Opinion ID: 780329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Congressional Debate Concerning the Mineral Reservation

Text: 34 Congress — including Senator Pittman, the sponsor of the Act that bears his name — discussed at length the scope of the mineral reservation in the Pittman Act. See Williams, 140 I.B.L.A. at 304-13 (discussing the voluminous history of the Pittman Act); see also Kalvinskas v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., 96 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir.1996) (giving substantial weight to statements made by a bill's sponsor). Excerpts of the debates on this issue reveal that the mineral reservation was the product of a legislative compromise, without which the bill likely would not have passed. 35 During debates on the bill, Senator Thomas from Colorado moved for an amendment to remove the mineral reservation. 54 Cong. Rec. S707. Senator Pittman responded: 36 [B]efore the Senator does that, I trust that he will consider the matter for a minute. This bill, as it was originally prepared by me, did not contain that reservation. When a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, at my request, it met with serious opposition on the very ground that it might be used for the purpose of grabbing mineral lands. 37 There was not the slightest chance on earth of passing such a bill through the House of Representatives if there was the slightest suspicion that the bill could be used for the purpose of acquiring mineral lands under the guise of obtaining agricultural lands. This reservation from all characters of agricultural entries is usual; and, without discussing the question of whether or not it is a good provision, I must say that it is the policy of Congress, as I see it, not to permit the acquisition of any character of minerals through any agricultural entry. 38 Id. (emphasis added). 39 Senator Pittman urged Senator Thomas to withdraw his amendment, for fear that its inclusion would destroy the bill. Id. Senator Thomas continued to insist that patentees who prospect for water should be allowed to retain any minerals that they find. Id. Senator Pittman explained that the Government by this bill reserves those minerals. It segregates them from the lands primarily granted for agricultural purposes. Id. Senator Thomas countered with the suggestion that the bill should provide for the acquisition of complete-title to 640 acres as a reward for developing its subterranean water courses. Id. Senator Pittman replied: 40 I would favor that if I thought it would pass the bill; but I am confident that the inclusion of any such right in this grant would mean the destruction of the bill. 41 . . . . 42 ... [I]f the Senator's amendment carries[,] the bill will die; and I certainly would rather have what I can get for the people of our State than to stand here on a technical question trying to get more, with the probability of losing all. 43 Id. 44 The amendment was rejected, and the mineral reservation to the United States remained. This portion of the debate suggests that, without the reservation, the House would not have passed the bill. Senator Pittman did not limit the reservation. Rather, he spoke about it quite broadly. Emphasizing the agricultural nature of grants under the Act, Senator Pittman understood the bill to separate the mineral estate entirely — any character of minerals — and reserve it to the government. Finally, this piece of history is instructive because it appears that Senator Thomas' view of the mineral rights as a reward for water prospectors was not shared by a majority of the Congress. 45 Later, the issue of the mineral reservation resurfaced in the House. 58 Cong. Rec. H6469 (1919). Representative Blanton moved to reserve the mineral rights of the Government. Id. This colloquy ensued: 46 Mr. KINKAID: They are reserved. 47 Mr. EVANS: They are already reserved. 48 Mr. BLANTON: The way I caught the bill it just spoke of the lands as nonmineral lands. Many lands classified as nonmineral and nonagricultural lands are, as a matter of fact, mineral and agricultural in some instances. 49 MR. TAYLOR: Those reservations are made now by general law. It is not necessary to put that in. You can not get oil land by homesteading nowadays. 50 Mr. BLANTON: It is all reserved? 51 Mr. TAYLOR: Yes. 52 Mr. BLANTON: These lands come under the general reservation? 53 Mr. TAYLOR: Yes. 54 Mr. BLANTON: These homesteads to-day do not contain any oil? 55 Mr. TAYLOR: When you get a homestead, you do not get any oil under it. The oil that may be underneath it is reserved. 56 . . . . 57 Mr. BLANTON: If the mineral rights are properly reserved, I have no objection. 58 Mr. EVANS: They are properly reserved. 59 Id. (emphasis added). 60 Again, the reservation was discussed without reference to any limitation. More importantly, this portion of the debate demonstrates that Congress was doubtless aware that the characterization of lands as nonmineral did not mean that those lands contained no minerals. Rather, it meant that the land was chiefly valuable for resources other than minerals. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 188 U.S. at 534, 23 S.Ct. 365; see also Union Oil, 549 F.2d at 1274-76 (discussing the history of characterizing public lands as mineral or nonmineral). 61 The breadth of the reservation of mineral rights discussed in the legislative history supports the government's position: Congress did not intend to convey any mineral rights to patentees under the Act. However, neither the cases construing the SRHA, nor the floor debates on the Pittman Act, shed any light on whether the term valuable significantly limits the reservation. We move next to a discussion of the meaning of the term valuable in this context. 62