We also are putting together a non-Federal organization which will be chaired by Dr. Nolan of the USGS in which we will coordinate all the water data that are gathered by the State agencies and private institutions, et cetera, again to have it where it will be available for everybody to use.

Another area of the Survey, is the conservation of minerals, the mineral and water power classification on the public lands, and the supervision of operations under the Mineral Leasing Act.

We are striving to complete the classification of the withdrawn lands for their mineral and waterpower value. You can see that this is geologic mapping in the aid of land classification. In mineral classification, for phosphate, potash, sodium, and coal, you can see the acres that have to be classified and those that we have classified since July of 1960. We have been quite active in the potash area due to the fact that the demand for the commodity has been quite extensive recently. For coal we have a tremendous area to classify, but most of the coal production up to now has been on nonpublic lands, so therefore the need for urgent reclassifiaction on public lands has not gone forward as fast as that for potash. However, with the new coalfields being developed in the Western States, in the four corners area, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah, we have stepped up our classification. In that region, as you can see from the area on the map, we have an active project of coal classification in New Mexico. We have an active area also of potash in southern New Mexico. We have phosphate classification in Montana. These are the more active projects that we are working on right now.

Now, in land classification for water power and reservoir sites, you will notice that the withdrawals and classifications reviewed from the period 1956 to 1965 totaled over a million acres. And out of this million acres we recommended a revocation of approximately 573,000 acres, in other words, making this land available once again for all types of use by the public.

We have only recommended new classifications of some 32,000 acres in this period of time.

In the conservation branch, as I said, we have the chore of supervision of the operation of the Mineral Leasing Act. You can see that the royalties that have accrued from this act over the past few years amounted to some $200 million last year. On the Outer Continental Shelf you have some plus $80 million, and royalties of oil, gas, and minerals make up the balance. Producing leases have also grown from some 3,000 producing leases in 1947 to some 10,000 producing leases on the Federal domain in 1964.

From the Outer Continental Shelf, as you see, the income has shown a sharp rise recently. Here are the areas of leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf from August 7, 1953, which is the date of the Outer Continental Shelf Act, to June 30, 1964. We have leases in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Washington, Oregon and California, Louisiana being the most productive. We have some 3 million acres under lease

ROYALTIES

IN MILLIONS OF OLLARS

from which we have received over $1,100 million in bonuses. This is for oil and gas. We also have some 27,000 acres leased in sulfur and salt, a bonus of $1,309 million there. In the last 18 months we did lease offshore land off Washington, Oregon and California. The industry responded with some very good bids.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT

AUGUST 7, 1953 TO JUNE 30, 1964

Total OCS leases sold competitively = 1032

Area of leases sold competitively=4,649,000 acres

You can see that Washington now has 155,000 acres leased with a $7,700,000 bonus. Oregon, $27 million bonus for 425,000 acres. There is a drilling program that we will start up in Oregon as soon as the weather clears this spring, so we will have some offshore exploration off Oregon this summer.

For California we had some 313,000 acres leased with $12 million bonus on oil and gas.

We have interests on the Atlantic shelf but industry to date has not come up with any proposals for leasing.

Florida does have some leasing in the Gulf of Mexico area.

To conclude my presentation, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to highlight the current activities and problems in the mineral resources area. I again want to say that work in this field is fundamental to the economic growth and security of this country and while it is perhaps not considered as glamorous as other activities, and it may not compare in urgency with some others, basically the economic status of any country depends in a major part on the use it makes of its natural resources, and in an industrial society such as ours, minerals, water, fuel, and the land itself are vital ingredients.

This country is fortunate to be blessed with its physical resources and we are also fortunate to be blessed with the wise and imaginative development of these resources by industry. We all know as our Nation becomes more populated there will be a constantly heavier demand upon all our resources and we find our conservation leadership must be utilized in new and different ways. Not only must we make resources readily and economically available. We must also assure that in developing and using our resources we fully understand and consider the interrelationships of each action, the effects of one resource use on another, and the long-term environmental changes that can evolve.

There are problems in utilizing our mineral wealth but I think there is one often cited problem that we do not face. There are a few people who believe that the United States may have exhausted already the best of its resources and that we are close to the bottom of the barrel in the rest. I cannot share this view. I firmly believe that we can expand our resource base almost indefinitely in this Nation by learning how to find concealed deposits, by learning how to use lower quality and less accessible minerals and by using our raw materials more effectively and efficiently.

But whereas all these things are possible, it can not be overemphasized that they won't come about without diligent and imaginative efforts. They won't come to pass until we work at them and work harder at them than we have in the past.

I believe the work in this area, both in Government and in the private sector, deserves the expanding support of this country, and I hope you in the Congress and we in the Department of the Interior can help bring this about.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for a very fine statement, very comprehensive statement. We appreciate it.

I wonder if it would be a burden upon you to make available to the committee, and it would properly be a part of the record, provisions of the Executive Order 10997 on the subject of the Department of the Interior's responsibilities in the field of emergency preparedness.

Mr. KELLY. We will be glad to put it in the record.

Mr. EDMONDSON. If there is no objection, I would like to have that made a part of the record.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The document referred to follows:)

OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY

THE WHITE HOUSE

The President has signed nine Executive orders assigning emergency preparedness functions to the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, to the Postmaster General, to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, to the Housing and Home Finance Administrator, and to the Interstate Commerce Commission. These orders direct the agencies to undertake plans and programs in their areas of responsibility "designed to develop a state of readiness * ** with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States." For example, the Secretary of Commerce will develop plans for the control and allocation of transportation in an emergency and the Secretary of Agriculture will make similar plans with respect to food resources.

The orders are part of a series of related actions to reorganize responsibilities for nonmilitary defense programs first announced by the President on May 25, 1961. In his special message to the Congress on urgent national needs, he said that "Responsibilities for preparedness programs in connection with health, food, manpower, transportation, and other needs in the event of an attack will be assigned to the appropriate department and agency heads ***." Steps previously taken include the transfer of major civil defense responsibilities to the Secretary of Defense by Executive Order 10952 of July 20, 1961, the assignment of emergency food and medical stockpiling responsibilities to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health, Education, and Welfare by Executive Order 10958 of August 14, 1961, and the reconstitution of the former Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization as a small Presidential staff agency under the new title of Office of Emergency Planning. Additional assignments of emergency preparedness functions to other departments and agencies are expected to be made at a later date in order to utilize fully the capabilities of the Federal Government in preparing for national emergencies.

Today's orders require that the assignments, insofar as they relate to civil defense, be carried out "In consonance with national civil defense plans, programs and operations of the Department of Defense, under Executive Order No. 10952 The Director of the OEP, in keeping with the new role of the agency, will "advise and assist the President in determining policy for and assist him in coordinating the performance of functions under [these] orders with the total national preparedness program."

The assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities to various agencies reflects the policy expressed in law that maximum use should be made of the regular departments and agencies in carrying out emergency preparedness programs. This approach is designed to achieve maximum effectiveness and efficiency through building into the ongoing programs of the agencies an emergency preparedness capability. Following this concept, the budget for fiscal year 1963 includes emergency preparedness funds proposed to be appropriated directly to the agencies affected by today's orders rather than through a central appropriation, as in the past. The President stressed that these important emergency preparedness responsibilities are to be regarded as basic elements of the agencies' broad missions and should be integrated thoroughly with other agency programs at every step of the planning and operations processes.