt very much whether the federal govern- ment, in its present fiscal crisis, can afford, at this time, the financial assistance to states that this legislation provides. If it should be enacted, it seems to us that Congress will be most unlikely to appropriate for a new program the funds the law would authorize. Consequently, the states, many of which have equally serious budget problems, may find it advisable to postpone development of their own programs until federal matching funds are forthcoming. We also feel very strongly that this type of legislation is premature. It attempts to move too `far and too fast, in a problem area that is still largely nebulous and undefined, under the control and direction of authorities wiho are ill-prepared for the task. The bill itself, sponsored by these authorities, is ample justification for this view. Its terms are ambiguous and defy consistent interpretation. It provides no congressional guidelines or definable limitations on administrative power. It demands the establishment of criteria of environmental controls by the states, but provides no guidelines or standards as to the objective of those con- trols. Its broad authority for unilateral federal action within the framework of federal-state cooperation suggests uncertainty of procedure and vacillation of administrative direction. It advocates state programs tailored to local condi- tions, but permits unrestricted federal veto and/or revision of programs deter- mined by the individual states to `be best adapted to their needs and most bene- ficial to their interests. It is our considered view that the granting of such dictotorial powers to one individual-the Secretary of the Interior-over all surface mining operations in the nation, whether on public or private lands, is unwise and represents an intol- erable `diversion from our established system of checks and `balances. It would seem to us the better part of wisdom to defer consideration of this legislation until the requirements for mined land reclamation have been more clearly defined and the feasibility of solutions has been more accurately evaluated. Another major cause for our concern and apprehension' about this bill is the uncertainty of its intended purpose. When the Secretary of the Interior presented PAGENO="0365" 359 the bill to the Senate and recommended its passage, he stated that its purpose is to prevent the needless degration of the environment and to assure that reasonable steps will be taken to reclaim mined areas after surface mining is completed." This terminology does not appear in the bill, however. The bill refers to regulations that would "prevent and eliminate such burdens and adverse effects" as impairing natural beauty and destroying wildlife ha~itat, and it requires assurance that adequate measures Will be taken to reclaim surface mined areas This discrepancy leaves much room for controversy and since all surface mining operations must necessarily cause some burdens and adverse effects on the envuonment it could mean the difference between deterioration and continued growth of the phosphate mining industry which is so vital to the economic welfare and prosperity of the southeastern sector of Idaho We feel our apprehension is more than justified by the experience of our phosphate industry during the past two years in its efforts to work with the Interior Department toward a mutually~acceptable modification of the imprae~ tical and unworkable new regulations proposed for reclamation of mined areas on federal phosphate leases. The mining industry of Idaho is not oppOsed to reasonable regulations designed to prevent needless degradation of the environment and to require reasonnble and necessary reclamation of the mined areas after the mining is completed. We fully concur with the philosophy implied, if not expressed, in the proposed bill that the problems of protection and reclamation of lands mined by surface methods can be most efficiently and effectively solved under state programs adapted to local conditions and administered by indivduals who are thoroughly famliar with all the technical economic and social factors involved and are therefore most qualified to make judgments as to the need and value of the lands for other beneficial purposes in determining the degree of reclama;tion necessary. We seriously `doubt the necessity for imposition `of `federal `control and super- vision in this problem. We feel it would aggravate the administrative `problems, require unnecessary duplication of effort and expense, and, in all likelihood, wOuld entail restrictions that would impede the economic progress of our industry and our state. `In this part of the country it often seems that the prevailing philosophy in federal public land agencies is something less than sympathetic to our needs and aspirations. It seems `to reflect, rather, the pressures of populated areas which have grown and prospered from the beneficial use (and often misuse) of their lands and now seek to handicap the development of the less populous western states by impeding and preventing the use of the lands within our borders. We respectfully request that consideration of this legislation be deferred at least until the Public Land Law Review Commission s comprehensive review of the public land laws and their administration has been completed and the impact of its recommendations on the problems of mined land reclamation is known. We also request that this letter be incorporated in the hearing record Respectfully submitted, A. J. TE5KE, ~eoreta~ry. STATEMENT OF THE STATE Mixixo AND GEOLOGY BOARD or CALIFORNIA The State Mining and Geology Board at a regular meeting on April 8 19~38 after having reviewed the proposed federal legislation on surface mining regu lations and having discussed these bills as well as considei able supple nentary information unanimously went on record as not approving any legislation that would permit the federal government to dominate surface mining practices and controls in California The concern of the board is that federal legislation is very' llkel3r to be strongly influenced by attitude toward and experience with strip mining ` as prad~ced in sUch coal producing states as Kentucky Ohio and West Virginia In California, open pit operations such as those recovering borax at Kramer and those recovering rare earth minerals at Mountain Pass-~botb in the Mojave Desert-are so different that controls applicable to coal would be wholly inapplicable to these California deposits It is essential therefore that the State of California maintain local jurisdic tion in these problems. PAGENO="0366" 360 STATE OF C~LIFOENIA-~RESOUECES AGENCY, D1~uARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, &torarnento, Calif., April18, 1968. Hon. STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Dj~n Mn. UDALL : Governor Reagan has asJ~ed me to reply to your letter of March 15 with which you transmitted a draft copy of the "Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 19G8" This proposed legislation speaks to a situation that already has received legis- lative and executive attention. In 1967, the Legislature adopted Senate Resolution 134, see copy attached. In response to that, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources has been in close touch with the State Mining and Geology Board for the purpose of determining whether a need exists for controls at the State leveL The introduction of the Federal legislation places a certain degree of urgency in the deliberation of that Board. As a matter of record, the question of surface mining regulations received considerable discussion at the April 8 meeting of the Mining and Geology Board, after members had reviewed the pending Federal bills as well as a digest and commentary supplied by the American Mining Congress. The Board took the specific action, unanimously, of going on record as not approving any legislation that would permit the Federal Government to doimi- nate surface mining practices and controls. This action, set forth in a position statement, has been approved by the Administrator, The Resources Agency, as representing the State's position at this time. A copy of the position statement is attached for your information. Mr. Edgar M. Gillenwaters', Deputy Director, Department of Finance, stationed in Washington, D.C., also has been informed of this statement in order to advise California congressional representatives. The operative word in the position statement is "dominate". It is hoped that should the proposed Federal legislation be successful, the actions by the Secre- tary in reviewing the state plans for approval, particularly the plan that would be submitted by California, will be such as to eliminate any question of Federal "domination" in this field. Sincerely yours, By Senator McCarthy: JAMES G. STEAENS, Director. SENATE RESOLUTION No. 134, RELATING TO AN INTERIM STUDY OF STRIP MINING Resolved by the senate of the $tate of California, That the Senate Committee on Rules is hereby requested to assign to an appropriate committee for study the subject of uniform controls and standards for strip mining and to direct such committee to report thereon to the Senate not later than the fifth legislative day of the 1968 Regular Session of the LegislatRre. Referred to Committee on Rules. Senator METCALF. Letters have been received from interested parties to the legislation. They, along with any additional communications, will be included in the hearing record at this point. (The letters referred to follow:) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITEn STATES, Washington, D.C., May 10, 1968. lion. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.A~i. Senate, Wa.s-hington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON : The Chamber of Oommerce of the United States takes this opportunity to comment on S. 3132, the proposed "Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968." It is requested that this letter be made a part of the hearings record which was made earlier this month. The Natural Resources Committee of the National Chamber, of which I serve as Secretary, has been following the developments of this legislation and has had an opportunity to review and study it as well as to study the testimony which has been presented to your Committee. As a result of this continuing study, the National Chamber recommends to you and the members of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee that the bill be rejected. PAGENO="0367" 361 S. 3132 should be Qppo~ed for three basic rea~'ons : (1 ) local anc~ state gov- ernments are constitutionally responsible for regulating land use, iiot the Fed- eral Government ; (2) the facts indicate that there is no need for the Federal Government to preempt the field of land conservation and reclamation ; and ( 3) there is reason to believe that the proposed formula for federal-state cooper- ation, although reasonable, would be improperly administered by the Department of Interior, as is the case with the Water Quality Act of 196fi. Surface mining can leave an ugly scar and bring damage to the environment. It can also bring tremendous benefit~ to the peoj~le of America. With new mining machinery and surface mining techniques, the United States is the largest pro- ducer of metals and fuels in the free world. However, because the higher grade mineral deposits are rapidly being exhausted, the mining companies, in an effort to maintain the Nation's competitive position, are being forced to develop lower and lower grade resources. This, coupied with rising labor costs, indicates that there will be more, instead of less, surface mining activity. Wise conservation and reclamation program's have been and are being estab~ li;shed by industry and local and state governments to protect the environment. As surface mining expands these conservation and reclamation programs will expand. Due to the desperate days of World War II, many acres of land were stripped of their resources and abandoned without any effort to reclaim or develop them. This Nation will someday have to reclaim those lands. Secretary lJdall testified, however, that due to the economic condition of the country he could not justify setting as a priority the reclamation of those old surface mined lands. Secretary TJdall presented a convincing argument `on this point. But, in any event, S. 3132 would affect only those areas mined on or after its passage. Consequently, few, if any, of the 2 million acres reported by the Depart- ment of Interior as disturbed lands that need additional reclamation would come under the provisions of this bill. Putting the matter in proper perspective is difficult because of the emotionalism that has characterized discussion of this legislation. The fact is that only 0.14 percent of the total land of the United States is even claimed to have ever been disturbed by surface mining. One third of this 0.14 percent has been adequately reclaimed, some is presently being actively mined, and another portion needs attention according to the Department of Interior. But, little, if any, as mentioned above, would be reclaimed as the result of this bilL This bill purports to be prospective and will not satisfy the desires of those who would like to reclaim the lands disturbed by past mining. Today, mining companies and local and state governments, for the most part, ~recognize the need for responsible conservation and reclamation programs and are, in fact, doing an outstanding job. The National Chamber has consistently supported the proposition that local and state governments be responsible for regulating land use. Any `deviation from this principle without showing a justifiable need would bring into question several constitutional issues that could conceivably hamper existing `programs for reclaiming surface mined lands. Local zoning laws and state reclamation laws now in existence properly con- trol the vast majority of lands being mined. Ninety percent of the coal obtained from strip mines comes from the 14 states with effective reclamation laws. Sand and gravel operations, by reason of market conditions, must `be l'ocated "close in." Consequently, most are rigidly controlled by city or county zoning ordi- nances which `pres'cribe, in detail, how the operation must be conducted `and how reclamati'on must be performed. According to the Department of Interior's `special report on ~S~arface Miniag and Our Environment, 75 percent of the land that has been disturbed by `surface mining was `mined for `coal, `sand and gravel and `stone. These oper'ation,s are now well regulated by state and local laws. The remaining 25 percent of the acreage 4isturbed by surface mining was for the recovery of res'ources such as phosphate and hard minerals. The Florida phosphate lands are being turned into beautiful forests and citrus groves. Some of the open pit mining operations defy reclama- tion in the traditional meaning, but can demonstrate that mining activities in some instances provide interesting and scenic values of grandeur. Whenever and wherever possible, mined out lands should `be reclaimed. This is a responsibility of the mining industry and local and state governments. More needs to be done, and will be done, but the fact remains that a realistic effort is being made. There is no need for the Federal Government to intervene. S. 3132 would require the states to prepare a state plan for the regulation of surface mines and the reclamation of surface `mined `areas and submit it to the PAGENO="0368" 362 Secretary of Interior for approval. Il! states do not comply with this requirement,. or the state plan, in `the opinion of the Secretary, is defective, or if after a eon- tinuing evaluati&n the Secretary determines a state is not complying with~ the approved state plan, the Secretary may initiate federal regulations ~or sur- face mining and surface mining reclamation in that `state. The rationale for this approiwh is stated in Section 3(d) of the proposed bill,. which reads : "because of the diversity of terrain, climate, hiological, chemical, and other physleal conditions In mining areas, the establishment of a nationwide basis `of uniform regulations 1~o~r aurtface mining operations and for the reclama- tion of surface mined areas is not feasible." The rationale is sound, reasona~le and logical. It backs up `an approa~h that should ie st~pported by those who believe that states must play an active `role If our Federal form of Government and its cheeks and balances are to be preserved. In fact, the National Chamber did `support just `such an approach in 19435 when Congress enacted the Water Quality Act. It was the same ~ormula, the same expressed intent of Congress and almost the same language. Unfortunately, the Secretary of Interior Is not administering the Water' Quality Act with the same understanding that is so clearly spelled out in the Act. Uniform federal standards are being demanded before state standards are approved-one state is being played against the other. Confusion reigns. It is~ now ten menths after all the states have s~bmitted their plans for implementing state water quality standards-not one state has had its plan approved 100 per~ cent. All approvals are "conditional." Conditional upon acceptance by the states of certain language that will provide "equal"-uniform--~standards for the state plans. Based upon the experiences the states are now having with the Department of Interior in submitting plans for the Secretary's approval, it is apparent that more restrictive guidelines must be included in any legislation if the intent of Congress is to he properly reflected in the administration of such legislation. For you~r information and the record, `attached is `a letter of opinion from the Wash- ington, D.C. law firm `of Covington & Burling Which clearly states that, in their opinion, the Secretary of Interior Is acting beyond the scope of his authority in considering for approval state plans ~uhmitted to him under the provisions ot the Water Quality Act of 1965. For these reasons the National Chamber opposes S. 3132 and urges the Senate~ Interior and Insular Affairs O~mft1ee to reject the bill. Sincerely, JAMES G. WATT, Seoretary, NaturaZ Resowrce$ Uomm4ttee.. WASHINaT0N, D.C., Apr~1 4, 1968. Mr. JAMES G. WATT, Secretary, Natiwa~ Resources Coiniinittee, Ukamber of Uom'nverce of tive Un4te~ ~Stc&tes of America, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. WATT : ~1~ou have requested our opinion whether the Secretary of Interior is authorized to determine that State water quality standards are not consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act on the ground that they fall to include (1) an effluent standard relating to the quality of matter per- mitt~d to `be discharged into interstate waters, or (2) a unF~orm standard o~ "nondegradation" `as published by the Secretary. In `our view the answer to both parts of this question is No. The Secretary `has no authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1965, to insist that a State include in its `water quality standards applicable to interstate waters either an effluent standard-such as an alsolute requirement of secondary treatment or its equivalent-or a requirement that waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards will be maintained at their existing high quality. The express policy of Congress in enacting and amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was "to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary re- sponsi'bilities and rights of the States in preventing and controlling water pollu- tion," `and under the Act it is the initial right and `responsibility of each `State to adopt, after public hearings, water quality standards applicable to interstate waters within or on its borders. If the Secretary of the Interior determines that a State has adopted water quality criteria and an enforcement plan that are consistent with the Act, such State criteria and plan thereafter become the water quality standards applicable to the inter~t~ate waters within the State. PAGENO="0369" 363 If th~ Sec~tary were to disapprove a State's water quality atandards for their failure to include either an effluent standard or a nonclegradation requirement, and then to promulgate standard~ applicable to the interstate waters of that State which included these requirements, the State would be entitled to a public hearing before an independent flearing Board. In our view the flearing Board. would be c~bliged, as a matter of law, to recommend the elimination of these requirements from the standards promulgated by the Secretary, and the Secre~ tary would ~ obliged to promulgate revised standards of water quality in accord- ance with the Hearing Board's recommendation. This letter sets forth in summary form the basis for these conclusions, which are further ela'borated with citation to the legislative history and other relevant authorities, in the accompanying memorandum. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS MUST RELATE TO THE QUALITY OF THE RECEIVING STREAM Both the language and the legislative history of the 19~l5 amendments to the Act make it clear that Congress intended that water quality standards prescribe the quality of the waters into which effluent is discharged, rather than the quality of the effluent itself, and that such standards must relate to the use and value of the receiving body of water. Section 10(c) (1) provides for the adoption of "water quality criteria appli- cable to interstate waters or portions thereof within Such state"-clearly a refer- enee to the quality of the receiving waters. Water quality standards must meet the requirements of section 10(c) (3) , which provides that in establishing such. standards States, the Secretary, and Hearthg Boards must take into considera- tion the use and value of interstate waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial and other legitimate uses. This emphasis on the use and value of the receiving waters is fundamental to Congress's insistence upon local standards that relate directly to the quality of these waters. The sole means for Federal enforcement of water quality standards is set forth. in section 10(c) (5), which provides that the "discharge of matter into such interstate waters or portions thereof, which reduces tive quality of such water~s below the water quality standards established under this subsection . . . is sub- ject to abatement. . . ." (Emphasis added.) No violation occurs until it can be shown that the quality of the stream has been reduced below the level prescribed. In the standard for that stream. The fact that the Water Quality Act requires `that water quality standards apply to the stream rather than to the effluent is the result of the deliberate decision by Congress to reject the approach taken In the initial Adm1nLstratIon~ proposal, which would have authorized both stream standards and controls read- ing directly on the effluent. On the basis of testimony at the first hearings on the bill, the Senate Committee removed `the provision for effluent standards, and it never reappeared through enactment. Thus, both the statutory language reading explicitly in terms of stream stand- ards, and the Congressional refusal to provide for effluent controls, make it clear that the Secretary of the Interior has no authority to insist on the inclusion of an effluent criteria in State water quality standards as a necessary condition for their approval under the Act. More particularly, the insistence by the Secretary that States include within their water quality criteria a imiform requirement of secondary treatment or its equivalent, without regard to whether such treat- mont is necessary to achieve compliance with the applicable stream standards, is beyond the Secretary's statutory authority. In many Instances municipalities and companies may have to install secondary treatment or its equivalent if they are to prevent the discharge of matter which reduces the quality of interstate streams below the applicable water quality stand- ards. Failure to install secondary treatment in those instances would result in a. violation of both Federal and State law. But an across-the-board requirement of seconda ry treatment or its equivalent without regard to the water quality standards applicable to the interstate waters in question is contrary to the Congressional intent and the statutory language. If, after the adoption of water quality standards based on particular uses and values of an interstate stream, a municipality or a company finds that It need not install secondary treatment in order to prevent the discharge of matter that would reduce the quality of the stream below such standards, then there is no basis for requiring such treatment or for taking Federal enforcement action for failure to install it. 95-G23----68----24 PAGENO="0370" 364 THE LACK OF A STATIJTORY BASIS FOR A NONDE~RADATION STANDARD A somewhat different question is raised by the attempt of the Secretary to insist that every State water quality standard include a provision to require that waters whose existing quality is better than established standards as of the date on which such standards become effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. The Secretary has stated that the lowering of the quality of such waters would be permitted only upon a d~termination by the State water pollu- tion control agency and the Department of Interior that such change is justi- fiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not inter- fere with or become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible in, such waters. Any new or increased source of pollution to high quality waters would be required to provide "the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology." Such a "nondegradation" standard cannot be justified under the provisions of the Act. First, in adopting water quality standards, State authorities must con- sider, on the evidence presented at public bearings, whether the quality of a particular stream should be improved in order to permit uses not now possible, whether the standards should reflect the existing level of water quality because it satisfactorily accounts for desired uses and values of the stream, or whether standards should be set at levels below the existing quality level in order to accommodate uses and values of importance to the citizens of the State and consistent with purposes of the Act. A nondegradation standard would in effect override any stream standard in this last category, for it would purport to require a water quality level above that specified in the standard. There is no basis in the Act for the Secretary summarily to disregard the decision of the State authorities, and to impose a ~er~eral requirement unrelated to the hearing evidence. State standards must of course meet the general requirements of section 10(c) (3) "to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act." Presumably the nondegradation standard is thought to be justified as a means to "enhance the quality of water," but such a narrow reading of this one provision ignores the statutory purpose "to enhance the quality and vaZue of our water resources," and in effect nullifies the require- ment that the Secretary and the State take into consideration the "use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses." If the hearing record establishes that maximum value and use of a stream can be achieved by water quality standards somewhat below existing levels, then the Secretary cannot arbitrarily refuse to give effect to such standards. A second difficulty with a general nondegradation standard is that it purports to impose an unenforceable requirement. A Pederal action for failure to observe water quality standards can be maintained only upon a ~showing that discharged matter reduced the quality of the receiving stream below the standards adopted for that stream. No action would lie under the Act for the discharge of matter that merely reduced the stream quality below earlier quality levels, if the stream continued to meet the requirements of the standards themselves. A third objection to the Secretary's nondegradation standard Is that it seeks to displace the initial responsibility of the State to establish water quality stand- ards and to prevent and control water pollution. Under the nondegradation standard, permission to lower the quality of "high quality" waters would be granted only upon a showing of justification made to the State and the Secre- tary. But the Act carefully prescribes the role of the Secretary in the estab- lishment and enforcement of water quality standards, limiting his author- ity to the approval of State standards, the promulgation of standards if State standards are not consistent with the Act, and the initiation of court enforcement proceedings. He has no statutory authority to require prior Federal approval of discharges into a stream or of treatment facilities. Finally, the requirement that new or increased pollution of "high quality waters" can be permitted only if the installation will have the highest and best degree of waste treatment available under existing technology is an attempt to write effluent standards into the Act, and to impose a degree of treatment that is inconsistent with the enforcement tests of "practicability" and "physical and economic feasibility." A treatment method that is technically available may well be impracticable and totally unfeasible economically. Under any circumstances, a violation of the Act must be predicated on discharge that reduces the quality of PAGENO="0371" 365 the receiving waters below the stream standard, and not on failure to install any particular type or degree of treatment facility. . For these reasons, we conclude that the Secretary has no authority to require that States adopt either effluent or nondegradation standards as a condition of receiving approval of water quality standards under the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act. Very truly yours, COVL~GTON & BTJRLING, By EDWARD DUNKELBERGER. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Washington, D.C. April 30, 1968. lion. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, &~nate Committee on Interior o~nd Insular Affairs, New senate Office Building, Washington, DXI. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : The National Wildlife Federation should like to corn- ment briefly upon S. 217, S. 312G, and S. 3132, proposals to regulate strip-mining, and have this letter be made a part of the current hearings in which public reac- tion is invited. By way of identification, the National Wildlife Federation is a private conserva- tion organization composed of independent affiliated groups in 49 States. These affiliates, in turn, are composed of local clubs and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation number an estimated 21/2 million persons. The National Wildlife Federation long has deplored the natural resources prob- lems created as a result of strip-mining. A resolution adopted in 1965 (copy at- tached) outlined the problems of soil mismanagement, erosion, stream pollution, and fish and wildlife losses caused by these practices. It also pointed to encour- aging projects to reclaim and enhance these areas, and called for extensive studies leading to the development of suitable remedial actions. We believe the bills under consideration by the Committee would help set the necessary remedial actions into motion, if enacted. We have been encouraged at the interest shown in attacking the problem, both by the Congress and by Executive Branch agencies as well as the President him- self. And, we have been elated at actions taken in some States, notably Pennsyl- vania and Kentucky, to establish controls. These bills, particularly S. 3132, in our opinion, would make significant advances in strip-mining control. The National Wildlife Federation supports these principles, as expressed in S. 3132: 1. The Congressional declaration that surface mining, while important to the Nation's economy, is harmful in many respects and must be regulated. 2. The Federal Government be authorized to provide both technical and financial assistance to the States in developing and enforcing adequate State control plans. 3. The Federal Government, if a State has not developed a suitable control program within three years, shall issue Federal regulations for surface mm- ing operations in that State. It is our understanding that less than one-fourth of the States have laws to regulate surface mining and some of these are ineffective. Obviously, more are badly needed. While we believe the States should be given a chance to put their .own house in order, it is necessary for the Federal Government to step in if no action is for~thcoming. This procedure has been followed with respect to both water and air pollution control and there is every reason to apply it to strip- mining as well. We believe the establishment of advisory committees can serve a beneficial purpose. In our opinion, S. 3132 does not do the complete job. It does not lay sufficient stress on reclamation of previously mined areas, including those under private ownership which are abandoned. Therefore, we recommend that the Commit- tee give serious consideration to the provisions in both S. 217 and S. 3126 which would authorize cooperate agreements and financial assistance for the reclama- tion and conservation of previously mined lands owned by private individuals. Possibly, land treatment procedures employed by the Department of Agriculture could provide useful vehicles for the installation of suitable vegetative cover practices. And, the Committee may even wish to give thought to Federal acquisi- PAGENO="0372" 366 tion of mined-out areas for the purpose of reclamation. Many of these scarredi lands have been converted into useful publk~ recreational locations. Thank you for the opportunity of making these observations. Sincerely, THOMAS L. KIMBALL, Eccecutive Director; [Attachmentl REsoLUTIoN No. 8 OF NATIONAL WIumIFE FEDERATION, 29th ANNUAL CON- vENTION, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 5-7, 1965 STRIP MINING Whereas, strip mining, the practice whereby mineral deposits are reached by' removal of the land surface, causes serio~is problems of soil erosion and pollution of streams by acids and silt ; and, Whereas, newly-developed equipment now in use affects vast acreages of lands~ and magnifies these difficulties ; and, Whereas, unless conservation and restoration methods are employed, the scarred and denuded lands remain unsightly and unproductive for years ; and,~ Whereas, demonstrations by cooperative mining operators and governmental officials prove that commendable reclamation and restoration of mined-over lands can result in the creation of desirable fish and wildlife habitat ; now, Therefore be it resolved that the National Wildlife Federation, in annual con- vention assembled March 7, 1965, in Washington, D.C., urges the initiation of' studies by the Department of the Interior of the methods used in strip mining operations and their extent in the U.S. with a view toward recommending reme- dical programs leading to reclamation and restoration of the land surface and~ elimination of stream pollution from these sources. WILDLTFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., May 10, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Co~mmittee on Interior and InsuZar Affair.~, &~nate Office Building,. Washington, D.C. DEAR SENAToR JAOI~5ON : The Institute regrets that it was unable to have a rep- resentative appear before the committee during the public hearing on S. 217,. S. 3126, and S. 3132. We note that the hearing record was left open for the receipt of statements, and we would appreciate having this letter made a part of that record. The Institute strongly supports appropriate federal legislation to protect the' public values in lands that have been and are susceptible to various kinds of con- tour and open strip mining. It is believed that the legislation should not diminish in any way the several good state laws already in effect. Rather, It should uphold and sustain those state laws while, at the same time, provide guidance and leader- ship to states lacking effective laws and programs. Federal legislation, in our opinion, should respond to at least three oversights `that have been responsible for destructive strip mining practices In many beau- ties. It should call for the pre-planning of rehabilitation of the bands to be stripped or open mined, require that rehabilitation takes place in conjunction with and at the time of the mining operation, and contain authority for prohibiing such mining where land rehabilitation is impossible or where slope, environmental values, or other factors render it Inadvisable. It is hoped that the federal responsibility can be vested jointly in the Depart- ments of the Interior and Agriculture. As now organized, neither agency currently has all of the expertise to provide the technical and other services that are re- quired to effectuate an adequate program. We believe, too, that the committee's bill should make provision for restoring the nearly 1 million acres that have been disrupted by contour strip coal mining operations in the past. Failure to restore these lands will perpetuate currently undesirable conditions. In addition, the Institute Wishes to associate itself with the remarks of Mr. Grover C. Little, Jr., executive director of the West Virginia Division of the Izaak Walton League of America, in his appearance before the committee. We believe that the 16 "strong points" recommended by Mr. Little for inclusion in applicable~ state and federal laws warrant the committee's most favorable attention. PAGENO="0373" 367 I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to comment on the bills that * are under consideration. We b*~1leve that legislation is needed in this area and are hopeful that an adequate measure can be enacted. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES, SULLIVAN, MCMILLAN, HANFT & HASTINGS, Duluth, Minn., May 3, 1968. Re S. 3132, Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968. Hon. LEE METCALF, Senate Committee on Interior and In~sular Affairs, New ~e~wz~te Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF : We were privileged on April 30 and May 1 to attend the hearings of your committee at the open hearing held in connection with ~S. 3132, S. 217 and S. 3126. We found this hearing to be very worthwhile, and I would like to express a short statement to your committee on behalf of the members of the Lake Superior Industrial Bureau, for whom I am counsel. This organization consists of the principal Iron mining and taconite companies in Minnesota, including United States Steel Corporation, Reserve Mining Company, Erie Mining Company, Pickands Mather & Co., Jones & Laughlin Steel Corpora- tion, Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, Eveleth Taconite Company, Snyder Mining Company, and others. Your committee appeared to be considering most seriously S. 3132, and on behalf of these Minnesota companies we would like to go on record as endorsing in their entirety the statements made by Joseph A. Abdnor on behalf of the American Mining Congress, by Dr. S. W. Sundeen of Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, John Boentje of Pittsburgh Pacific Company, Hugo Johnson of the American Iron Ore Association and Minnesota Commissioner of Conservation, Jane Leirfallom. We are unanimously of the opinion that federal regulation of surface mining practices in the iron ore industry in Minnesota is both unnecessary and im- practical. As stated by Commissioner Leirfallom, we think that the State of Minnesota should be given an opportunity to deal on a state level with such problems as may exist in this Industry before we are subjected to the type of regulation proposed in S. 3132. We also submit, with all due respect to this proposal, that its enforcement-particularly with reference to taconite and small mining operations-could very well impose a bruden sufficient to harm those companies to the extent that their continuance might be difficult, and, as also stated by the various witnesses, give a great advantage to foreign ores, which are even now posing a serious competitive threat to this Industry in Minnesota. In the event your committee reports out this legislation without excluding the iron ore and taconite industry, we will be making every effort to bring our point to view of our Minnesota Senators, Eugene McCarthy and Walter Mondale, and are accordingly sending each of these gentlemen a copy of this communica- tion. We are also addressing a copy of this letter to the Hon. John A. Blatnik, Member of Congress from this district. Very truly yours, RICHARD H. HASTINGS. SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, WaMington, D.C., May 21, 1968. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and~ Insular Affairs, Old Senate Office Bwtlding, Wa$hington, D.C. Dw~ SENATOR JACKSON : The Sport Fishing Institute wishes to' comment on the proposed legislation by the Congress which deals with the regulation of surface mining and the restoration of such mined lands~ This is contained in S. 217, S. 3126, iand S. 3132. Mr. Chairmian, few actions of man are more destructive of the earth's surface and man's `compatibility with nature than that of strip-mining. Aside from the ugly and extensive physical scarring of the landscape, the poilutional results-in terms of erosion, silt, and acids unleashed on downstream areas-are often disastrous. The steam electric power industry apparently has an insatiable C. R. GUTgRMUTH, Vice President. PAGENO="0374" 368 appetite fc~r kw-grade coal, and the subsequent fatrly recent sffilfts of bydro to fossi1-fue~ed steam power generation MS set iii mlotiOn a remorseless rending of vast arétas of ~oa1-~earing 1and~ eov~ring large areas of many states. The latest re~port of "Fish Kills by Pollution~ 1966", pt~blis~ied by the Federal Water Pollu- tion Oonfrol A~clm4n18tration in 1967, indicates that approximately 17 per cent ~f all reported fish MU~ were due to mining operatious. When one couslders the vast seotpe of poI1ution-ea~sed fish kills tI~at have been reported to the Federal Governtu~ent suth n~iming o~peraUons are the seeo~d greatest causative factor exceeded only by the f~xxl products industry. Mr. Chairman, since World War II there has been a tremendous increase in the size and capacity of individual power generating units and stations. Such is fundaimental to the continuing low cost of electricity to the conisnmer. We realize that the size factors are am~ng the most important tools a~irailalde to an electric utility in its constant effort to limit or offset the effects of the continuous and rapid increases in the cost of doing business these days. There very apparently is great economic justification for the overwhelming trend of the utilitie's toward the use of larger aud larger generating units and stations. We have observed that some 72 per cent of the total generating capacity now in order in this country (both fossil and nuclear-fueled) uumber 134 tuebth&generator units~ and 500 megawatts aud larger. This portends the considerably increased use of mined. fuels to operate these power electric stations. Nation~wide it is estimated that appro~imately one million acres of land. have been activated `by coal strip mining and that this is increasing at a progressive rate between 20,000 acres per year to reach a rate of 30,000 acres per year by 1970. At a Strip-Mine Symposium held at Ohio Agricultural Experimental station' (Wooster) in 19~2 the principal speaker was Dr. Wilhelm Knahe, Soil Scientist with the West German Federal Research Experiment Station for Forestry and Forest Products (Reinbeck) . Dr. Knaibe stressed that West German laws require the pre-planning of reclamation, their most important aspect being separate dis- posal `of top soil in order to cover `the `soil banks after gi~ading and providing l~asis for geod cro~ps. There are many cases of fish kill resulting from mine pollution but one of the mot devastating reported of sport fish in the State of Pennsylvania's' history occurred on the north Branch of the Susquehanna River' `back in 1961. Fish Commission personnel estimated that at least 116280 fish including 15,116 legal-sized waileyes and 14,053 bass `were killed in a 55-mile stretch of the River. The State Sanitary Water Board determined that the lethal pollutants resulted from' the pumping of mine acid wastes into the river by the Glen Alden Mining Corporation. A flue of $58,504.50 was assessed as proper payment for the fish killed. The Tennessee Valley Authority sometime `ago recognized the' seriousness of its strip mining activities and initiated studies and experimental reseeding to restore stripped areas `to productivity. They worked with experimental conifer planting `on 10-acre stripped test plots (alt the rate `of 1,700' seedlings per acre) and found first year survival rates ranging from 39 per cent for short leaf pine to 84 per cent for Virginia pine. Ultimately they worked with five different species and found a 60 per cent survival rate. They also `determined that grading improved `the survh~al. They concluded that restoration method;s must be refined and intensified tait did hold considerable promise. Knowledge to accomplish the immediate large-scale directive action for reclamation of mined. areas' on the part of the strippers ha's been avaiia)ble. Extensive demonstration of such was under- taken about 17 years ago in southern Illinois a's a cooperative project of the University of Southern rilinois, Sport Fishing Institute, Wildlife Management Institute, the Illinois Conservation Department, the Illinois Coal Sltrip'pers Asso- eia'tion, and `the Truax-Tra'er Coal Mining Company. Similar work has been done in Ohio, as well. `Therefore, the public and eoal~con,suming public agency should not permit the alleged need for research to become a smoke-screen behind which operators can postpone or dodge rehabilitation. It is unfortunate that most of the coal strippers regard `reclamiation ais a public agency responsibility. We believe that the operator should be forced by state or federal laws and terms of coal purchase contracts to reve~etate and otherwis~ restore the lands. ~Uhis (ould possibly raise the price of the coal but we feel it could be amply justified. Mr. Chairman, the Sport Fishing Institute, for the `reaso'nts given above, feels that any `of the preposed iegisl;ative measures that best will provide for the regulation of present and future surface `and `strip mining, and for the c'on,serva- tio'n, acquisition, and reclamation of surface and strip miae areas would be in PAGENO="0375" BLACK, MOOUSKFJY, Soui~s & ARBAUGH, ATTORNEYS AND OQUNSELORS AT LAW, Ua~toi~, Ohio, April22, flW8. Re inlueci ktnds eonservatio~ i~ear4ngs. Hon. FRANK J. LAUSOHE, U.S~. $eiu~te, Ben~ate Office Bvilding, Washington, D.C. Di~i~ SENATOR LAUSOHE : If it is permissible for the Semate Inteirior Oornmittee to receive Written letters of opinions and exhibits concerning pending bills for the protection nnd reclamjation of land, I would appreciate your bringing this letter and emclo~su~r~~ to the `Con~mittee'~s attention. It is my intention to send additional ph:o~ograpihs of mined areas here in NortheasterH Ohio later this week. This letter expresses ~ny views ~is a citizen con~erning the need for federal con~ troi of open mining `operation~s based on my observations of snc!h operations iieri~ in E~stern Ohio. I have resided in or about Thscarawas County, Ohio, in excess of twenty-five years and have always considered this area to be one of the most scenic in the State. I have long been frustrated by the tragic defacing of the countryside in this and other areas of Ohio by open mining activities. While open mining is an inexpemsve method of ohtaning an energy source such as coal, it is ai~~o a method which is exacting a terrible price in terms of destroying the natural beauty of our country. E!arthmovers now exist in Ohio that can shovel 180,00& tons of overburden in a single day (see enclosure) , and they daily create high wails, sour water and piles of overburden which, resist vegetation. There is, I feel, a strong resentment among the general populace concerning this form of mining activity, hut, regretably, this resentment is not organized. Even with recent enactments of legislation on, open mining operations, Ohio's State government has failed to adequately regulate open mining. There are several reasons for this, but basically those who oppose this desecration o1~ the countryside and the reisutlting pollution to our streams have been unorganized, while those who derive a direct short term benefit from such operations, such as the power c'ompaniesi and the mining companies, have exerted tremendous pressures on the state legislature with regard to mining and reclamation legis- lation. I am enclosing portions of `the current Ohio Code governing reclamation of open mined areas by `an open miming operator. On paper, the regulations go'v- erning the open mining operator appear very complete, but as a perso'a;l viewing- of the open mined areas `of Ohio would reveal, these laws are not doing the job of protecting Ohio land from such `operations. Enforcement provisions are woe- fully inadequate. Bond amounts required to `be posted by the mining companies are too low and when a mining operation fails ( which is not infrequent) `or if the bond is forfeited for noncompliance, insufficient funds exist to reclaim the land used by the defunct mining company. If nn operator electsi not to cover the exposed coal vein by an impoundment of water in the final cut, he is `required to cover the exposed coal seam with overburden, but the `amount `of overburden coverage which is requ,ired by the law and the regulations, promulgated there-* under often is not `adequate to prevent leeching of sour water from the mined area. I am enclosing some pictures depicting open mining activity in York, Clay and Jef1~erson Townships, Pu'scarawa,s County, Ohio, so that the' Committee inem- hers who have not visited thes~ areas of our State may see what is really ha,p~ pening here. No picture, and especially my amateur photograpihy, begins to represent how ugly and useless the land really is which has been subjected to open mining operations and "reclaimed" according to the State's standards. Eventually, I `feel co'n'fid'ent that the Ohio public will become sufficiently aroused to enact tough open mining and reclamation legislation and demand proper enforcement of the same, `but `based, on the past performance of the Ohi& legislature and governmental authorities, this legislation will not come until the real damage has occurred, a,si was' the case in Pennsylvania. The need for federal legislation for land protection and reclamation is one of the greatest of `the people of the United States today, even thou.gh it is not 369 the greatest of public interest. Kindly include this letter in the record of hearings `held on this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, PHILiP A. DOUGLAS, Ea~ecutive S'ccretc~ry. PAGENO="0376" 370 the most obviGus. Areas o~f Oih~, having ~or sieveral y~arrs been s~bjected to indiscriixdnate mining practices without proper control at the State 1eve1~ will never be the same. We must preserve swne of the natural beai~ty of t1i~i~ hill area o~f Ohio for posterity, ai~d it must be acted upox~ ~ow or be forever iost. Some coal oo~pa~es ~d power ~o~anies who engage in open mining activity are responisible ami have made a genuine effort to reclaim mined 1and~. These eon~panies naturally resist further governmental control of their iThdUiS~ try, and have resisted it on the local, state and 1~edera1 level and by appealing to the general populace throug~h paid adi~ertisements in large cirenlating inaga~ines ( see enchsures) . While I commend these eompan&es for the~r attitude toward land reclamation, I strongly oppose their efforts to lim~it legisiatlion for the control of open mining activities, because I have personally witnessed the great need to control those companies who ~io not responsibly reclaim the iand which has been srubjected to open mining practices. I have reviewed the bill prepared and sllbmitted by you and it ismy feeling that this bill and the one introdnced by Senator Jackson and snbrnitted to the Department of the Interior would be a great step forward in protecting our land. Legislation of this nature is desperately needed by the people of the TJnited States. Yours very truly, Vioron B. MARSH, Jr. J. L. SHInLY Co., ~t. Pat~t, Minn., Ma'rok 26, 1968. Re 5.8132. Hon. WALrER MONDALE, U.s. ~en~ate, Washiii~gton, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MONDALE : The J. L. Shiely Com~~any is a sand, gravel and crushed stone producer operating principally in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. We wish comment on our position regarding the "Surface Mining Reclama- tion Act of ;I~68." We do not believe that the sand, gravel, crushed stone and related industries should be included in the provisions of this bill. Our reasons are as follows: (1) The right to eRtract sand, gravel and crushed stone should be granted by the lowest governmental unit that is directly concerned with the extrac- tion from an environmental standpoint This is being done through local planning boardsand zoning commissions on a individual case basis. We feel that this is beneficial to both the community and the producer. (2) In most cases, the products mined are being used within a relatively small area surrounding the pit or quarry. These products become an integral part of the economy of the community and the surrounding area. We feel that the community should have jurisdiction. (3) Rehabilitation should be accomplished on a best use basis. In many cases there is no predictable best use at the outset of operations, and trying to come up with a plan would be a useless drawing board exercise. (4) The economic considerations are important. We think that the pro- visions of this bill will cost the producer an unreasonable amount of money. This will have to be passed on to the consumer. The cost will be reflected in such projects as the Interstate Highway System. You might be interested in knowing that our company voluntarily has developed a rehabilitation plan for our Grey Cloud Island complex. Public relations and community responsibilities prompted us to undertake this project. The engineer- ing and planning cost was over $6,000.00. This Spring we are planting over 10,000 trees on reclaimed land at a cost of another $6,000.00. We feel that our industry is responsible and not in need of inclusion in the pro- visions of S. 3132. Very truly yours, J. L. SHIELY, Jr., President. WEDRON SILICA Co., Clvioago, El., April 9, 1968. Re S. 3132, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1968. Hon. ERNEST GEunNING, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR : We have read with interest the very commendable provisions of this bill. We, however, would like to voice our most strenuous objection to the bill for the following reasons: 1. It Is a duplication of already existing state plans that are in operation and which are most successful. PAGENO="0377" 371 2. It would be ai~other instance where the Federal government will usurp~ state rule ~ind siibstitute ~ts judgment for that of the state's. We strongly feel that the citizens of the state, through their local government, are more than capable of handling their own internal affairs. It is further evi- dent that `the states, with the co.operation of industry, have implemented land reclamation aets of their own. As in all bills implemented by the Federal government, funds, are proposed to pay for most of the cost-.with the usual bureaus being established, the reams of reports, and, as always, additional payrolls. The industrial sand industry, through its National Industrial Sand Associa- tion, has been `a leader in the field of reclamation ; and all of its member corn- panies have co-operated and shown definite results. We feel that Federal legis~ lation is totally unnecessary and at this time when the Federal budget needs a return to sanity, may we suggest that you direct your efforts toward reducing expenditures rather than increasing them. Yours very truly, FRANK E. GRECO, &~cretary-Treasurer. PACIFIC CEMENT & AGGREGATES, ~aei Franctsco, Calif., April 12, 1968. Subject : Surface Mining Reclamation A~t of 1968, Senate hearing scheduled, April 30 and May 1. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, &rnate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON : We Support the action of the Board of Directors of the National Sand and Gravel Association who recently adopted the following association policy in regard to legislative proposals for Federal Control of mine reclamation: "That the Associaltion Is opposed in principle to direct Federal control of recla- mation in the sand and gravel industry ; in the event that the enactment of such legislation seems probable, however, efforts should be made to `assure the rea- sonableness and administrative workability of such legislation, the protection of the public interest in the maintenance of sand and gravel reserves, and the avoid- ance of a multiplicity of regulatory sources." Respectfully yours, GRAY MINOR, Director of Public Affairs. DEL MONTE PROPERTIES Co., Pebble Beach, Calif., April 3, 1968. Hon. THOMAS H. KUCHEL, Old senate Oyflce Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sia : We at Del Monte Properties Company are quite concerned with some of the provisions included in Senator Jackson's bill S. 3182, entitled : "Suf- face Miming and Reclamation Act of 1968". As you know, we own a considerable acreage of some of the most beautiful country in the world and we are justifiably proud of how it has been and how it will be developed. Included in the acreage are various areas in which we have mined sand and which are now depleted. Other areas are presently being mined and which, at some future date, will also be depleted. After depletion, these areas will revert to very valuable real estate, but at this date there is no way of predicting the manner in which they will be de- veloped. Will these parcels be reserved for single family dwellings, hotels, mo- tels, or golf courses? As a case in point, I refer to one depleted deposit upon which mining was started some fifteen years ago. Who at that time could foretell that this area would now contain four or five holes of the famous, or infamous, Spyglass Hill Golf Course? Our big objection to this bill is the requirement that states, "Provide for the reclamation of surface mined areas. Including the posting of an adequate per- formance bond which will insure that the entire cost of reclamation will be covered." PAGENO="0378" 372 One inland area which we are now mining contains reserves to last about 80 years at our present mining rate. To post a performance bond for its proper re~lamation, it seems to us, is an undue hardship. It's ultimate and final man- ner of development is unknown at this time. We certainly believe in conservation and the theory behind the bill, and the esthetic manner in which we have developed our lands over the years bears this out. We do feel, however, that when companies, by past performances, have shown good records of land reclamation and subsequent development, or ~ when, by the very nature and future value of the depleted areas which would force recla- matlon and development, such companies should be exempted from the posting of performance bonds. Your consideration to the points brought out in this letter will certainly be appreciated. Very truly yours, HUGH H. RnIN. GLENDIVE CHAMBER OF CoMMERcE, Gle~vdive, Mont., May 14, 1968. ~ Senator LEE METCALF, Senate Office Building, Washington, DXI. DEAR SENATOR METCALF : The Legislative Committee of the Glendive Chamber of Commerce respectfully urges you to support S. B. 3132 since strip mining will become increasingly important in our area. Sincerely, Rocun SMITH, Vice Chairn~an, Legislative Committee. LAKELAND LEDGER, Lakeland, Ela., May 2, 1968. ~Senator LEE METCALF, Senate Office Building, Wa~shington, D.C. DRAR SENATOR : Stewart French, Chief Counsel, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, asked me to send you the in-depth study The Ledger did based on a report by one of Florida's foremost water authorities. Lamar Jolinson, an engineer who specializes in water use, reports that the 200 million gallons of water a day pumped by the phosphate industries from the aquifer are draining the lakes of Polk County. Three lakes in Lakeland are now barren. While I can thoroughly appreciate the enormous contribution of the phosphate industry to Polk County, I feel they must still at the same time maintain them- selves as responsible corporate and community citizens. The story speaks for itself. We'll be glad to further research any facts which you wish. I am sincerely, JOHN R. HARRISON, President. [From the Ledger, Lake~and, Fla., Apr. 28, 19~8} POLK LAKES Aim "DO0MED"-PHOSPHATE SAID PRIMARY CAUSE (By W. D. Shilling, Ledger staff writer) The lakes of Lakeland are dying slowly. So, too, are the lakes of Auburndale, Winter Haven, lames City, Lake Wales- all of Imperial Polk County. Rainfall, normal or even above normal, will not save the lakes. The big vIllain in the story of doom is the phosphate industry. 80eondary ~llaiin~s are the citrus industry and eledtric ~ower plants, such as the City of Lakeland's generating facility on Lake Parker. Only drastic action in water conservation will s'a~e the lakes. These are the considered views of Lamar J~ohncson, of Lakes Wales, consulting engineer an~d one of Florida's foremo'st aothorities on water. "We have got to do something quickly," JohnSon said. "If we lose our lakes, a lot of people ~ill be hurt. The people know that something is wrong, but they ~don't know what it's all about. PAGENO="0379" 373 "When they learn the facts as they are, the peeple of Polk County will really raise hell." From his home on the hillside leading to Bok Tower, Johnson pointed a finger towards Big Lake Wales, outlIning where the water line of the beautiful body of water used to be-"it has fallen 10 feet in the past 7 years." "When Dick Pope starts water skiing on mud fiats at Cypress Gardens, we Will Lhave something done," the engineer commented. Johnson conceded that his views on the ultimate disappearance of the lakes of Polk would shock the people, but he said the time has come when the people need to be shocked. Johnson will retire on June 1 from the Peace River Basin Board of the South- west Florida Water Management District. He has served since 1959. Before becoming an independent consultant, he was the chief engineer for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control DiStrict, and prior to that assign- ment, he was the chief engineer for the old Everglades Drainage District. The Lake Wales water specialist isn't alone in his grave concern over Polk County's dwindling waiter supply. The United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey reported this year that the water supply situation in Imperial P~1k is the most critical of any area in Florida. In its 1968 analysis, the USGS said that the groundwater levels compared with January average levels in the Florida aquifer are 20 to 40 feet below normal. Johnson says that the USGS report is ~haritabie-~that in actuality the ground- water levels are down 50 or more feet since 1934. How many years of life do lakes of Lakeland and Polk have remaining before they become mud fiats and sand beds? The engineer said he could n~It give a precise answer. Heavy rains will lift the lake levels by several feet but in time the tables will resume their gradual decline. The rate of pumping from the underground aqutfer will be the all-important fac- tor. Tremendous gallonage is now being pumped from the underground reservoir, and the rate of consumption by industry and agriculture is rising substantially. Nature cannot replenish the aquifer as fast as the water is being pumped out. But Johnson points out that the death process is ali~oatdy advanced for some lakes in Polk. He mentioned spOcifically Stall Lake and several smaller lakes at Alturas and Lake Bonny and Crystal Lake in the Lakeland area. He said: "Stall Lake once was one of the most beautiful lakes in the county. The last time I was over there, several years ago, it was nothing more than a couple of mud holes. The smaller lakes are gone." The heavy pumping of the phosphate industry is a prime reason for Johnson's contention or prediction that, without drastic conservation measures, the lakes of Lakeland and Polk in an undertermined number of years will disappear. He said that the phosphate industry states that it uses 10 per cent "fresh" water and 90 per cent re~irculated water in its mining and processing operations. "Fresh" water is water pumped from the aquifer, and Johnson says that the industry's 10 per cent figure represents 200 million gallons per clay. That's 73 billion gallons of water in a 12-month period. Johnson notes, however, that the U.S. Bureau of Mines reports in its official publications that the phos~hate industry uses 30 per cent "fresh" water in its operations. If the federal agency is correct, the ~hosphiate industry pumps from the under ground reservoir 600 million gallons per day-219 billion gallons of Water per year. "I can't pi~ove whether the 10 per cent or the 30 per cent figure is correct," the engineer said. "In either case that kind of pumping creates a tremendous hole in the ground." The "hole in the ground" is the area underneath the surface which was filled with Water before the advent of he~vy pumping. In technical language, the hole is called a "cone of depression." The "cone of depression" in Polk, Jobn~on said, was begun in the Bartow- Mulberry-Ft. Meade area. In time it extended under Greater Lakeland and then eastward to the Ridge section. The "cone" already extends in~to Hardee, De S'olia and Iliflisborough Counties, Johnson said, and it is working its way into North~ast Polk, little affected to date because of its nearness to the Green Pond recharge area. On the "cone of depression" existing under the cttrus~rich Ridge district, John- son pointed anew to Big Lake Wailes, where the water line has far receded frbin Its position of a decade ago. PAGENO="0380" 374 The rainfall deficiency cxf the pasit seven yeai~s isn'~t the reai~on for the drop in the water ~abie in this lake, the engineer commented. He ~xp1ained that Big Lake W~lles h~a!s had enough rainfall, plus rai~off from a drainag~ area five tim~s the size of the bod~y o~f ~atter, In the pasl~ seven years tx ofl~set ioss~s from evaIr~erati'on. "Ph~rdti¼~ai1y, Lake Wailes should tiot have lost groond in these past seven y~ar~. This isn't a pot~hoie lake. It benefits from siirfa~e runoff. Yet the table has dek~1ined from 115 feet above sea level to 104.8 feet a month ago-~a loas of mere than 10 fee4 in the water 1eve~ In only seven years. "B~eause of the heavy pim~p4tng from the underground aquifer," Johnson said, "we have upset the delicate balance created by nature over a period of many years in respedt lb our iakes. "Our lakes are leaking (because of the withdrawal of the ground water beneath the surface) and we are going to lose most of these lakes In our Ridge section." Jlobn~n does nc~t point the finger to the phosphate industry alone as the sole heavy pumper of underground water. The second villain Is in citrus produ~tion and pro~sing. The engineer Said that r~liab1e figures on the gallonage of ~ater pumped from the aquifer for grove irrigation and cItrus proi~é~sing are not known, but t1~at the gallonage is substantial. The Oltrus Experiment S~tation at Lake Alfred re~o'rts that an aveage of one root ~r water per acre (3~5,85O gnlloi~s) per year is needed for irrigatibn. Phe ~t~LS. Depai~tnient of Aigriculture reports that 1.95 ak~re feet of water per acre ~s used for citrus irrigation under avei~age co~d~ltions In Weist Centra'l Florida. Th~ USGS ~tates that 82 per cent of the waiter i~sed for citrus Irrigation comes from tl~e undergrk~und stoi~age aquifer-~the 1*t.lance from surface water sources, i.e.~ 1ak~s. The water-use for citrus has increalsed from about 20 billion gallons per year In 1~56 to 52 billion gallons per year in 1965 and the Soil Conservation Service predidts that the water demand in the five.eounty area ciomprisling the Peace and Mafia RFver basins ~riui climb to 125 billIon gal1oi~s per year by 1980. A~dd the pr~sent citrus water c!onsumptlion and the increased galTonage antici- ~aJted by 1980 to present demands of the phosph~Ete industry and its future pro- jedted needs and Jo'hn'~on~s c1iir~ outlook on the lakes of Polk dying appears to be all too rdaiisti~. The Florida Boai~d of Oonservattlon cites that four billion gallons of ground- water is needed to produce a million long ton's of phosphate. From 1984 to 196~, groui~d-water eonsumption by the pho~sphate indusitry soared from eight billion gallons per year to 72 bi'Hii'on gallons in 1965. P~1k Couuty has the highest industrial use of water of any county in Florida. The Florida Bo~rrd of Oonservatlon says that this peak demand reflects the phosphate and electric j~ower generating industries within the Peace and Alafia River basins. "Thtal ind~trlai water u~e in Polk Ooumty w~s reported at 133.5 billion gal- lens per year `in 1962," the USGS s~a'ted. "The Florida Board of Oonservat'ion projeetion to 1980 indicat~s an industrial Waiter use of 316 billIon gallons per ye~r." J~ohn'son said that the future ~ttlvation water-rise of Polk and its lakes depends on severe ~on'serv'atton in the area's of pho's~h'a~te, citrus and electric power pro- dndtion. (Municti~al waiter use acelounts for lests than 10 per cent of the total pu~nped from the aquifer.) "The phOsphate indi~stry in Noith Afrie~a's desert operates with only a little salit water," he ssid. "We need to g~t our ph~ph~ate indi~stry to r~c'ognize the pi~oblem and to take the steps necesSary to change its mining-proe~ssing proc- esses. It needs a closed ~a~ter s~s't~m-~akJng only enough of the ground waiter supply to replace the l:osls by evaporation. It is entirely fea~slble. "The cttrus inidu~try needs tb know much more about its irrigation needs. I am not suggesting that some irrigation isn't needed. We need to have better guide lines than the three o'clock wilt to know when to irrigate and how much to irrigate. Oer~ainly, lrrtgla;tlon shoulid at least be at night when the humidity i's high, when the wtnd is low, when evapo~aition can be held to a miiMmum. I do sugges~ that we need to irrigate most beneficially. "Large qnant~ties of ground-i~ater are used for coOling generators in electric ~power plants. Just be~ause It is easy to get and because the ground~waiter tern- pei%tture is low. We shoutid be lookin'g at this real hard. Power plants can be buitl!t that use atimost no waiter. PAGENO="0381" I 375 "The big companies are now locating on the ocean front, like Florida Power at Crystal River. They are using s~a1t water. The companies are sm~trt enougth to know that this foolishness of wasting fresh ground-water can't go on." Johnson can cite facts and figures by the hour to validate his assertion that, barring draistic a~tion in the near future, the lakes o~f Lakeland and Imperial Polk will ~li'e. The mere assumption seetas unbeJIiiev~bI1e, fantas~bi~. Johnson, a s~4entiiñc man with axes to grind, concedes that the prediction is all too real, that the hour is already late, much too late. As an engineer who has spent n~any years of his life studying the water of Florida, Johnson's hope is that the people will heed the alarm and rise up in right~ous anger. What else will solve the dilemma? What ~lse will save the Lakes? Or will the day really come when serawny cern or weeds Will be growing in the acres that once were this oounty's lakes . . . Will the day really come when Dick Pope will be skIIng on mud flats at be'au~i'fu1[ Cypress Gardens? History, unfortunately, has recorded dh4lizations which flourished and then died when once lush acres were turned into arid waste's . . . when the water bad come and gone. DuL MONTE PROPERTIES CO., Pebble Beach, Calif., April 25, 1968. Hon. THOMAS H. KTJCHnL, Old $ena.te Office Buiklirtg, Washington, DfJ. DEAn Sin : As requested in your recent letter, I am elaborating somewhat on the points I raised in my last letter to you. I would appreciate having you enter into the records the text of this letter. For many years the National Industrial Sand Association has stressed to their members the great necessity for public relations, with special emphasis being placed on the rehalilitation oi~ depleted lands. Many publications have been issued, at considerable cost, suggesting ultimate land use and, in many instances, showing case examples of actual land uses of depleted deposits. As a member of this Association, Del Monte Properties Company feels that industrial sand companies should be excluded from meeting the requirements of Senate Bill S3182. Their own past records of conservation and good land plan- fling speak for themselves. Del Monte Properties Company, especially, who holds some of the most beau- tiful land in the world in the Del Monte Forest, has been and is very conscious of land use. We have used depleted sand mining areas for portions of golf courses, tasteful residential subdivisions, and dedicated greenbelts. If, however, industrial sand companies have to be included in this bill, we believe the requirement of posting a bond would create an undue hardship. As a case in point : we are presently mining sand in an area which has abont 80 years of life at onr present mining rate. We know that eventually, when the area is depleted, the lands, which are very valuable, will be developed in good taste. But, at this time we do not know whether the area will be utilized for single family thvellings, multiple housing, or even, perhaps, another golf course. To post a bond now to insure future development, in our opinion, would be un~ realistic and unfair. Who knows at this time what the best use of lands will be forty, fifty, or even eighty years hence? Again, it is our feeling that industrial sand companies, because of their past good records, should not be included in this bill. If, however, they are included, we believe that the bond posting requirement should be waived. Very truly yours, HUGH H. BnrN. Senator METCALF. If no one else wishes to be heard, I now will close the hearings on these bills. Thank you all for your attendance and assistance to us. 0 PAGENO="0382" liD