Public Land Layer Cake

[Bejay]

A couple years ago I was enlightened by a presentation by Hal on the radio broadcast "Behind the Woodshed".
It was titled: "Public Land Layer Cake".

I transcribed it and posted the presentation on the old GPAA forum. I now post it here so that miners can realize what "Public Domain" is. I was clueless after mining for over 25 years and this one presentation led me down a path of knowledge that I believe every miner/prospector ought to have.

Here it is:


The understanding of the issue of Public Domain and Public Lands appears to be the base by which an understanding can begin. From this point I believe we can begin to comprehend all the different layers of authoritative mining/land issues. So this appears to be a must learning/understanding point.


WOODSHED PARAPHRASING:

KNOWING ABOUT THE SOIL/LAND THAT IS UNDER YOUR FEET AND WHO POSSESSES IT AND WHO CONTROLS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

NOTE! THERE IS ACTUALLY ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE REMAINED FREE FOR A TALENT: THE MINER. THIS IS A RESULT OF THE MINERAL ESTATE GRANT AND PUBLIC DOMAIN PER THE 1872 MINING LAW ACT.

SO THIS BRINGS ON A CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD: PUBLIC DOMAIN.

WOODSHED QUOTE:
"PUBLIC LAND IS THAT GENERAL UNAPPROPRIATED LAND THAT THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT LAWS APPLY"

"PUBLIC DOMAIN IS THAT WHICH IS EITHER DETERMINED BY OTHER CONGRSSIONAL ACTS AS SPECIFIC USE OR IS ACCEPTED FOR SPECIFIC USE; SUCH AS THE MINING LAW....THAT GRANTS EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OVER THE SURFACE OF A VALUABLE MINERAL DEPOSIT CLAIM, OR AS IN THE 1866 ACT SECT 8: GRANTS THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS. NO OTHER EXPRESSED RESTRICTIONS APPL. A VERY FASCINATING OPEN GRANT."

PARAPHRASING:
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY STARTS AND WHERE IT MUST STOP.....AND WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY CAN BE CONDITIONED AND WHERE THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE ADMIN MUST CEASE.
REMEMBER THERE IS A "PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT" NOT A "PUBLIC DOMAIN MANAGEMENT ACT"

SO LET US UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN VS PUBLIC LANDS. WE WILL START AT THE VERY BOTTOM.....THE ROOT OF THE TREE IF YOU WILL:

PUBLIC DOMAIN IS DISPOSED TO PRIVATE USE.......ANYTHING DISPOSED IS PUBLIC DOMAIN

1ST..BOTTOM LAYER ....ALL DISPOSED LANDS WHICH IS PUBLIC DOMAIN.
2ND...LAYER ABOVE...... IS PUBLIC LANDS

IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE LAYER ABOVE CAN NOT TOUCH THE LAYER BELOW.

3RD LAYER....................PUBLIC LANDS CAN BE FURTHER DESIGNATED AS OTHER NAMES THAT BUILD ON TOP OF THESE PUBLIC LANDS THAT HAVE THEIR DISTINCT ADMINISTRATION DELEGATED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTEREIOR/BLM. HOWEVER THERE HAVE BEEN SOME RESERVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT WE KNOW AS FOREST RESERVES OR NATIONAL FOREST LANDS; THE CURRENT VERNACULAR IS.

SO WE HAVE PUBLIC DOMAIN & PUBLIC LANDS & ANY OTHER LAYER THAT SUB-DIVIDES THE AUTHIOITY

& THEN EVEN

AQUIRED LANDS...WHERE THE U.S. GOV. GOES BACK AND ACUTALLY PURCHASES IT. THE MINARD CASE OF 2009 IS A PRIME EXAMPLE: WHERE THE GOV APPROPRIATED $$$ FOR THE USFS TO BUY SURFACE RIGTHS/MINERAL RIGHTS FROM THE ENTRYMAN MINERAL LANDOWNER. THIS IS A BACK EAST CASE. THIS IS A VERY FASCINATING CASE BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS THE LIMITED POWER OF GOVERNMENT; BEING ONLY WON EVEN WHERE THEY OWN THE TITLE, AND HAVING TO AQUIRE IT BY PURCHASE, TO THAT OF A NORMAL PROPERTY OWNER.

& THEN WE STILL HAVE:

THERE IS ANOTHER PUBLIC LAND THAT IS DESCRIBED AS FED LANDS BUT IS SPLIT ESTATE LANDS WHERE THE FEDS HAVE GRANTED PART OF THE FED LAND AWAY. TYPICALLY THIS IS THE HOMESTEAD ACT WHERE THEY GOT ONLY THE SURFACE FOR STOCK GRAZING AND SUCH. WHERE YOU GET THE SURFACE BUT NOT THE MINERALS. THE MINERALS WERE ALWAYS RESERVED FOREVER AND SO THESE ARE "SPLIT ESTATE LANDS" AND THESE ARE UNDER YET A DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.
THEN YOU HAVE LANDS THAT ARE TO BE DISPOSED OF CONTINUALLY, THAT ARE MINERAL IN CHARACTER, BUT ARE TO BE DISPOSABLE LANDS....THOSE LANDS ARE UNDER A DIFFERENT PROVISION OF THE LAW FOR MANAGEMENT. THOSE ARE MINERAL LANDS BUT THEY ARE NOT "GRANTED" LANDS.

AND SO YOU FIND THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANDS; THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT AND YOU HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF THEM; AND WHEN THE MINERS COME IN THEY COME IN ON THE VERY BOTTOM: THE "PUBLIC DOMAIN". THE HWYS ARE EVEN ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. NOT EVEN THE AGENCIES CAN STEP DOWN TO STEP ON IT OR CONTROL IT.
BUT YET WE HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO DO SO......BECAUSE WE REMAIN SILENT!
END OF PARAPHRASE BEHIND THE WOODSHED.
=============================================================
ALSO!
WHEN THINKING OF THE MINERAL ESTATE GRANT....HOW IS THE WORD "GRANT" CLEAR AND UNDERSTOOD? PER MY OWN PHRASE: THE GRANT IS THE RESULT OF A CONGRESSIONAL ACT FOR A SPECIFIC USE THAT CONVEYS PUBLIC LAND INTO PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR THAT USE AND POSSESSION.

I believe this will afford people the ability to begin to go down the path of understanding.

Bejay

Proud of my generation and never to old to learn

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[rodoconnor]

Thanks Bejay. It wouldn't hurt most miner's to take a basic real estate class to get an understanding of the concept of " bunldle of rights"

 

[Jeff95531]

Thanks for the post Bejay. I tried to research that myself but got too dammed confused and I wasn't even halfway through. I have heard (and seen) where the USFS has purchased private land and fenced it completely...not even a gate in one case. If they know how and when to do something like that...we should be aware of all those layers.

 

[goldenIrishman]

More good info Bejay! I have to agree with Rod as well about the basic real estate classes being handy info. Many people are under the impression that when they buy a piece of land that the water and mineral rights are part of the deal. THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE!!!! Let me give you an example here:

I grew up in a small town in San Diego County that was pretty rural when we moved in. My parents wanted to put in a well and were shocked to find out that the local water district demanded that a meter be installed if it was hooked up to the house. It turns out that they had blanket water rights for the entire valley!!! Even if we paid to have the well drilled and 98% of the water used would be going right back into the ground because we were on a septic system, they were going to charge us at the same rate as those hooked up to their water supply system. That was an eye opener for me even at that young age.

I feel that the current system of land designation is intentionally convoluted to keep the average person mystified. Many a miner have been able to unravel the mystery while many others have no understanding of how the system works. With government agencies "Sharing" control of different lands, it's easy to understand how a person could get very confused and find themselves in a situation that makes them want to give up on mining.

Knowledge is our most potent weapon when fighting uncaring government employees. By us knowing the laws, rules and regulations better than they do it[s much harder for them to keep the wool over our eyes.

 

[Bejay]

Interesting that you mention water. If one studies the mining laws one will see that on public lands open to mineral entry the water is granted for use by the miner. If one studies further one will also find that when the Western States were given Statehood the Federal government did NOT give the water rights to the States....they belong to the public and are retained by the Federal Government as belonging to the public.

At the time of Statehood the western states were GIVEN the right to manage the water for the equitable use for the public. That is a limited authority. In reality this issue is basic to mining law(s).

I'll let Clay expand on how mineral rights and other exclusive rights are conveyed by title. It all goes back to "PATENT".

Bejay

 

[2cmorau]

Bejay thanks for taken the time putting this together
i tried to listen to Hal behind the woodshed broadcast but always got lost

 

[Bejay]

A couple years ago I was enlightened by a presentation by Hal on the radio broadcast "Behind the Woodshed".
It was titled: "Public Land Layer Cake".

I transcribed it and posted the presentation on the old GPAA forum. I now post it here so that miners can realize what "Public Domain" is. I was clueless after mining for over 25 years and this one presentation led me down a path of knowledge that I believe every miner/prospector ought to have.

Here it is:


The understanding of the issue of Public Domain and Public Lands appears to be the base by which an understanding can begin. From this point I believe we can begin to comprehend all the different layers of authoritative mining/land issues. So this appears to be a must learning/understanding point.


WOODSHED PARAPHRASING:

KNOWING ABOUT THE SOIL/LAND THAT IS UNDER YOUR FEET AND WHO POSSESSES IT AND WHO CONTROLS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

NOTE! THERE IS ACTUALLY ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE REMAINED FREE FOR A TALENT: THE MINER. THIS IS A RESULT OF THE MINERAL ESTATE GRANT AND PUBLIC DOMAIN PER THE 1872 MINING LAW ACT.

SO THIS BRINGS ON A CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD: PUBLIC DOMAIN.

WOODSHED QUOTE:
"PUBLIC LAND IS THAT GENERAL UNAPPROPRIATED LAND THAT THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT LAWS APPLY"

"PUBLIC DOMAIN IS THAT WHICH IS EITHER DETERMINED BY OTHER CONGRSSIONAL ACTS AS SPECIFIC USE OR IS ACCEPTED FOR SPECIFIC USE; SUCH AS THE MINING LAW....THAT GRANTS EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OVER THE SURFACE OF A VALUABLE MINERAL DEPOSIT CLAIM, OR AS IN THE 1866 ACT SECT 8: GRANTS THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS. NO OTHER EXPRESSED RESTRICTIONS APPL. A VERY FASCINATING OPEN GRANT."

PARAPHRASING:
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY STARTS AND WHERE IT MUST STOP.....AND WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY CAN BE CONDITIONED AND WHERE THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE ADMIN MUST CEASE.
REMEMBER THERE IS A "PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT" NOT A "PUBLIC DOMAIN MANAGEMENT ACT"

SO LET US UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN VS PUBLIC LANDS. WE WILL START AT THE VERY BOTTOM.....THE ROOT OF THE TREE IF YOU WILL:

PUBLIC DOMAIN IS DISPOSED TO PRIVATE USE.......ANYTHING DISPOSED IS PUBLIC DOMAIN

1ST..BOTTOM LAYER ....ALL DISPOSED LANDS WHICH IS PUBLIC DOMAIN.
2ND...LAYER ABOVE...... IS PUBLIC LANDS

IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE LAYER ABOVE CAN NOT TOUCH THE LAYER BELOW.

3RD LAYER....................PUBLIC LANDS CAN BE FURTHER DESIGNATED AS OTHER NAMES THAT BUILD ON TOP OF THESE PUBLIC LANDS THAT HAVE THEIR DISTINCT ADMINISTRATION DELEGATED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTEREIOR/BLM. HOWEVER THERE HAVE BEEN SOME RESERVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT WE KNOW AS FOREST RESERVES OR NATIONAL FOREST LANDS; THE CURRENT VERNACULAR IS.

SO WE HAVE PUBLIC DOMAIN & PUBLIC LANDS & ANY OTHER LAYER THAT SUB-DIVIDES THE AUTHIOITY

& THEN EVEN

AQUIRED LANDS...WHERE THE U.S. GOV. GOES BACK AND ACUTALLY PURCHASES IT. THE MINARD CASE OF 2009 IS A PRIME EXAMPLE: WHERE THE GOV APPROPRIATED $$$ FOR THE USFS TO BUY SURFACE RIGTHS/MINERAL RIGHTS FROM THE ENTRYMAN MINERAL LANDOWNER. THIS IS A BACK EAST CASE. THIS IS A VERY FASCINATING CASE BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS THE LIMITED POWER OF GOVERNMENT; BEING ONLY WON EVEN WHERE THEY OWN THE TITLE, AND HAVING TO AQUIRE IT BY PURCHASE, TO THAT OF A NORMAL PROPERTY OWNER.

& THEN WE STILL HAVE:

THERE IS ANOTHER PUBLIC LAND THAT IS DESCRIBED AS FED LANDS BUT IS SPLIT ESTATE LANDS WHERE THE FEDS HAVE GRANTED PART OF THE FED LAND AWAY. TYPICALLY THIS IS THE HOMESTEAD ACT WHERE THEY GOT ONLY THE SURFACE FOR STOCK GRAZING AND SUCH. WHERE YOU GET THE SURFACE BUT NOT THE MINERALS. THE MINERALS WERE ALWAYS RESERVED FOREVER AND SO THESE ARE "SPLIT ESTATE LANDS" AND THESE ARE UNDER YET A DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.
THEN YOU HAVE LANDS THAT ARE TO BE DISPOSED OF CONTINUALLY, THAT ARE MINERAL IN CHARACTER, BUT ARE TO BE DISPOSABLE LANDS....THOSE LANDS ARE UNDER A DIFFERENT PROVISION OF THE LAW FOR MANAGEMENT. THOSE ARE MINERAL LANDS BUT THEY ARE NOT "GRANTED" LANDS.

AND SO YOU FIND THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANDS; THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT AND YOU HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF THEM; AND WHEN THE MINERS COME IN THEY COME IN ON THE VERY BOTTOM: THE "PUBLIC DOMAIN". THE HWYS ARE EVEN ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. NOT EVEN THE AGENCIES CAN STEP DOWN TO STEP ON IT OR CONTROL IT.
BUT YET WE HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO DO SO......BECAUSE WE REMAIN SILENT!
END OF PARAPHRASE BEHIND THE WOODSHED.
=============================================================
ALSO!
WHEN THINKING OF THE MINERAL ESTATE GRANT....HOW IS THE WORD "GRANT" CLEAR AND UNDERSTOOD? PER MY OWN PHRASE: THE GRANT IS THE RESULT OF A CONGRESSIONAL ACT FOR A SPECIFIC USE THAT CONVEYS PUBLIC LAND INTO PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR THAT USE AND POSSESSION.

I believe this will afford people the ability to begin to go down the path of understanding.

Bejay

Proud of my generation and never to old to learn

It took endless hours listening to this presentation and trying to get it in written format. It takes time for a miner to understand some of the basic premises of mining law. But I believe it all begins with understanding the Words in all relevant laws/policies/rules/regs.

We tend to skip over words that have little meaning.......and most often we fail to truly know the meaning of words. Then we must also look to see what the meaning of a word was when such laws as the 1872 Mining Law was written. In law WORDS mean everything.

 

[Bejay]

The distinction between “public land” and “public domain”

Any interpretation of mining law requires that it be read “para materia”, interpreted all together. The definition given
to distinguish the difference between “public land” and “public domain”, citing the Congressional Record of October
2000, page 1885-1866, states, “2. The true nature of ‘‘public lands.’’ ‘‘Public Lands’’ are ‘‘lands open to sale or other
dispositions under general laws, lands to which no claim or rights of others have attached.’’ “The United States
Supreme Court has stated: It is well settled that all land to which any claim or rights of others has attached does not
fall within the designation of public lands.’’ In additional support we add from the same record, “The courts have
repeatedly held that when a lawful possession of the public lands has been taken, these lands are no longer
available to the public and are therefore no longer public lands. Possession of the mineral estate in public lands
could be lawfully taken under the mining acts. Where valid mining claims exist, that land is no longer public land.”
The “public land” that is disposed by claims under the act of 1872 is public domain as stated in that Act, reference
“USC 30 § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment: The locators of all mining locations made on any
mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain. . .”
The “public land” has many potential uses, until disposed. The FLPMA, conveniently recognizes two general Uses,
“Specific Use” and “Special Use”. A valuable mineral deposit location is a specific use on public domain, not a
special use of “public land” such as is regulated by 43 CFR 3809. Reference the Act of May 10, 1872, amending the
Act of 1870 and the 1866 mining law clause 1, after “granting” or 30 USC 22, locatable minerals are not mining
claims on “public land” but mineral deposits, 30 USC 22, on public domain, 30 USC 26.
30 USC § 22. Lands open to purchase by citizens
Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed
and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found
to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to
become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the
several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.
-R.S. Sec. 2319 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 91.
USC 30 § 26. Locators’ rights of possession and enjoyment
The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain,
their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with
the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the
United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all
the surface included within the lines of their locations,
-R.S. § 2322 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, § 3, 17 Stat. 91.
The mechanics of what happens to the “public land” once found to be mineral in character is expressly evidenced in
the Organic Act of 1897, that “any public lands embraced within the limits of any forest reservation which. . . .”
“...shall be found better adapted for mining or for agricultural purposes than for forest usage, may be restored to the
public domain.” By private settlement under various land disposal laws of the United States, such as the Mining Law
of 1872, “public land” is restored to the public domain. The federal agencies have management authority only over “
public land”, not privately settled public domain. The act of location, restores the land to public domain and the minin
g law provides the locator of such segregation “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of
all the surface included within the lines of their locations,
-R.S. ｧ 2322 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, ｧ 3, 17 Stat. 91.”
Federal mining claims are "private property"
Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 10
3 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F. Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973).
“ but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes
of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent."
Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445.
In complete concurrence, the Congressional Record of October 23, 2000, states, “Federal rules and regulations
cannot extinguish property which derives from state law”. State law acknowledges at “ORS 517.080 Mining claims
as realty. All mining claims, whether quartz or placer, are real estate. The owner of the possessory right thereto
has a legal estate therein within the meaning of ORS 105.005”.
Mineral deposit claims and the property thereon and livelihood therefrom may not be tampered with, or denied
protection of government which property and livelihood shall not suffer impairment or interference. Setting the
required boundaries of a mining claim literally sets a boundary describing land separate and distinct from agency
authority placing the claim under the exclusive authority and jurisdiction of the locator. And this interest is stated, as
case law and Forest Service Manual details, at: FSM 2813 - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF CLAIMANTS; 2813.1
- Rights of Claimants
By location and entry, in compliance with the 1872 act, a claimant acquires certain rights against other
citizens and against the United States (FSM 2811).
By clear and identical language, Congress has stated in the Organic Act of June 4, 1897, the Eastern Forests
(Week’s) Act of 1911, and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, that there was no intention to retain federal jurisdiction
over private interests within national forests. The courts have consistently upheld the ruling in Kansas v. Colorado
since 1907.
The rights the locator maintains exclusive possession even against the government, including all agencies, must be
preserved, “saved”, in every land disposal act subsequent to the original granting act of 1866, including the FLPMA.
Those rights include that the locator of a valuable mineral deposit, “shall have the exclusive right of possession
and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations.” The courts declared possessory
title in 1864 before the grant itself. This grant is exclusive conveying permanent, title, as good as patent, such that
the title shall not be affected by the paramount or trust title of the United Stated, referencing 30 USC 53, that “No
possessory action between persons, in any court of the United States, for the recovery of any mining title, or for
damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land in which such mines lie is
in the United States; but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession”. The existence of valid existing
rights by relation back of the granting act of July 26, 1866 disposing the uncommon mineral estate held in trust are
required to be “saved” in subsequent acts as a “specific use” of the public domain to the Locator. This mineral estate
is treated like any other granted property, the contract of which a grantor in this case Congress, or by agency,
treated as a mere proprietor may not breach.
It must be noted, referring to the italicized emphasis in both Section 22 and 26 above, that the former referencing
“regulations prescribed” and the latter the “the laws of the United States...”“and local regulations” are only those
laws and regulations relevant and “governing their possessory title”. This was a miner's law for miners. The only
“regulation authority” retained by the federal government, was that oversight authority in dutifully disposing the soil
pursuant to the various grants, to avoid such things as fraudulent public land entry, not to regulate the uses thereby
those disposal acts.
Despite current Agency rhetoric to the contrary, and fraudulently so, the FLPMA contains many savings provision
eliminating agency authority over uncommon mineral deposits and other rights, such as ingress and egress, and
water, or obligations, such as livelihood. Those are as found referencing the:
Short Title Of 1988 Amendment “Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976'." SAVINGS PROVISION
Section 701 of Pub. L. 94-579 provided that: "(a) Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act [see
Short Title note above], shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other
land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act [Oct. 21, 1976” “"(f) Nothing in this
Act shall be deemed to repeal any existing law by implication. "(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States or - "(1) as affecting in any way any law
governing appropriation or use of, or Federal right to, water on public lands; "(2) as expanding or diminishing
Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in water resources development or control; ” “"(h)
All actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights. ”
Amplifying with particularity upon the previous list of withheld authorities under the FLPMA, 43 USC 1732, as found
in annotation, the “Section Referred To In Other Sections” following Section 22 printed above, constraining
agency authority further, consistent with the previously mentioned Savings Provisions of which all enforcement
provisions such as 43 USC 1733 are subject, we find:
ｧ 1732. Management of use, occupancy, and development of public lands
(a) Multiple use and sustained yield requirements applicable; exception
“. . . . except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any
other provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with such law.
(b) Easements, permits, etc., for utilization through habitation, cultivation, and development of small trade
or manufacturing concerns; applicable statutory requirements


Bejay