Mineral Resource Valuation In The Public Interest

The mineral industry" has made and will continue to make important contributions to the growth of our economy. However, the industry is presently under continuous and increasingly severe attacks by organizations and individuals interested in the preservation of our environment. Yet neither the public interest value of preservation nor the public interest value of our mineral industry is known. In the absence of such values, judgments about best land use where minerals are involved are nearly always made on emotional grounds. An example of the sort of problem that has been created is in the New York Metropolitan Area. Because of institutionally-created shortages stemming largely from zoning decisions and building over deposits, the effective cost of fine aggregate delivered at dockside at Manhattan rose from $2. 65/cubic yard in July, 1969, to $4.10/cubic yard in May, 1970, this in spite of approximately ;l0,000 years of reserves on Long Island. The cost of fine aggregate for New York City alone has "Increased over $S million annually within one year, with the cost increase for the Tri-State Metropolitan Area (coastal Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York)" exceeding $10 million annually. The ab0ve situation has created a cost increase which is clearly the result of non-conservation of a mineral resource. That is, in readily measurable values, it Is costing the public about $10 million per year because good conservation practices were ignored-a public-interest loss. Admittedly, this is not the whole story because the public is simultaneously obtaining other values from the land surface that would otherwise have had to be dedicated, temporarily to be sure, to mineral recovery-a public-interest gain. However, the point is that we do not know where the balance lies-the net public interest value; it may lie one way for deposits zoned out of existence by a growing suburb, another for areas designed as permanent greenbelts, and still another for areas under new highways