January 14, 1983
After careful consideration, I have determined, for the reasons stated below, to withhold my
approval of H.R. 9. I regret that this action is necessary, because I support the designation of
additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System in the State of Florida, as recommended
by the Administration and set forth in this bill. My Administration has proposed almost two
million acres of land for designation as wilderness and the unique natural habitat designated in
H.R. 9 would be particularly valuable additions to the national wilderness system.
Although H.R. 9 is intended to resolve an issue that has been in contention during three prior
Administrations, it does so in a way that is unnecessarily costly to the Federal taxpayer. Because
of administrative actions taken earlier this week by the Secretary of the Interior, my disapproval
of this legislation will not have the effect of permitting phosphate mining to proceed in the
Osceola National Forest. I do not object to legislative efforts to preclude phosphate mining in the
Osceola National Forest. I do object, however, to the provisions of this bill that would vest
previously contingent property rights in certain mining companies. This could require the Federal
government to pay those mining companies as much as $200 million for those property rights --
rights that, absent this legislation, might not otherwise have existed.
Specifically, this bill attempts to convey to several mining companies the rights to, and value from,
41 preference right lease applications for deposits of phosphates underlying the Osceola National
Forest. Under present law, these mining companies are entitled to these mining leases only if the
Secretary of the Interior determines that the phosphate deposits underlying this land are valuable
deposits. H.R. 9 would establish property rights to the leases in specific companies by requiring
the Secretary of the Interior, and ultimately the courts, to judge the lease applications without
reference to the cost of compliance with current applicable statutory and regulatory requirements
for environmental protection. Such requirements include those established under the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. Hence, under this
legislation, the determination of whether these phosphate deposits are ``valuable'' would not take
into consideration the cost of returning the Osceola National Forest lands to their natural state as
required by current law.
This Administration is opposed to a policy of conveying interests in public resources by waiving
applicable statutory requirements that are designed to protect the environment.
Moreover, having required the mineral rights to be conveyed to the companies by the Secretary of
the Interior, this bill would then prohibit mining on the leases and require the Federal government
to purchase the conveyed lease rights back from the companies. Thus, the bill would, in effect,
force Federal purchase of rights that under current law would remain in Federal ownership in the
first place.
Analyses available to the Department of the Interior indicate that no current technology is capable
of returning the mined lands to the reclamation standards required by current Federal laws and
regulations. The Department of the Interior is faced with an administrative record regarding
restoration that demonstrates that the applicant mining companies cannot meet the valuable
deposit test required by current law for lease issuance. Consequently, the Secretary of the Interior
has advised me that, based on that administrative record, mining should not now take place in the
Osceola National Forest, and that he has rejected the preference right lease applications.
However, because H.R. 9 specifies a less strenuous standard than current law, the lease applicants
would most likely be found to have met the valuable deposit test were this measure to become
law. The Department of the Interior would then have to determine the fair market value of the
interests and extend monetary credits to the lease applicants. Further, though the bill provides that
the fair market value is to be determined by taking into account all environmental laws, any
Secretarial action valuing these leases in a way adverse to the applicants' expectations would
likely result in costly litigation, and the possible recovery in the United States Claims Court of
payments to these companies for loss of their ``rights'' in public resources to which they would not
be entitled absent this legislation.
The administrative decision process, necessary under current law to resolve this issue, is being
brought to conclusion under my Administration. To the extent that further litigation is entered
into on this issue, it should be decided under current law applicable to all similar cases.
Ronald Reagan
The White House,
January 14, 1983.