BRISTOL CLIFFS WILDERNESS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1975 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, SOIL CONSERVATION, AND FORESTRY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Bristol, Vt. The subcommittee met pursuant to notice in the Holly Hall auditorium, at 8 a.m.. Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, presiding. Present: Senator Leahy. STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT-Resumed Senator LEAHY. I'd like to introduce the people here with me. To my far right is Betsy Samuelson. Betsy was on the staff of Senator Aiken and is now presently a member of my staff and is extremely helpful to me. She supervised-she is from Washington-the work handled by those members of my Vermont staff who deal with constituent problems here in Vermont. To my immediate right is Jim Giltmier of the Senate agriculture staff, Senate Committee on Agriculture staff, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry staff. Jim is a veteran of the staff and is a man on whom I rely very, very heavily when I have agriculture questions, and he has put in an enormous amount of time on this problem of Bristol Cliffs with us. To my immediate left is Bob Wolfe of the Congressional Research Service and Bob has been up to Vermont now twice specifically at my request on the Bristol Cliff's matter. And Bob has as much knowledge of the whole Eastern Wilderness Act as anybody, and he has gone a great deal to help me on it and he has, he came up-he was at the first hearing we had here in Holly Hall, and he has come to my home and spent quite some time with me going over it and worked hard with us. Warren Oxford to my far left is on the staff of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Warren has been working specifically on this problem and also, thanks to the consideration of Senator Talmadge, our chairman, he is here. I think the fact that the chairman. of the overall committee, Senator Talmadge, the fact that he is extremely concerned is shown by the number of people that he made sure were up here, because while those of us who are Senators can always take the credit for when things go right, it's really the experts on the staff who make sure that they go right. And another advantage of having them there is, when things go wrong based on our mistakes, we can blame them. 60-519-75—3 If we could start off we have the selectmen of the town of Lincoln. We have listed Harold Masterson, Lee Cassidy, and Doran Pierce, and if each of them want to speak we will take it in that order and if any particular member wants to speak on behalf of the others I'll be glad to otherwise, I'll call Harold Masterson first. Off the record. [Off the record discussion.] Senator LEAHY. If you would, when you finish. I want you to fill out the address form. If you would first state for the record your name and address and in what capacity you are testifying. STATEMENT OF DORAN PIERCE, SELECTMAN OF LINCOLN, BRISTOL, VT. Mr. PIERCE. Well, I'm Doran Pierce, selectman of Lincoln. I'm the bottom of the totem pole and my address is Bristol, Box 117; my phone number is 453-2116. OK. From the testimony given here last night it would appear so far that the Forest Service is doing little or nothing to enforce their regulations they have made on the wilderness area. This can only lead to chaos and revolution at some future time when the rules are enforced. Now, we don't live in a dictatorship or do we? When a public hearing on legislation or legislative change is held we are told the time, the place, and how much time we will be allowed. When some legislation is passed it has a bare outline of the change. The regulations and enforcement are left to an agency, board, or in this case, the Forest Service. The Wilderness Act is a good example of this. The hearings was held in Concord, N.H., in the wintertime during the working day, so no working person could attend without loss of time. The boundaries and regulations were left for the Forest Service to make and inform the owners. As to the impact, no mention was made to the collection of delinquent taxes under the statutes in the State of Vermont. If a person was to remain in his home and not sell; therefore, what is the answer? Can one live in a wilderness area tax free? No mention was made of the impact on housing. We are in a State of housing shortage but the Forest Service by their regulations can buy and tear down a house, be it new or old within the boundaries of the wilderness area. Why can the Federal Government impose on a community by taking taxable property and paying nothing for roads and schools of the community. The Forest Service at present pays a percentage of their income to the towns. This is a fraction of the tax paid for by private owners on like property. We get no tax on the wilderness area. On this I have been informed this morning, we are going to get 34 cents an acre but I don't know whether that is true or not. I say any public land owned for the public good taken from local taxation which a governing body should be taxed at the same rate as the farmer. At this point I'd like to mention that in Lincoln concerned citizens formed an organization. They call it Lincoln Sports. They bought 40 acres of land without the use of any tax funds or government money not wishing to have limitations of the bureaucracy placed upon us. Now, this land can be used for skiing, skating, hunting, hiking, snowmobiling, baseball, and tennis. The wilderness area has nothing for the people of Lincoln. However, the question of the boundaries of the wilderness area is of concern. There are no markers on the ground. How does one know when they leave the area and enter another? In other words, how do we know when we are breaking the law? In conclusion, I think this was a poor thought-out and poor advised and badly stated piece of legislation. Senator LEAHY. Either Mr. Masterson or Mr. Cassidy. STATEMENT OF LEE CASSIDY, SELECTMAN OF LINCOLN, Mr. LEE CASSIDY. I'm Cassidy. I didn't know enough to write out a statement but I'm Lee Cassidy, selectman, RD 1, Bristol. My main concern would be that you take the private houses out of the wilderness area. Most of the private lands also, maybe not all. There is a couple of big chunks up there that maybe you could make a deal with. Senator LEAHY. By the private houses, Mr. Cassidy, are you referring to those on the west primarily along Mr. CASSIDY. Most of them are on the west. I think all the houses, private houses unless one happened to be half a mile up or a mile in. There may be, but most of the private houses anywhere near the border should be taken out. Most of the land should be probably too except for a couple of large tracts in the middle there, and I think that money should be made readily available if they want to sell, and also available as they want it, cash or over a period of 10 or 20 years or, you know, about the way they want it because I can see somebody who got $50,000 would pay a lot of taxes and maybe they'd like to spread it over 20 years. Also, of course, the town is worried. We have about 10,000 acres of national forest. That is a third of the entire town of Lincoln. The figure last year, I believe, was $3,600. That is what the town of Lincoln got from the Federal Government for national forest. That is 10.000 acres; Enola tells me it averages 34 cents an acre. This hurts the town, of course. Senator LEAHY. I'm going, if I can, to interrupt just again. I'm going to be meeting this week with Senator Humphrey regarding a bill that he has introduced to fix the Forest Service payment and amount, some multiplication of the bill, but an amount per acre equal to similar private land. I would take it that the selectmen of the Town of Lincoln would be very much in favor of legislation of that nature. Mr. CASSIDY. We would love that. Senator LEAHY. And you will be getting a letter from us as well as the other Senators, but I will be discussing this with Senator Humphrey this week at the time when we discuss the whole Bristol Cliffs area. Mr. CASSIDY. We feel there is a lot of towns in our same position, probably. I do understand out west there are some towns that like it just the way it is because the Government pays all their taxes out in California where the big forests are, but it hurts the town of Lincoln. 34 cents an acre is pretty low. Senator LEAHY. What percentage of the town of Lincoln is in the Forest Service? Mr. CASSIDY. Just about a third: 10.000 out of 34,000 acres. That is very close. It's roughly a third of our land in the national forest and out of that entire thing last year we got $3,600 or $3,800. Not very good picture, actually, and that is basically, well, comparative private land and this is the lowest private land average is $2.65 an acre. So there is a hugh difference in the amount of money we get per acre and that is basically my theory, private homes, especially, and most of the private land unless they really want to sell it probably should stay out except maybe in the center, as I said, you can see several chunks there that would probably ought to go with it. Senator LEAHY. We have got even a commitment. I wrote to the Forest Service of a commitment from them that there is enough money available for acquisition now should they want to make them. It's my hope that during the time this legislation is pending the Forest Service would be able to negotiate a willing-buyer/willing-seller basis to those people who do want to sell. If you would step over to this map with me just a moment, Mr. Cassidy, point out and I will refer to the Reporter the number of the plots you think should or could be left in if agreement could be made with the Forest Service. Mr. CASSIDY. I think it basically up here. I don't know the owners. It just seemed it would be all right with me if they get a fair price. Senator LEAHY. We are talking, incidentally, for the record approximately in the area of 1-E, 48, 47, over in that general area. Mr. CASSIDY. And also there is a hugh chunk in here. Senator LEAHY. By hugh chunk in here we are referring to approximately Box 24 and 42, 26, 18-C, 44, 1-C, 46. Mr. CASSIDY. There might be a house or two in there. I'm not sure. Senator LEAHY. I understand. Mr. CASSIDY. And that is about all I have to say. Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. Don't forget to fill out one of those forms if you would. And Mr. Masterson, do you STATEMENT OF HAROLD MASTERSON, CHAIRMAN, LINCOLN Mr. MASTERSON. I am Harold Masterson and my main concern is that the people that own the private land be treated the way everyone else in the area would like to be treated and to see that their land is held as their own if that is the way they want it. If it isn't that way the Government should deal with them immediately on a cash basis or however they should see fit. I believe we all believe in the wilderness area but I think it should be on Government land and not taken away from private individuals. Senator LEAHY. You feel that those private individuals should have some say in the matter? Mr. MASTERSON. Definitely. Senator LEAHY. And not hear about it after the fact? Mr. MASTERSON. Right. I thought it was unfair that the people be notified as they were instead of individually before any such thing was taken into consideration. Senator LEAHY. Thank you, sir. Mr. MASTERSON. Yes, sir. Senator LEAHY. Our next witness is Mr. Keith Hall, Is Mr. Hall here? We are running a little bit ahead of schedule. I'll read some of the names of witnesses and if I reach the name of anyone here if they would just call out. Mrs. Charles Owings. Mrs. Owings, would you mind testifying now please. STATEMENT OF MRS. CHARLES OWINGS, BRISTOL, VT. Mrs. CHARLES OWINGS. My name is Mrs. Charles Owings and I hate to differ with Mr. Cassidy but No. 47 is us and we feel very strongly about this. Senator LEAHY. I think Mr. Cassidy was speaking in a very approximate Mrs. OWINGS. Yes, I realize. This wilderness took about two-thirds of our property and I don't think it's pertinent at all what we have done or are doing or what we are going to do with our property. I think the important thing is that the thing happened to us and can happen again. It's frightening to know that something like this can happen, and we think the boundaries should be rolled back completely, start all over. If the Government wants to approach us then and ask us to sell our lands that is an entirely different ballgame, but to have this just happen and knowing that the Forest Service has stated that they would like to acquire 100,000 more acres of land in Vermont, and it happens to us today it sets a precedent they can take anybody else's land anytime the same way they did it because it's taking it when they put these restrictions on it and I'm very upset about it. Senator LEAHY. If I could state for the record and this is what I'm, a reiteration of what I said yesterday. Indeed a precedent has been set in this matter and it's a precedent that concerns me very much. Į do not feel that the U.S. Government with its enormous power and resources, money, or the U.S. Congress should be in a position where they can affect very basically the individual rights of people and in this case individual rights of property owners, and I must admit that as a Vermonter whose family has been here for over a hundred years I feel this very strongly. They should not be able to do it without any input from the people involved and that is one of the reasons I'm having these hearings is to insure that this will not happen again. Hopefully, we can rectify the situation in Bristol, but I want to be sure that at any time there are matters on the eastern wilderness matters I believe which must come before this committee on which I am serving that there is an insurance in the record that every single private property owner has been notified, has been notified before the fact before legislation is acted upon within the Congress, that they have had a chance to be heard and not heard in Washington were oftentimes people cannot afford either the time away from work or the expense. And there are some of us in Washington who sometimes forget the fact that the individual citizen does not have an expense account to go to Washington, on but that they are heard in an area where they can be heard easily, where they can afford to be, where they do not have to miss work and have their views also before Congress at the time matters have been acted upon. I think for one thing it gives far more credibility to our Government, which is a great Government, but it also makes sure every individual is heard and makes sure that we do not have to be having hearings of the nature we are having now to try to |