645 
The Government should have the function of testing new tools and equipment 
developed mainly by private industry and in cooperation with industry should be 
responsible for setting standards for the mining industry.” 
We understand that some companies in the mining industry agree with this 
recommendation. The petroleum industry, on the other hand, feels generally 
that industry, not the Government, should test new tools and equipment which 
that industry has developed. 
5. Legal and Regulatory Considerations (p. 135) 
Domestic legal and regulatory considerations are matters of either State or 
.Federal jurisdiction. The Commission recognizes that exploration and develop- 
ment of seabed hard minerals will be a very high risk speculation for the fore- 
seeable future and will require strong State and Federal policy incentives. 
The Commission suggests (p. 136) the following guidelines for an offshore min- 
ing legal and regulatory regime: 
(1) Encouragement of exploration. 
(2) Maximizing net economic return to the nation rather than maximiz- 
ing near-term income from rents, royalties or bonuses. 
(3) Recognition that favorable mining laws of other nations compete for 
U.S. industry investment dollars. 
We agree with these general principles. 
The Commission refrains from taking a position on the claim-staking system 
versus the leasing system for hard minerals. But it states that since important 
questions have been raised before the Public Land Law Review Commission as 
to the desirability of continuing claim-staking on public lands ashore, it hesi- 
tates to recommend extention of this system offshore. At the same time it observes 
that the procedures established under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
“have worked well . . . and should not be lightly abandoned” (p. 1386). The Re- 
port concludes that diversified situations will call for diversified policies, even 
if a leasing system is followed offshore. It recommends (p. 187) that 
“when deemed necessary to stimulate exploration, the Secretary of the In- 
terior be granted the flexibility to award rights to develop hard minerals on the 
outer continental shelf without requiring competitive bidding.” 
We agree with this recommendation, although we reach it from a different 
direction. Contrary to the Commission’s view, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act has not worked well in promoting hard mineral development offshore, largely 
because of the economic burden imposed by its competitive bidding requirements. 
But regardless of approach, if the legal framework is to promote development, 
some flexibility in the terms for acquiring rights is highly desirable. 
D. Fresh water 
As to fresh water resources, the Report recommends that the Department of 
the Interior continue an aggressive and diversified desalination research and 
development program (p. 139). 
We agree with this recommendation with the observation that cooperative 
effort between Government and private industry should be encouraged. 
E. Preinvestment surveys 
The Report recommends that the proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Agency undertake reconnaissance surveys and prepare maps of the geological 
configuration of the continental shelves and slopes adjacent to the United 
States, such surveys to be conducted by the Government and by industry and 
universities under contract with the Government (p. 140). 
The objectives of this recommendation have merit. Existing technical agencies, 
particularly the Geological Survey (as the Report notes at p. 141), should be 
fully utilized in any such effort. 
II. AN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL-POLITICAL FRAMEWORK FOR SEABED MINERAL RESOURCES 
(p. 141) 
A. Objectives 
Under the heading “An International Legal-Political Framework for Exploring 
and Exploiting the Mineral Resources Underlying the High Seas,” the Report 
cites (p. 141) as a principal objective of such a framework the principle, first offi- 
