Mr. TURCOTT. My point on exchanges is that it is just one of the options. It could work in some cases especially if we can get the authority to exchange mineral interests and we can get the equalization authority I recommended to the other subcommittee of this full committee, 20 percent, by either party in cash equalization; if we can get tools like that to do it. Now when we are dealing with millions of tons of coal per section you can get up to several million dollars and 20 percent of that is a lot. But I think in terms of good appraisals, good technical data, I would not be afraid of it even if the Government were paying the railroad companies in a beneficial exchange 20 percent of equalizing value to get coal developed. Mr. STEIGER. My other question again for the record would be this; if you have such-if there is such a timeframe available specifically or if not then based on your own experience which I know is very, very broad in the area of exchange, what now in the States of Wyoming and Montana would be the average timeframe nonmineral exchange from the time an applicant files until the time the deed is transferred? I am not trying to put you-I think the committee is entitled to know what happens now with only surface rights. Mr. TURCOTT. It is pathetically slow, I admit it. The non-mineral exchange would probably take if there are no complications at all, and with all appraisals, probably 2.5 years. Now part of that is due to the fact, sir, that energy and energy development and the range management program are the two top program priorities. Lands cases and lands exchanges are way down in priority and we just do not move on them unless we have the program resources to do it. Mr. STEIGER. That jibes with my experiences. All right. So we will say 2 years for the sake of argument. Now on surface only. Is it in your opinion-and believe me I do not intend the record to reflect this as an absolute, it is not meant to be critical. In your opinion would exchange involving minerals of necessity taking a longer time than whatever the surface only exchange took? Mr. TURCOTT. Yes, if we are in the realm of exchanging anything over three, four, or five sections, a lot of it would be based on the availability of help from USGS to do the coring and the rest of it. But generally they take longer. In fact, some of them-they go many years, sir. Mr. STEIGER. I was going to say, I know one that involves minerals in which nobody has a particular interest in, but the minerals are there, but they are going the exchange route and it is in the 11th year. Mr. TURCOTT. I will not deny that. Mr. STEIGER. Again, no one is blaming anybody. It is just a fact. I do this because the Justice Department as the gentleman from Michigan stated, dramatically oversimplified exchanges as a viable alternative. That is why I have taken so much of your time and so much of the committee's time. I thank you for the record. Dr. Ross. I would like to say that the Department is concerned about the cost and the time that would be involved in exchanges of this sort so that exchanges are not the only alternative being considered as far as methods of dealing with the problems that we have of efficient development and getting fair market value for the checkerboard lands. And in the material that Mrs. Mink has put in the record, we say something about those other alternatives. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you. Mrs. MINK. The matters that are listed on page 5 and 6 as necessary information which you have not been able to secure but you are developing, and you give a long list of items, are being studied by what division in the Department of the Interior and when can the committee expect to have the reports with respect to each one of the items? Mr. TURCOTT. I said we would try to make them at least contemporary or at the same time as the finish of the report by the Department which would be not later than the end of the calendar year. Mrs. MINK. So by the reconvening on the 6th of January we could expect to have the report that Dr. Ross mentioned as well as this study which you are undertaking with respect to these other questions? Mr. TURCOTT. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. MINK. The 159 million acres which the railroads acquired as an inducement-you shook your head. Mr. TURCOTT. I listened to the chairman's statement of that figure and it does not jibe. I do not know where he got it. Mrs. MINK. What is your figure, sir? Mr. TURCOTT. Ours indicate that in gross up through 1914 which was about the end of the grants, it was 114.5 million acres in gross figures given. That does not mean that they own that much now. All the various land grant railroads do not. Mrs. MINK. 114 million acres is the figure that your Department has. Mr. TURCOTT. Yes. Mrs. MINK. Conveyances by the Federal Government to the railroads as an inducement to the development of the railroad transportation system? Mr. TURCOTT. All of the various land grant laws to the railroad for economic and development Mrs. MINK. These are not inclusive of the railroad beds themselves, are they? Is it exclusively those sections granted them that we are now discussing and not the railroad itself? Mr. TURCOTT. That is a good question. I would say it is the land. grant and not the right-of-way itself. Mrs. MINK. These grants of 114 million acres were made to the railroads in fee; were they not? Mr. TURCOTT. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. MINK. What percentage of these 114 million acres is now retained by the railroads to whom they were granted? Mr. TURCOTT. I do not know. I would have to get that Mrs. MINK. Are there any records currently available in the Department to respond to that question? Mr. TURCOTT. I do not know whether they are available in the Department but they are certainly available in the various lands and realty offices of the various land grant railroads and I think we can get them. I think they would cooperate. Mrs. MINK. I would like to have a response to that question. Mr. TURCOTT. All right. Mrs. MINK. It will be inserted without objection in the record. Mr. STEIGER. I do not ask for time to object, but I wonder if the gentlelady could advise the committee, the figure that we always use in our rhetoric and railing against the freebies for the railroad was 91 million acres. Would the gentlelady advise us where they arrived at the 114? Mrs. MINK. 159 million by the gentleman, Mr. Stafford, this morning; the gentleman, Mr. Turcott, says 114. I am trying to understand what the figure is and I am trying to get the sources and whether we are all talking about the same things. I am trying to determine just what it is. Mr. TURCOTT. Madam Chairman, I think you have put your finger on it, what exclusion, what qualifications are made? I am in error, it is 116.5 million, the figure I have. I will have to admit in our statistical report, the latest one we say 94 million. But I have always used 116 million. Mr. STEIGER. If the gentlelady would yield further. Mr. STEIGER. George, would you Mr. TURCOTT. Madam Chairman, this lady is Doris Koivula, one of the ladies I introduced and she has some information on this subject. Ms. KOIVULA. Madam Chairman, in 1914 the report showed an estimated acreage of the grant as being 159 million acres. Mr. TURCOTT. Estimated. Ms. KOIVULA. Estimated. The number of acres actually certified or patented as of June 30, 1914, was 116,500,000 acres. Now that includes all the railroads. Mrs. MINK. What happened? Where was the slippage? Mr. STEIGER. Wow. That is something. Well, Madam Chairman, maybe the lady can verify this, too. The original grant was fairly broad. What it included in addition to right of way and lands for inducement was also the right to ballast and wood and so forth for a specific area outside of each of the grant areas. I would not be surprised if a combination of right-of-way, the lands-in-fee for inducement plus the right of access for resources ended up with the-that is why we get the variety of figures. So I think the gentlelady is right, somewhere we ought to have a common figure that we can all agree on. Mrs. MINK. Might we request at this point in the record a detailed explanation of each of these figures and how they were arrived at, and, as current as possible, a figure as to exactly what the railroads were finally patented in fees as an inducement for them to develop the railroad system exclusive of the lands being used by the railroads for the system itself? Mr. TURCOTT. Exclusive of the lands-OK. We will do the best we can. Mrs. MINK. I would also specifically request that the subcommittee be informed of the exact fee held today by the railroads of these lands. In other words, what remains now in the so-called checkerboard system owned by the railroads in fee? The third question is, what is their current ownership of the mineral interests? The last question is, what are their holdings now with repsect to coal in these lands? Mr. TURCOTT. Madam, I am willing to take on the charge and the responsibility you have given us. I would point out that this is a matter of a private company's internal record and if they do not wish to give it to us, they do not have to. But I will make an attempt to do it. [Information referred to follows:] Federally owned lands, including coal lands west of the 100° meridian were patented to the Burlington Northern, Union Pacific, and Santa Fe railroads under the Douglas Act of 1850, and subsequent land grant Acts. These Acts generally provided for grants of certain sections on either side of the rail line beyond the western-most existing tracks, to encourage completion of a transcontinental rail system. Originally, the railroads were patented the even-numbered sections on either side of the tracks for a distance of usually six to eight miles. Later, the grants were changed to the odd-numbered sections. In some areas, settlers had already squatted on the lands granted to the railroads, in anticipation of the commerce and other activity they expected to be generated by the railroad. To compensate the railroads for lands lost in this manner, the primary grants were supplemented by indemnities, granting the railroads land beyond the primary grants, up to a limit which varied from railroad to railroad. Some of the lands patented to the railroads were rich in coal. No exact figures are available. However, the attached map provides a basis for estimating the amount of the coal obtained by the Burlington Northern, Union Pacific, and Santa Fe railroads, by tracking the coal lands which each of them received under the land grant Acts. As shown by the legend on the map, approximately 9,024,000 acres of coal lands have been granted to the three named companies. In answer to specific questions raised at this hearing: We cannot estimate the tonnage and value in railroad lands since we do not know the location of the railroad retained mineral rights. Coal tonnage and value on interspersed Federal lands could be estimated, but it would be a tremendous task requiring an extensive field mapping and evaluation program. Nor can we estimate the percentage of national coal or western coal which is railroad owned or national, western or railroad coal which is locked within the checkerboard— and for the same reason. Since the location and acreage involved in any proposed exchange of Federal for railroad coal lands are not known, it is impossible to estimate the manpower or years necessary to complete evaluation work. However, we estimate that the cost per acre for such evaluation would average $200. Coal land granted to railroads: 2 Burlington Northern-405 miles 3 times 20 sections/mile sections.5 4 equals 8,100 Union Pacific-255 miles 3 times 20 sections/mile equals 5,100 sections.5 Number of acres of coal land granted equals 9,024,000 acres. 2 All measurements are approximate. 3 Number of miles of railroad passing through coal lands. Number of odd-numbered sections of land adjacent to rail line and granted to railroad for each mile in length of rail tracks. This number reflects the maximum potential size of grants to the railroad, based on primary plus indemnity grant, not amount of land actually received by railroad. 5 Total number of sections of coal land potentially granted to railroad. 1 section=1 square mile. 1 square mile=640 acres. 14,100 × 640 9,024,000 acres. 64-261-76- -7 |