Senator LEAHY. Certainly. I'd point out that if people do have statements from others we are perfectly willing to put them in total into the record. Feel free to read it. I point out that anybody that has a number of these we will put them directly into the record.

STATEMENT OF MR. AND MRS. HAROLD CARPENTER, BRISTOL, VT.

Mr. CLARK. My name is Roy J. Clark. I am a U.S. citizen and a resident of Bristol, Vt., and I am appearing at this hearing on the Bristol Cliffs wilderness area on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Harold Carpenter of Bristol, Vt. Mr. and Mrs. Harold Carpenter are owners of 400 acres of land within the boundaries of the wilderness area. This consists of the Carpenter homestead which has been in the family for over 100 years. They own a dwelling house in Bristol Village where they reside. Each year they have sold timber from the homestead in order to pay their taxes which amounted to $1,300 in 1975. This cutting has always been done in a systematic manner so as to enhance the growth of the trees.

Mr. Carpenter is 73 years of age and Mrs. Carpenter is 71. They receive social security and a very small pension from Middlebury College where Mr. Carpenter was employed, until his retirement, as a maintenance employee.

Under the wilderness act they are no longer allowed to cut and sell any timber from this land, therefore depriving them of necessary money to meet their tax obligations.

They are not interested in selling their land to the U.S. Government as they would like to retain the land as a legacy to their children. Mr. Carpenter is now a patient at the Porter Medical Center in Middlebury, Vt., and his family tells me his illness has been brought about by worry and concern over the confiscation of their land by the U.S. Government.

They feel very strongly that the taking of their land was done in a very unfair way without due notification and with no rights of appeal which should be granted each citizen of the U. S.

Therefore, they feel that the boundaries of the wilderness area should be redrawn, excluding private property, so that they may retain ownership of land which is rightfully theirs, land which they feel should be controlled by them and used by them as they see fit.

The above statements, as presented by Mr. Clark are correct. Signed Harold V. Carpenter and Mildred Carpenter.

STATEMENT OF ROY J. CLARK, BRISTOL, VT.

And now, if I may make my own statement. My name is Roy J. Clark. I'm a U. S. citizen and resident of Bristol, Vermont.

I do not own any land within the Bristol Cliffs Wilderness Area but am alarmed at the confiscation of private lands by the U.S. Government within this area.

First, as a citizen I am appalled at the method used by the Government to get control of these private lands. To wit: Improper notification to landowners and infringement of the personal rights of the landowners.

Second, as a taxpayer in the Town of Bristol I am very upset over the loss of tax revenue which will result from the takeover of this land as a Wilderness Area. This tax loss will have to be absorbed by the other taxpayers in the Town and with our national economy as it is today any additional taxes, in any form, are unbearable.

For the above stated reasons I sincerely hope that the boundaries of the Wilderness Area can be redrawn excluding any and all private lands in the area.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Mr. Boucher, I welcome you and your class, and if you'd like to testify to this matter please feel free.

STATEMENT OF RONALD BOUCHER, BRISTOL, VT.

Mr. RONALD BOUCHER. My name is Ron Boucher, and I live in Monkton, and I am a landowner within the boundaries of Bristol Cliffs Wilderness Area. I'd like to thank you very much for allowing my class today. As I listened to the testimony last night one of the things that concerned me was, as we discussed, if the boundaries remain as they are it was mentioned that the town would be affected in terms of the tax base and what it would cost the town. It was also mentioned that there would be continued problems or difficulties with owners of that private land within the boundaries but it was not mentioned that to leave the boundaries the way they are still does not assure us an adequate wilderness area because none of the land on South Mountain really qualifies according to the Federal definition of 1964 of wilderness. And this is particularly true of the private lands. While some of the Federal lands come close to being a true wilderness, none of the private lands meet this definition, so even if the private land is included a true wilderness area will not be assured. Another option is to remove some of the land and/or changing restrictions on the land. This results in a problem of criteria. First of all, how are we going to select which land will be removed and left to the private owners and which will not?

Since not much of the land truly fits the definition of wilderness the act does not give us an adequate criteria. If we change the regulations and remove some of the restrictions on use of private land then once again we remove ourselves further from having a true wilderness area and in a sense this would be self-defeating. The third choice which everybody here seems to approve of is an exclusion of all the land. The result of this is several. First, under the current situation, the Government would be purchasing some of the private land as it becomes available. It is much fairer if the Government enters the market and competes with any other land purchasers to buy this private land. I would like to disagree with Mr. Weber last night that the individual landowner is better protected having his private land included within the boundaries. As it is now the Government is, in effect, the only purchaser who would buy the land unless somebody wanted to buy it and leave it as a wilderness which is very unlikely. The land has not been outright condemned; however, what we have is a very vague situation. The Federal bureaucracy, not the Congress, is making the decisions about the land that affects many people. Now,

60-519-75-4

for instance, our land was for sale and it's fairly important that we do sell it. The only purpose anybody could use the land for is a building site. There is really no other purpose for the land. It's a very attractive building site. The odds are that before now we would have sold it. We had many people look at it. We had to take it off the market under the advice of real estate agents. They felt the Federal Government would not allow it to be sold as a building site and they didn't want to take their time.

We cannot sell it; however, at the same time, we are still paying taxes. We just received a rather large tax bill and we still have to pay interest on the land itself. We offered our land in March to the Federal Government. As of this time, I still have had no written communication from the Federal Government, from the Forest Service about this land. Verbally it was promised that some action would be taken in July; however, nothing has occurred yet, at least as far as I know other than some discussion with the Forest Service that it being appraised, but I haven't received any written communication about the status of this sale. Now, another thing, in connection with Mr. Weber's statement last night, it seems to me any informed owner of property in the Wilderness Area, this is not setting a precedent against conservation. The reason why people are asking to have this act changed is not all because they are against wilderness or against conservation or anything of that sort. The reason is contained right with the act itself and the manner in which it was done. Finally, I would like to make an observation. I have two copies, one of the proposal for the Bristol Cliffs Eastern Wilderness which was done in 1973 and then the most recent one done this year which is a draft of the Legislative Subcommittee. I believe, Senator Leahy, you have this with you here, and I find somewhat a difference between these two. It almost seems as if the mountain has changed a little bit in the last 2 years.

For instance, in the first one, it very clearly states on page 19 that there certainly is no educational, scientific or other value to the land that makes it actually unique; however, in the second one it says, very curiously on page 10 that important sociological, scientific, educattional situation values are favorable impacts from the study. I find that as somewhat of a discrepancy the way that we are evaluating this. I think that we have changed our evaluation of the land. There are other examples of differences here; however, in the second one, the final draft of Congress, it is still clearly stated that this land is not suited as a wilderness area and still does not meet the definition. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Boucher. Arnold Vilcins here?

The audience: He is on his way up; he isn't here yet.

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Stanton Leno? Mr. Stanton Leno come in yet? Either Mr. Ford or Mr. Walker from the State agency here?

The AUDIENCE. They are on their way.

Senator LEAHY. Again, as we found last night, we are moving a little bit quicker than we had thought and some of the people we scheduled are not here yet, and we have reached the time for them earlier than we thought. We will, of course, make sure that they are allowed to testify when they do come.

Mr. Dickerman, would you care to testify now out of order or would you prefer to wait for the time originally scheduled for you? Mr. Dickerman, would you care to testify now or would you rather wait for the time

me.

Mr. DICKERMAN. Whenever it's convenient with you is suitable with Senator LEAHY. I was thinking, especially with Mr. Boucher's class here, if you care to testify we'd be most happy to have you now.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST DICKERMAN, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. ERNEST DICKERMAN. Thank you, Senator Leahy. My name is Ernest Dickerman. I am with the Wilderness Society, a national conservation organization which is interested in helping to preserve fine natural areas that by the grace of God we still have left in this country-including, of course, Vermont which has so much fine

country.

We appreciate the opportunity that this hearing affords for all sorts of points of view to be expressed today in an effort to resolve the very serious problem that we do have with respect to the Bristol Cliff's Wilderness. Certainly, there needs to be some change made in the boundaries. Had the Congress or anybody else known of the private homes that are included in that proposal they would not be in the wilderness today. Exactly how it could come about that with 4 years of consideration of this legislation before the Congress nobody in Washington knew that those homes were in there. I don't know.

Neither the Wilderness Society nor anybody else wants them in wilderness. They didn't belong in the first place. It does seem entirely right and proper then that the Congress should adjust the boundary to get these homes out, and we would like to see action taken in that direction.

I'd like to make a comment about the condemnation provision that is in the act which created the Bristol Cliffs Wilderness and 15 other wildernesses located in another 10 or dozen States. The condemnation provision is section 6-B. It's just handy to know that section 6-B deals with condemnation. That provision is in the law for two purposes. The first purpose was to protect the wilderness. Nobody was worried much. or is worried much about what present landowners might or might not do on their properties. The present owner usually loves the land and wants to protect it. But a lot of us are concerned with the fact that there are any number of developers in the country ready to move in, buy private land at a very high price and then completely change the character of the area. The condemnation provision was in there primarily with the thought of preventing land developers from moving in and putting in a summer resort or other extensive development completely incompatible with the intent of the wilderness designation. Now, I'm quite aware that the way this thing is working out here has been contrary to this intent and purpose.

In addition to protecting the wilderness, the second principle reason for the condemnation provision written the way it is was to protect the private landowners from harsh and arbitrary application of the condemnation provision. The first bills that came in simply said that the Forest Service may condemn. Then the Congress had further

thoughts and they said, that is too abrupt, that is too harsh, we don't need to move in like that. Let's put some qualifying provisions in there, so that condemnation can occur only under certain conditions. Now, what the law says is that condemnation in the case of a Vermont Wilderness and the others created by that law, condemnation shall be exercised only if the individual's action is incompatible with the intent of the wilderness protection. The trouble has come about, unfortunately, because the way the Forest Service has undertaken to apply that provision which in fact was intended to protect the homeowner and the landowner. It has been used in a way that has resulted in harrassment and great distress on the part of the landowners.

All of the land within the Green Mountain National Forest purchase boundary-that means where the forest ultimately would be subject to purchase by the Government—all that land has always been technically subject to condemnation. That is to say, the Government for the public purpose of establishing a national forest has also had the power to condemn all of the land within the purchase boundary of the forest.

Admittedly, the Forest Service avoids condemning, because it isn't successful, because it raises just too much hell, to use a plain common word, but the power has always been there. In fact, when the Bristol Cliffs Wilderness was set up, it became possible for the individual landowner, in the event condemnation were to be exercised, to go to court and protest the condemnation on the grounds that what he was doing was not incompatible with wilderness, and, therefore, the Forest Service should not condemn.

Now, I'm just reciting these things to help give a little further understanding. I hope, as to what the condemnation provision was intended to do. I recognize, just as you all do, the fact that because, unfortunately, the Forest Service moved in with considerably less grace and tact than they might well have exercised, that it has created a very serious condition that needs to be rectified."

The Forest Service is currently engaged in drawing up new official regulations interpreting and applying the condemnation provision of that law. When the Forest Service has got new regulations drafted they will be printed in something called the Federal Register. Some of you all know what it is; some of you may not have seen it. It's sort of a magazine-looking thing that comes out 5 days a week printed in Washington which lists all the new orders, opinions, decisions, and otherwise by Government bureaus.

The Federal Register will come out with the new regulations perhaps by the end of October or maybe in November. They will not be effective for 30 days or maybe 45 days. During that time, everybody who wants to can speak up, tell the Forest Service and your congressional members what you think of them. The Wilderness Society is going to be amongst the people scrutinizing those new regulations very closely. If we think they are too tight, too strict or going to be oppressive with respect to the landowner, we are going to be amongst the people squawking and urging that those regulations be rewritten so that, instead, they serve to protect the landowner, not harrass or unduly restrict him. We believe, and I think most everybody in this room believes, that the present landowners within the Bristol Cliffs for the