the Interior and the Administrator of General Services to convey certain public and acquired lands in the State of Nevada to the county of Mineral, Nevada."

We would have no objection to enactment of H.R. 10072 if amended as suggested herein.

H.R. 10072 would direct the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of General Services to issue a patent or deed for certain lands in Nevada to Mineral County, Nevada, not more than five years after the Secretary or the Administrator has notified the county of the purchase price. The purchase price would be an amount equal to the sum of the costs of extinguishing any adverse claims to the lands to be patented, the costs of any necessary survey, and the fair market value of the lands as determined by the Secretary or Administrator after appraisal. The conveyance would be made subject to any reservations necessary to protect continuing uses by the United States. The lands would be segregated from all forms of appropriation, including mining and mineral leasing, from the date of enactment until the Secretary provides otherwise. Money received from the conveyance would be disposed of in the same manner as moneys received as receipts from sale of public lands, except that the moneys received for appraisal, surveys, and extinguishing adverse claims may be used for such by the Secretary.

The lands in question consist of some 2,482 acres of national resource lands. They were withdrawn along with other lands, by Executive Order 4531, dated October 27, 1926, and subsequent Executive Orders, under the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 847), as amended, for exclusive use as a Naval Ammunition Depot at Hawthorne, Nevada. On November 1, 1972, the Department of the Navy declared the subject property excess and requested that the lands be transferred to the Bureau of Land Management, subject to a 50-year easement granted to the Sierra Pacific Power Company for a power distribution line and appurtenances on parcel A of the lands in question. Another powerline and service road traverse parcel C, for which there is an existing rightof-way of record.

About three-quarters of the adjoining lands are in non-Federal ownership or in the withdrawn area still needed by the Navy Department. The subject lands are thus effectively isolated from other national reSource lands. They may be difficult and uneconomic to manage if they are returned to Federal ownership. Moreover, there is no need for the lands for any BLM program. We know of no public objective that may be served by retention of the lands. If the lands are returned to public status, they may be subject to disposal under various special statutes of limited applicability. However, there is no present authority which authorizes conveyance of such a large tract to Mineral County for development or commercial purposes.

The U.S. Geological Survey indicates that the lands under the bill are without value for locatable or leasable minerals, except for Section 29, T. 8N., R. 30E., which is prospectively valuable for sodium and potassium. However, no field examinations have been made.

The county has expressed an interest in the property for industrial purposes. Apparently it wishes to resell the land to attract industry to the area. The location of the lands seems well suited to the county's needs. We understand that the parcels appear suitable for industrial

H.R. 1540

use since they are adjacent to existing and proposed State highways. Conveyance of the lands in question would, therefore, serve objectives that (1) may not be able to be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than the tract in question, and (2) outweigh public objectives and values which might be served by maintaining the land in Federal ownership.

Section 1 of the bill allows the county of Mineral five years after the Secretary has notified the county of the purchase price in which to pay for the land and receive a patent or deed. A similar provision was in the Act of September 13, 1960 (74 Stat. 880) relating to other land conveyances to Mineral County (on which H.R. 10072 apparently is patterned) as well as in the Act of May 14, 1956 (70 Stat. 156) which was the pattern for the 1960 Mineral County Act. The Department did not object to this provision in 1960. However, in the light of the present philosophy of land management and fair return to the public for its resources, we believe, now, that the provision is unacceptable. It ties up the land for five years and guarantees a return only of the value of the land at the beginning of the five years. In light of burgeoning land prices, this can result in a tremendous windfall for the county and we believe it is against public interest. Thus, we recommend that this provision of section 1 be deleted.

Although section 2 provides that conveyances authorized by the Act shall be made subject to any reservations necessary to protect continuing uses of the lands by the United States, the term "continuing uses" may restrict use of the land to present uses, precluding any valuable and necessary future uses, particularly if there is a reservation of minerals. Although we do not know specifically of any mineral deposits on the lands at the present time, except for the portion of the lands prospectively valuable for sodium and potassium, Congress may want to reserve minerals to the United States. The word "continuing" should be deleted from lines 12 and 13 on page 3 of the bill.

Some clarification of section 4 is necessary. Under its provisions, the lands would be segregated from appropriation under the public land laws from the date of enactment until the Secretary shall provide otherwise. Once the Secretary conveys the lands, any right of appropriation dependent on Federal ownership would expire unless some interest was reserved to the United States. Further, the section should also be amended to recognize valid existing rights prior to segregation.

We also suggest the following technical corrections:

H.R. 10072 includes the NSW4 of Section 34. We understand that parcel is privately owned. However, the N2SE4 of Section 34 is included in the Navy Department's declaration of excess lands, and it is possible that this parcel was intended for inclusion.

In addition, the bill provides for the conveyance of the NSE4, Section 28 T. 7N., R. 30E. The county has indicated to BLM that the land so described is county-owned through the tax revenue laws of the State of Nevada. If the purported ownership is of record, the conveyance of that tract is unnecessary. To eliminate the conveyance, lines 18-20 on page 2 would be deleted beginning with "the north half" and ending with "east."

H.R. 1540

The BLM Nevada State Office has reported that those parcels adjacent to State Highways 31 and 95 will require supplemental platting or resurvey to determine acreages. If existing survey data is adequate, supplemental plats could be prepared and approved in about. six months. If resurveys are required, a minimum of two years would be required before the resurvey could be accomplished and approved. Normally, a bill of this type specifies the total acreage involved. Therefore, we suggest that H.R. 10072 be amended to include the number of acres to be transferred.

On page 2, line 17, the phrase "all in" should be changed to "all of” to be technically correct.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no. objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN KYL,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Hon. JAMES A. HALEY,

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., June 9, 1970.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: By letter of November 17, 1975, you requested the views of the General Services Administration (GSA) on H.R. 10072, a bill "To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of General Services to convey certain public and acquired lands in the State of Nevada to the County of Mineral, Nevada.

The subject lands consist of approximately 2,420 acres comprosing a portion of the Navy Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada. Of these lands, there is a question concerning the title of 80 acres. Our staff will work with the Department of Interior to clarify this situation.

Since the majority of this property is under the Interior Department's jurisdiction, this agency defers to the views of that agency. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to. the submission of this report to your Committee.

Sincerely,

TERRY CHAMBERS,
Administrator.

О

H.R. 1540.

ELIMINATING A RESTRICTION ON USE OF CERTAIN LANDS PATENTED TO THE CITY OF HOBART, KIOWA, COUNTY, OKLA.

SEPTEMBER 14, 1976.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HALEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 12213]

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 12213) to eliminate a restriction on use of certain lands patented to the city of Hobart, Kiowa County, Okla., having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 12213, introduced by Mr. English, is to eliminate a restriction on the use of certain lands patented to the City of Hobart, Kiowa County, Oklahoma. A similar bill (S. 2004), differing only as to form, was approved by the Senate on April 27, 1976.

The lands involved are described as Block 10 of the original townsite of the City of Hobart, Oklahoma.

EXPLANATION

On January 23, 1929, pursuant to the Act of May 2, 1890, the United States issued a patent to the City of Hobart, Oklahoma, for Blocks 10 and 52 "each designated Reserved for School Purposes on the plat of Hobart townsite, approved July 26, 1901".

The Act of May 2, 1890, provided that all surveys for townsites in the former Territory of Oklahoma contain reservations for parks and school purposes.

Block 10 is no longer used for school purposes and the property is presently vacant.

The Board of Education desires to construct a new school on a tract of equal value and size which is presently owned by the City.