most Western States. The total area of Idaho amounts to 52,972,000 acres of which 34,547,000 acres are federally owned lands or 65 percent of the total area of the State is owned by the Federal Government. Over 20 million acres of these federally owned lands are administered by the Forest Service and approximately 12 million acres by the Bureau of Land Management. It is obvious that the citizens of Idaho have a major stake in any legislation of this type that is proposed.

The real purpose of this legislation is not only set forth in the declaration of policy but it is interwoven throughout the bill, often in the strongest of language. No one can doubt that the fundamental purpose of this legislation is to make the preservation of the wilderness areas paramount to all other uses and any other use is purely incidental.

The fundamental fraility of this legislation is that it is single-purpose, whereas the proper development and utilization of the natural resources of these wilderness areas must be multipurpose. Other purposes must be safeguarded and they are not in this proposed legislation. Since the preservation of wilderness areas is paramount it would prevail if there was any conflict with any other.

It is this aspect of this proposed legislation that causes the irrigation interests of Idaho most concern. Substantially every acre of land that raises crops in southern Idaho is irrigated. The water that is used for irrigation is the runoff in the spring from the water sheds of these wilderness areas stored in reservoirs for use during the irrigation season. Existing practices of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in these areas which are designed to promote optimum and controlled water runoff could be seriously impaired if this legislation is passed.

Of greater significance is the impact of this legislation on the future development of reclamation. Our increasing population, estimated another 1 million in 40 years, means increasing pressure on the land. Every acre susceptible of irrigation must eventually contribute to the food supply for this increasing population. Agriculture is basic to Idaho's economy. It is now and it will be in the future. There are over a million acres in southern Idaho alone that are susceptible to irrigation not now being irrigated. The land is there all that is needed is the water. The only way that water can be made available for this land is by the construction of upstream reservoirs on the tributaries of the Snake River which rise in this so-called wilderness area. Thousands of acrefeet of water annually go to waste through lack of adequate storage on the upstream tributaries.

The construction of upstream storage on the tributaries is also imperative to prevent the flood damage in the spring caused by uncontrolled runoff. Thousands of dollars of damage are incurred each year in the upper regions of the Snake and the flood problem is even more critical in the Columbia River caused by uncontrolled runoff through lack of upstream storage on tributaries other than the Snake. Efforts to construct upstream storage on tributaries of the Columbia in the Northwest have already been thwarted by nature lovers. It is obvious that there is a conflict between the preservation of wilderness areas and the construction of upstream storage projects for irrigation and flood control. Under the provisions of this bill there is no doubt in my mind which would prevail.

Also, I believe that this bill if passed would also have a very serious impact on the livestock industry. The livestock industry is also an integral part of Idaho's economy and is one that I know since I have been in the sheep business for many years. The livestock industry to survive must use Federal lands for grazing purposes-the Federal range under the supervision of the Bureau of Land Management and the national forests under the supervision of the Forest Service. The livestock industry has grazed these Federal lands under rules and regulations of these agencies which have been tested for many years and found feasible and workable. Yet by the very terms of this bill the administration of these areas by such agencies must be such as to conform with the paramount purpose of this bill to preserve the wilderness areas inviolate. Again there would be a conflict. My opinion is if this bill should become law it would have a very substantial prejudicial effect on the livestock industry in the Western States.

It would seem inevitable that these wilderness areas, once they are created, would be regarded by the general public as being similar to and in the same category as national parks and national monuments, the resources within the boundaries of which are never to be utilized or in any way molested.

There is another reason why we are opposed to this proposed legislation. It would create a new Federal agency, a national wilderness preservation council, where there is no need for creating still another Federal body. This would only lead to administrative complications and conflicts with present programs of the Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other Federal agencies administering public lands. We feel that these lands are properly supervised and administered at this time by these agencies. No additional laws or regulations are considered desirable or essential for good lands administration. It would simply be another layer of authority which would hamper existing agencies, increase Government expenses, and take the place of properly authorized agencies who are doing a sound job. One would think by the fervor by which this legislation is being urged that there are no current efforts being made to preserve such areas. I am advised that the wilderness and wild areas are now under Forest Service supervision and that these are established under rules and regulations of the Department of Agriculture.

Finally, no legislation of this kind should be considered until after the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has had time to complete its study and report. The legislation authorizing this Commission was passed last summer. The Commission is authorized to set in motion a nationwide inventory and evaluation of outdoor recreational resources and opportunities and compile such data as to determine the amount, kind, quality, and location of such outdoor recreational resources and opportunities and as will be required by the year 1976 and the year 2000 and to recommend what policies and what programs should be adopted to meet such future requirements. The subject matter of the legislation involves extremely long-range considerations and there is no need whatever for hasty action.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Idaho State Reclamation is in hearty accord with the position taken by the National Reclamation Association at its convention last fall that it is opposed to any legislation establishing wilderness areas which does not provide for the reasonable use of such areas for reclamation and water resource development. The agricultural and livestock industries are having enough difficulty as it is without Congress passing legislation to further hamper and add to the troubles with which they are now confronted. It would seem, therefore, quite fitting and proper that they be left alone for a while until such time as this type of legislation might be acceptable.

RESOLUTION OF THE IDAHO STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Whereas there has been introduced in Congress S. 1123, the so-called wilderness bill; and

Whereas the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is conducting a hearing on S. 1123 in Seattle, Wash., March 30, 1959; and

Whereas the Idaho State Chamber of Commerce, on October 16, 1958, did set forth by resolution its opposition to S. 4028, also known as the wilderness bill; and

Whereas S. 1123, in its intent and language, does not differ substantially from the provisions of S. 4028: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Idaho State Chamber of Commerce does herewith affirm its opposition to S. 1123 for the following reasons:

1. Existing Federal agencies, including the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service, now maintain effective and judicious administration of public lands.

2. Forest Service regulations now clearly state an intent to preserve wilderness and wild areas in their primitive state, and these regulations also enable the Secretary of Agriculture or Chief of the Forest Service to designate new wilderness areas.

3. S. 1123, like S. 4028, is contrary to the interests of national defense in that it contemplates additional restrictions on mineral resource exploration and development. Idaho contains the only known deposits of certain strategic minerals now in use, and continued exploration and development, therefore, is in the national interest.

4. The economy of Idaho is based upon the multiple-use concept of develop ment of its diverse natural resources to their full potential for the benefit of agriculture, livestock, mining and lumber industries, and recreation.

5. The Idaho State Chamber of Commerce recognizes the value of established wilderness areas, where such areas are not inconsistent with the multiple-use concept of resource development.

6. Any legislation such as S. 1123 is premature in view of the creation of the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which has been directed to report no later than 1961 on any recommendations it may have for the establishment of additional recreational areas, including wilderness; be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be included in the record of hearings on S. 1123 and, further, that copies of this resolution be delivered to the respective Members of the congressional delegation from Idaho.

STATEMENT OF L. B. MARTIN, PRESIDENT, IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

The Idaho Farm Bureau is happy to join many other groups in presenting our views on Senate bill 1123, the wilderness bill. We wish to call to the attention of the committee our testimony as given November 12, 1958, in Salt Lake City, Utah, setting forth our views, which remain the same despite the few minor changes made in S. 1123 over the original bill S. 4028.

The encouragement for growth and development this Nation was given by the Federal Government in its earlier years provided the people with the inspiration they needed to make the United States of America the greatest power on earth. The Federal Government assumed that its duty was to offer every green light possible for progress by the States and the people. In recent years a new attitude of discouragement to the people has been adopted by our Government, a change in the age-old policy of guaranteeing States' rights.

Regretfully, this new attitude on the part of Government and some Members of Congress has caused the people to look with some misgiving on many measures proposed for the good of all the people. Until recently the people seldom feared that the Government might wield its hidden powers to control development of the States or to strangle classes or phases of society.

Now come the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Department of Justice interpreting the Constitution in a new light, virtually saying that the States have few rights on the rivers and streams or the land adjacent thereto within their own boundaries. From the beginning of this Nation everyone agreed that the rights of the States to their own water was as unchangeable as the Rock of Gibraltar. Is it any wonder today the people see reason to fear the hidden meaning of much legislation pertaining to the States? We believe we have reason to fear that a little power given the Federal Government and its agencies may result in restrictive orders from administrators in later years.

Particularly in the West, where the bulk of the wilderness potential remains today, we fear such legislation as S. 1123 which might well place our States at the mercy, or lack of it, of some Secretary of Agriculture with a background of unfriendliness for the West and our natural resources. Any such proposals giving implied powers to nonelective officials will continue to be opposed in the West. At the moment certain sections of the West are suffering under administrative orders from nonelected officials in the Justice Department, and we must guard against any further opportunity for such officials to rule against our States rights and the individual privileges of a free people.

Freedom of opportunity is still very much a part of the life and philosophy of every individual in the West. We inherited such philosophy from the pioneer who trod the prairies and scaled the mountains to reach this area where freedom was the word. It is still much the same today, and what freedom is left we shall fight to retain. Where there is a possibility of losing an ounce of that freedom-as there is in S. 1123-we shall raise our voices against it. We are a venturing people. We take chances with everything in life but our freedom. On that we shall not gamble.

We view S. 1123 as a possible strangle hold on the progress of our State. We still seek every opportunity for development. We see S. 1123 as the antithesis of development. The very essence of the bill is opposed to development, and indeed, this essence may well turn into a drive for retrogression by adding to the acres to be placed in wilderness. This is a foot-in-the-door scheme not only to retain the wilderness we have with which we are in hearty agreement-but to add potential producing acres to the wilderness in permanent state.

We want the present wilderness areas preserved as they are-and present laws are being administered for this assurance by the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. Under the careful guidance of these Services the parks and forests have been preserved for multiple usage-not just for the benefit of the few who seek to add to the wilderness for their own selfish ends.

There have been few legitimate complaints concerning the administration of the wilderness. The whole people have been able to enjoy the parks and other wilderness areas. But now under this bill come those who would turn over these areas to the uninitiated and the untrained in wilderness preservation. We have every reason to fear that proponents of this bill have not stated all their ambitions for it. It is not strange that those who favor other proposals working toward an all-powerful central Government, of course, favor this bill. They have not seen the threat in an all-powerful central Government, and do not now see it. We in the West insist we have a right to be fearful, for already we have been the victims of rulings intended to strengthen the central Government at the expense of the States and the people. This bill is another link in the chain of events usurping States rights.

Today the hunter may envision the so-called preserved wilderness as his permanent happy hunting ground. Later he may find it closed to shooting by some well-meaning Secretary of Agriculture or Interior. The hunter will then say, as we have often said in recent years, "This is not what we voted for. It is not what we intended." The American people are getting a number of things they did not vote for. We have placed so much power in the hands of individual Government agents that today they can walk onto your farm and accuse you of crime and you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. This is the American way in reverse-and the thing we are fighting in such proposals as S. 1123.

It is the courts that will say what this bill has in mind. And we want to leave no opportunity for the courts to further strangle the States and their development. That is why we in the West must oppose S. 1123 as a threat to our progress. We want to avoid any future legal interpretations of implied sections, leaving too much to the imagination of those who have developed a philosophy of government favoring strong centralized power.

We believe the American people sooner or later, if not too late, will reach the conclusion with us that although this bill or something else may seem innocent on the surface, it is dangerous for the future of our children, and we shall say together "We just don't dare take the chance. Our freedom and that of our children is involved."

STATEMENT OF THE IDAHO RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

This statement is in opposition to S. 1123, a bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system.

The Idaho Resource Development Council, composed of Idaho's farm organizations, water users, livestock owners, miners, forestry organizations, tourist and travel, and reclamation groups-representing 90 percent of the industrial activity of the State-desire to be assured of the proper employment of the natural resources to promote national defense, and continue the orderly multiple use of grazing, mineral, timber, water and waterpower, and recreation, to harvest those crops as well as make it possible for our people to enjoy the beauties of nature.

Present laws on wilderness are quite adequate. Government land administrators already have the authority to protect wilderness and there are also provisions for enlarging these areas in the public lands. The National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, appointed by the President of the United States, has the job of preparing an inventory of the country's recreation resources, examining the need for additional resources, if any, and to report in September 1961. Let us await that report.

At a meeting of the council held March 17, 1959, at which a quorum was present and all segments of its varied membership in attendance, a resolution was adopted, all members concurring. Copy of this resolution is attached, and we trust you will give its contents and the ideas presented consideration in your study of the effects of the proposed wilderness preservation system bill.

RESOLUTION OF THE IDAHO RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Whereas the economy of the State of Idaho is based upon its agriculture, mining, lumber, sheep, and cattle industries, and the use of its waters for irrigation and hydroelectric power; and

Whereas one of the great potential industries of the State of Idaho is its tourist trade and wild life attractions; and

Whereas these industries are in turn dependent upon the wise and continuous ultilization of the natural resources of the State of Idaho; and

Whereas there is now pending in the Congress of the United State a bill known as S. 1123 to establish a national wilderness preservation system; and Whereas the enactment of this bill will deny to the natural resources industries of the State of Idaho the right to wisely develop the natural resources contained in the great primitive areas of this State, and further deny access to these primitive areas to millions of American citizens, all to the detriment of the said industries and to the people of the State of Idaho: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Idaho Resource Development Council, on behalf of itself, hereby declares that it is opposed to the enactment of S. 1123, for the reasons that the enactment of said bill prevents the normal development and utilization of the natural resources contained in such a wilderness system, that the agricultural, mining, timber, sheep, and cattle industries, and the wildlife and tourist industries will be irreparably damaged, and that the present very satisfactory and normal administration of our natural resources by the present land management agencies will be superseded and replaced by another unnecessary Federal Bureau.

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Idaho Resource Development Council at a meeting in Boise, Idaho, March 17, 1959. Organizations represented on the council include:

Idaho State Reclamation Association.

Idaho Wool Growers Association.

Idaho State Chamber of Commerce.

North Idaho Forestry Association.

Southern Idaho Forestry Association.

Southern Idaho Timber Protective Association.

Idaho Mining Association.

Idaho Cattlemen's Association.

Payette River Cattlemen's Association.

Mores Creek Cattlemen's Association.

RESOLUTION OF THE PAYETTE RIVER CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

We, the board of directors of the Payette River Cattlemen's Association, representing 400 cattlemen in the four counties of Gem, Payette, Valley, and Boise, in the State of Idaho, strongly oppose Senate bill 1123 as proposed and submitted to the 86th Congress.

After having revised this bill, we would like to list, in opposition, the following:

The economy of a State with a small population and a large portion of the land owned by the Federal Government, if set aside as proposed in this bill, would materially cripple the economy of many communities and our State. Much of our revenue and employment is from the resources on these Federaland State-owned lands, as follows:

1. Marketing and harvesting of lumber.

2. Large mining operations in its many phases.

3. Development of water and power operations.

4. The bill, as proposed, could materially cripple a cattle or sheep unit where the cattle migrate from spring, to summer. to fall pastures. Barring the livestock men from using this land would result in forcing them out of business.

STATEMENT OF THE OROFINO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Orfino Chamber of Commerce has gone on record opposing S. 1123, a bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system.

The members of this chamber live within a few miles of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area of 1,875,306 acres. We believe that all national lands should be managed under a multiple-use philosophy, with the optimum use the principal use. These uses and priority of uses may change from time to time. The present administrative agencies are dedicated to this type of management and land-use concept. To give a commission these millions of acres of land to manage for a single-use purpose would be contrary to the best 39871-59--11