years. Then came the great upheaval and the Rocky Mountains were born. Since all this disturbance came after the phosphate was deposited, the phosphate also was disturbed, resulting in tremendous faulting, folding, and erosion. Therefore, our mining problems are truly unique as illustrated in exhibit 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 overburden 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 pulling 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 what we called the Salt Lake formation.

You have heard much discussion about Senate 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 debris from the hills above. Therefore, we hunt for this bed below or this bed above which we call marker 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 section here from your mind for a moment I would like to point out that we will not find this same sort of structure back a quarter of mile or a half mile or a mile. It will be completely different.

Senator CHURCH. May I just ask at that point, it follows that, since the ore lays in different patterns, you cannot know where you are going to mine until you have drilled exploratory holes?

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 will be involved in the total operation?

Mr. POWER. That is correct.

Senator CHURCH. Thank you.

Mr. POWER. Therefore, exploration is difficult and requires freedom 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 consideration the complexities of our mining conditions.

PAST ACTIVITIES OF THE PHOSPHATE LANDS CONFERENCE 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 had 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 which we felt achieved the desired results of mined land reclamation without the unnecessary interference of the Federal Government in our methods of prospecting and mining.

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 arguing with the objectives of mined land reclamation-it was the proposed method to which we objected.

In December of 1966 when the conference submitted its proposed regulations, a copy of which is submitted as exhibit D, the Department 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 of proposed regulations published by the Department of the Interior which completely ignored our prior comments and our proposed regulations.

Once more in December of 1967 we journeyed to Washington to again meet with the Department of the Interior. Our regulations were resubmitted, together with our explanation of 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 bills 3126 and 3132, it is perhaps 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 exhibit 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 comments and proposals have been largely ignored by the Department of the Interior. That we should be so ignored is of great concern to 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 difficult profession. The good Lord gave us our minerals, but he failed to include a set of instructions with each property. All proposed regulations to date assume that in advance of exploration and mining the entire leased acreage, we can predetermine

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 location 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 equipment to be used for exploration, development, and extractive opera

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 regulations.

The difficulties of mining and reclamation go hand in hand. Restoring the land in our case is much more difficult than restoring the land on a flat 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 waters. 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 pharmaceuticals.

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 Secretary 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. FINCH. I will, Mr. Chairman. I would add that I think it has been acknowledged in official conferences with the representatives present here today.

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 industry, 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 situation in Florida and in other places in mind where the mining problems are entirely different. This is what occasioned the alarm in the western industry. A case has been stated here showing that the proposed 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 acknowledged by the Department, but I think it is necessary for the Department 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 arguments of the western industry against whatever counterargument in fact 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.