If you feel that cluttering up the bill with addenda or additions to it would hurt the overall concept, we skiers would understand that. But we would hope that in the long run through Congress truly merited areas which have reliable recreation sites shall be open to the people because it is one of the largest States, I believe the largest now, and that corner of the world where we live is the largest part of the largest State, and yet there is no safe, sure place to practice our sport. It has proven itself. Fifteen years ago we were considered crazy if we would slide down on bed slats on a mountain side. Today we are contributing to the extinguishment of delinquency. There are no juvenile delinquents in my town. We have 460 students in school, but we must teach them on grass, and this is ridiculous because the mountains are right in our own backyard.

Senator METCALF. Senator Allott.

Senator ALLOTT. You make a very persuasive statement, Mr. Tyndall.

May I ask you one question, and I would hate to confess my own ignorance for the record, but in the maps we have in our hearings, the figures and the identifications are too small to read. Where is the San Gorgonio wild area specifically with relation to Los Angeles or San Diego?

Mr. TYNDALL. I would like to submit for the record all ski areas on forest lands which show clearly where San Gorgonio, Robinson Basin and the other disputed areas are located.

Senator ALLOTT. Just for the record where is it from Los Angeles? Mr. TYNDALL. It is 100 miles.

Senator ALLOTT. Which way?

Mr. TYNDALL. East.

Senator ALLOTT. Almost due East?

Mr. TYNDALL. Yes.

Senator ALLOTT. Thank you. That is all I have.

Mr. TYNDALL. I would also like to submit a picture taken recently of the area showing the controversy and the comparison, explaining both areas. Inyo or Robinson Basin and San Gorgonio.

The difference between the two is that one is a true established wild area, the other one being a primitive area under study where a boundary modification could solve this problem without loss of true wilderness, with a road built with Federal moneys to the foot of it, and with one-third of the development outside the primitive area at this time, and still yet denied.

Senator METCALF. The material submitted will be received for the files of the committee for reference by the members.

(The document referred to will be found in the files of the committee.)

Senator METCALF. Senator Dominick.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to congratulate Mr. Tyndall for an excellent statement.

I had the opportunity of reading over this article in the Skiing magazine, and I thought it was extremely well done. I do not know whether you prepared it or not.

Mr. TYNDALL. I did not, but I think the young lady who wrote it, who is one of America's, I think she is the top race driver in the country today, took the pains to have me speak in front of the Forest Serv

95399-63- -9

ice, region 5, and had both parties give their statements directly, and this was the way in order to get the proper information so that nothing would be said which would be harmful to the other side, because we know that the Forest Service dedicatedly believes that it can solve this problem without the invasion of wilderness, and maybe they have means and ways of doing it, if we get together on building roads into the areas which are available or maybe by using other technological advantages such as snow making, which is coming to the fore.

But in the long run we believe that true wilderness should be protected and fringes should be adjusted. But we do not think we should clutter up the bill. I think the wilderness bill, provided that it has control in the hands of Congress, should be passed, and then we should sit down and work out with our fellow citizens a reasonable approach so that everybody can be happy.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Tyndall.

The next witness is Mr. Ed Munro, who is representing the National Association of Counties.

Mr. Munro, we are glad to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF PAUL N. CARLIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FEDERAL OWNERSHIP PROBLEMS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

Mr. CARLIN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul Carlin. I am assistant director for Federal ownership problems of the National Association of Counties.

Mr. Munro was not able to be here and, with your permission and the permission of the committee I would like to have his statement inserted in the record, and I would like to briefly comment on portions of his prepared statement.

Senator METCALF. Go right ahead and we will be very happy to have you with us. We are sorry Mr. Munro could not be here. Without objection the statement will be incorporated in the record as if read. Mr. CARLIN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Munro, who is the chairman of the National Association of Counties' Federal Real Property Committee, and in his prepared text refers to the official policy statement of our association, and I would like to read it. It states as follows:

The wilderness system concept is specifically endorsed as part of an overall system of multiple use of public lands, provided that the local communities, through their county governing board, be provided a formal opportunity to submit to the Congress their independent views on the creation, retention, or incorporation of any new wilderness areas, and provided further that the creation of any new wilderness areas in the national forests, in addition to those already classified as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe, be by affirmative act of Congress.

Skipping the next paragraph, to provide a valuable protection for the local governments and communities whose economic future may be drastically affected through the designation of new wilderness areas, Mr. Munro recommends in his prepared statement on behalf of the National Association of Counties that S. 4 be amended as indicated in his prepared statement on page 2.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide an official forum whereby the views of these local communities may be formally presented, through established communication channels, to the Congress.

We feel that this amendment will not frustrate nor cripple the objectives of this proposed legislation.

The county governing board is recommended as the appropriate level of government to transmit these views since they are in the best governmental position to properly assess, from the local point of view, the impact of any future wilderness designations.

Within our Federal structure, counties, States, and the National Government should function as partners in meeting their individual governmental responsibilities. Too often in the past our three levels of government have worked at cross-purposes. The result has been a spotty record of intergovernmental cooperation. We feel that a major contributing cause has frequently been the lack of effective. communication.

We offer this amendment today as a first step in restoring the role of partnership cooperation.

We submit that incorporation of this proposed amendment will not only develop clearer avenues of communication, but it will also provide a pattern for the establishment of an effective and workable Federal-State-county partnership in the management of the Nation's publicly owned lands. In summary, I want to express our sincerest appreciation to your committee for this opportunity to relay the very strong interest of county government in the administration of the Nation's federally owned lands.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly on the statement of Mr. Hagenstein who preceded me, since he directly alludes to the sharing of revenues with counties. This is the first time I have seen this suggestion. We would hope that the adoption of the amendment which has been recommended and suggested by Commissioner Munro, we would hope that this adoption of the amendment would provide a formal opportunity for the county governments to advise Congress of the loss of any productive national forest land revenues so that as new areas are added to the wilderness system, appropriate revenue compensating formulas could be developed.

Referring back to that, he states, and I am quoting:

It is a suggestion that they be reimbursed annually for the amount of revenue they lose when productive national forest lands are withdrawn for wilderness. If wilderness withdrawals have potential receipts through forestry, grazing or use of any other resources, the counties are morally entitled to share in them. In this we would concur primarily as applied to the adoption of

new areas.

Now in looking to the second part of the comments which were made earlier, the lands which have already been classified as wilderness, wild, canoe, or primitive have not been revenue-producing, nor have they been for a considerable period of time in the past, and we have held numerous meetings during the past 2 years, the county governments of the West, the county representatives from the Western States, and through our national association-and this is the first time that any indication has been made that the counties be reimbursed for the areas which have already been designated as wilderness.

So I do not want to leave the impression that this is what we are seeking. But in the withdrawal of any productive national forest lands for future inclusion in wilderness within the national forests, I would think that the adoption of this amendment would provide for

local communities the opportunity to be fairly reimbursed for the loss of those productive national forest lands.

Thank you very much.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Munro follows:)

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ED MUNRO, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES' FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY COMMITTEE

My name is Ed Munro and I am a King County commissioner from Seattle, Wash. This statement is being submitted in my capacity as chairman of the National Association of Counties' Federal Real Property Committee. Our association represents the 3,043 county governments located within the United States.

The national association of counties' official policy on this legislation, as incorporated within the American county platform, states as follows:

"The wilderness system concept is specifically endorsed as part of an overall system of multiple use of public lands: Provided, That the local communities, through their county governing board, be provided a formal opportunity to submit to the Congress their independent views on the creation, retention, or incorporation of any new wilderness areas: And provided further, That the creation of any new wilderness areas in the national forests, in addition to those already classified as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe, be by affirmative act of Congress." [Emphasis added.]

The Wilderness Act legislation and the policy statement have been carefully studied by our association's western regional district, which is composed of counties located within the 12 Western States in which 93.7 percent of the 14,664,053 acres of national-forest-wilderness-type areas are located, and our national organization in meetings held in Chicago, Phoenix, New York City, and Las Vegas during the past 2 years.

To provide a valuable protection for the local governments and communities whose economic future may be drastically effected through the designation of new wilderness areas, I recommend, on behalf of the National Association of Counties, that S. 4 be amended as indicated below:

Suggested amendments to S. 4 (suggested language is italicized) (p. 11, lines 19-25, and p. 12, lines 1-7):

"(i) (1) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall each, in submitting any recommendations to the President with respect to any area's retention in or incorporation into the wilderness system, include with such recommendations the independent views of the Governor of the State and county governing boards in which such area is located with respect to the Secretary's recommendations generally, unless no reply is received from such Governor or county governing boards within 90 days after such recommendations are submitted to them and their views thereon requested.

"(2) Views submitted to the President under the provisions of (1) of this subsection with respect to any area shall be included with any recommendations to Congress with respect to such area."

The purpose of this amendment is to provide an official forum whereby the views of these local communities may be formally presented, through established communication channels, to the Congress. We feel that this amendment will not frustrate nor cripple the objectives of this proposed legislation.

The county governing board is recommended as the appropriate level of government to transmit these views since they are in the best governmental position to properly assess, from the local point of view, the impact of any future wilderness designations.

Within our Federal structure, counties, States, and the National Governments should function as "partners" in meeting their individual governmental responsibilities. Too often in the past our three levels of government have worked at cross-purposes. The result has been a spotty record of intergovernmental cooperation. We feel that a major contributing cause has frequently been the lack of effective communication.

We offer this amendment today as a first step in restoring the role of partnership cooperation.

We submit that incorporation of this proposed amendment will not only develop clearer avenues of communication, but it will also provide a pattern for the establishment of an effective and workable Federal-State-county partnership in the management of the Nation's publicly owned lands. In summary,

I want to express our sincerest appreciation to your committee for this oppor tunity to relay the very strong interest of county government in the adminis tration of the Nation's federally owned lands. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. Thank you.

I think we are pretty well agreed that any land that is not national forest land for the categories you enumerated, not national parkland nor existing fish and game and wildlife refuge, would not be included in the wilderness system in any event under this bill, and that any new wilderness areas would have to be created by affirmative act of Congress wherein I feel we would have a responsibility to work out such an arrangement as you suggest.

This is a matter that constantly comes to the attention of this Senator, because I am one of the two representatives in the Senate involved in purchasing land from the duck stamp fund of the Migratory Bird Commission, and it is always a problem we have to work out with the local communities when we take lands off the tax rolls. But here I am glad to have you make the distinction between land that since 1939, which is the latest day the primitive area was created, has not been productive. In the last year's hearings I pointed out to one of the witnesses a survey that had been made in my State where we were only cutting about 50 percent of the allowable timber on timber-producing land under the present situation, and if some of these ideas were adopted, the Federal Forest Service would have to make a payment for the failure to cut 100 percent, and I think we would have some very difficult problems in making proper application.

But certainly you have made a very provocative and helpful suggestion, and the county boards of commissioners are the ones who are most seriously affected by taking these lands off the tax rolls. So it has been very helpful having you here.

Mr. CARLIN. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. Senator Dominick.

But

Senator DOMINICK. I want to take issue, if I am correct; or let me say, if I am not correct, I hope you will say so. You indicate here that none of these lands which are proposed to be included within a wilderness system are revenue-producing areas. I do not believe this is the fact. They are not subject to real property taxes, no. there are all kinds of leases on them, royalties that come back through the Federal Government into the State for educational purposes largely, and a good number of them particularly in the primitive area are definitely revenue producing at the present time for the benefit of the State and the counties.

Senator METCALF. They would be revenue producing for grazing, and they might have at the present time, mining.

Senator DOMINICK. And for oil and gas and mining, for some timber, for grazing, all kinds of things. These primitive lands produce revenue.

Senator METCALF. Those uses would continue.

Senator DOMINICK. Yes. All I am doing is to say that the fact of the matter is that these are revenue-producing areas. They are not completely outside the purview of the county government.

Senator METCALF. We are in complete accord on that except for the timbering. If there is timbering, it is illegal. There may be grazing or mining in some.