STATEMENT OF R. E. KERR, CHAIRMAN, OREGON FARM BUREAU FEDERATION NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Mr. KERR. I think I can do that very readily.

Senator JACKSON. Without objection, your statement will be included in the record at this point.

Mr. KERR. Thank you, sir.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF R. E. KERR

My name is R. E. Kerr. I am a filbert grower from Lane County, Oreg., and chairman of the Natural Resources Committee of the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation. I am making this presentation in behalf of that organization and I wish to express its appreciation of the opportunity of expressing its views to you.

While the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, at previous hearings on S. 4028, has criticized some features of that bill that are repeated in this measure, I will confine my remarks today to the two aspects: that it is untimely and that it compromises a broader, more constructive act already on the statute books. In challenging the need for this bill, the Farm Bureau does not challenge the need for wildernesses; but it does oppose establishment under a relatively inflexible congressional act of a system that has been working well under the administrative agencies that originated it and have maintained it for many years. The urgency with which the partisans of this bill are pressing for its enactment is nowise justified, particularly in view of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Act, which was enacted to operate in this field.

us.

Recreation is the common denominator of the public law and the bill now before But the public law approaches the subject from the standpoint of a rational study and evaluation, assisted by the State and local groups and persons. The wilderness bill approaches it from an emotional standpoint, supported by the great publicity resources of the outdoor, wildlife, and sportsmen's organizations throughout the country.

The wilderness bill operates to forestall the Review Commission's study of present and prospective needs and facilities for outdoor recreation. In great areas that the Commission should survey and evaluate, the Commission's decisions will have been made for it. It will have to warp its findings and recommendations to fit the accomplished facts of the wilderness system.

Doubtless the Commission would wish to recommend that many of the areas, at present roadless and primitive, should be opened up to that great majority of people who are neither rich nor rugged nor organized in pressure groups, but who are in as great need of outdoor recreation as the fortunate souls who are able to utilize the wilderness. Forest camps, State parks, and private facilities are cruelly overcrowded. Here is the occasion for urgency-not a crash program to fix a pattern of land use that would only change imperceptibly in any case during the few years assigned to the review. Scenic, scientific, educational, and conservation elements of the wilderness program could safely be left to the guardianship of their present administrators during that time.

The urgency of the partisans of this bill and their unwillingness to permit their interests to be considered in relation to other interests, serves seriously to compromise the Public Law 85-470. With tremendous areas of public land segregated to essentially a single land use in an unevaluated, uncritical operation, there is likelihood that the review under that public law will be conducted in an atmosphere of distrust and contention instead of amity and cooperation. At the last convention of the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, the voting delegates made the following recommendations:

"We recommend that Farm Bureau members participate in and cooperate with the various sportsmen's organizations, particularly with reference to the education of young sportsmen.

"We recommend that county Farm Bureau natural resources committees participate in hearings and discussions to be conducted by the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission under Public Law 85-470, and urge its membership to participate in conjunction with the various sports organizations; and that action by the Congress on the wilderness bill, S. 4028, be deferred until the completion of the Commission's study and report."

The prospect of the cooperation envisaged in those recommendations is growing dim. While there was general approval of the Public Law 85-470, the revival of the wilderness bill aroused resentment and has done extensive injury to the relations between groups having interests in the public domain.

Senator JACKSON. You may proceed, Mr. Kerr.

Mr. KERR. I represent the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, which is an organization and has about 9,400 families, its members.

Yesterday I heard the opponents represented organizations, so that places me all right; individuals are for it. I have noted considerable literature getting the individuals together, however, that probably there is a call of the wild that has assembled them. I have gotten large sheets from National Trustees for Conservation, and such like, "Write to your Congressman and when he answers, then write again, and I see they have been doing it.

Regarding this matter, there is another distinction. Those appearing here who have an economic interest or who are trained conservationists have been opposed to the bill. Those who have an emotional interest have been in favor of it. It is pretty hard to resolve the points of view, but the Farm Bureau Federation has, at its last annual meeting, the house of delegates recommended that the county Farm Bureau Natural Resources Committee participate in hearings and discussions to be conducted by the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission under Public Law 85-470 and urge its membership to participate in conjunction with various sports organizations and that action by the Congress on wilderness bill, S. 4028, be deferred until the completion of the Commission's study and report. We set ourselves a program but find ourselves dressed up with no place to go because this bill has been intruded ahead of this public law which was set up for a rational study of the needs of recreation and recommendations of what to do. It is a going concern, presumably, but has been completely ignored by the proponents of this bill, and its partisans here and throughout the United States, as though it did not exist.

While the Farm Bureau Federation recognizes the importance of recreation, it considers that the wilderness is only one phase of it, but that it should be considered in relation to other uses of the natural resources, and recognizes a bad principle herein. We might assume that the power interests chose to put in a companion bill that no waters having a power potential should be considered by this Rockefeller commission. I don't suppose that that would be approved by the proponents of this bill, but it is exactly parallel. That is, to remove from the purview of the Rockefeller commission one of the very largest fields of operation.

Senator JACKSON. Well, isn't the primary objective of the socalled Rockefeller commission to take an inventory of what we have and what the requirements are going to be?

Mr. KERR. And recommendations what to do about it.

Senator JACKSON. Yes; but I mean it is not set up to recommend boundary lines or specific wilderness systems or recreational areas, I didn't think. Now maybe I am wrong.

Mr. KERR. I took it that it would recognize the ones that were established by this bill and it would be a fence, saying "Instead of this, that has been decided for you, you will proceed on what is left."

Senator JACKSON. I had the impression that it was a long-term look to determine our present potential and what the demands would be; now I may be in error.

Senator MAGNUSON. That was the objective.

Senator JACKSON. I think it has been kind of bandied around here again, just to get the facts out on the table.

Senator MAGNUSON. They are not going to attempt, as I understand it, to touch what there is now.

Mr. KERR. That is correct.

Senator MAGNUSON. They are going to try and look ahead and say that when we get 100 million people, what will be our needs, and therefore make a plan for that need, or I mean 200 million people.

Mr. KERR. Senator Magnuson, that is exactly it, and the need to have resources that are available and not have a big block of them set aside that they may not consider.

I believe that in many of these areas that are at present roadless and primitive that the great demand, the urgent demand is for provisions for the ones who go in automobiles and who are overgrazing the present areas, these picnics and camping areas, and that is the great need at the present time. Therefore, this Rockefeller commission should have a free hand in deciding. It says in the act, for the present and for these times in the future, but if a great proportion of it is removed from their purview by this bill, then they are not able to provide this big area that should have roads and should permit the expanding population to really get out into the woods.

Senator JACKSON. How would you feel if the Rockefeller commission came up-you have made your statement sort of contingent on their findings what if the Rockefeller commission came up with a program that is far in excess of the pending measure?

Senator MAGNUSON. They would be against it.

Mr. KERR. I would not say that.

Senator JACKSON. I am not acting as your lawyer, but I think you should keep in mind that the Rockefeller family have spent millions to promote the locking up of resources, to use the expression of the other side's point of view.

Mr. KERR. I recognize that, and so that I think that the proponents of this bill would not, should not feel that they are going to be short changed by a rational study of this.

Senator JACKSON. I am just trying to be helpful from your point of view. Are you sure you want to make your position contingent on the Rockefeller decision?

Mr. KERR. I want to see its results. I will testify, or my people will try to show where there is need of more recreation resources. We are for recreation resources and that is the point, and that is the main feature of it, that we need more and should not remove them from a rational study.

Senator MAGNUSON. Has the Farm Bureau taken a national stand on this bill that you know of?

Mr. KERR. Yes, sir. It has opposed extension of the wilderness areas under Federal law.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, sir. Anyone here from the Washington Wool Growers Association? If they present a statement we will be glad to have it. We do not hear a response.

Mr. John B. Barnard, of Denver; then Mr. Richard C. Koenig, of Bellevue, will be next.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. BARNARD, JR., REPRESENTING THE COLORADO WATER CONGRESS AND COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Mr. BARNARD. Senator, with permission, since I am the only representative of the State of Colorado here, I have two other documents appended to my statement that I would like to be included in the record.

Senator JACKSON. Without objection they will be placed in the record. Now, can you summarize your remarks? I know you have come a long way and you were patient to stay over. We are running up against the clock.

Mr. BARNARD. Yes, sir. Actually, rather than summarize, I would rather use such time as I am permitted to have to expand a portion of the statement I intended to make and not refer to the other portions, since some of them have been thoroughly discussed.

Senator JACKSON. Your statement will be included in the record at this point together with the appended data.

(The documents above referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. Barnard, Jr.

My name is John B. Barnard, Jr. I am a lawyer, and am now serving as first assistant attorney general of the State of Colorado. I am also chairman of the Colorado Water Congress, and a member of the legislative committee of of the Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts. I am authorized to and do, represent both of those organizations today. The Colorado Water Congress is an organization of political subdivisions and private individuals interested in the conservation, development, and protection of Colorado's water resources. The Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts exists for the primary purpose of bringing about the institution of programs to conserve and make better use of soil.

Both organizations which I represent vigorously oppose the enactment of Senate bill 1123 of the 86th Congress. There are many reasons why they do so, and there are several specific provisions of the bill to which they object. However, the time available only permits the expression of the most general objections.

First, I think we possess basic philosophies which are in direct opposition to the philosophies of those who support the wilderness legislation. There are really three different basic philosophies concerning the use of Federal lands. First, we are told by the wilderness supporters that there are those who would like to ruthlessly plunder the resources to provide great profits, with no regard for the future. If such is the case, we would disagree with this philosophy of waste. The second philosophy is quite similar in result, though perhaps nobler in motive. This philosophy is that any areas which have so far retained their character as wilderness should remain so. This is the philosophy of waste through virtual nonuse, and in spite of the protestations of the supporters to the contrary, the effect of Senate bill 1123 is to carry out this philosophy. A careful analysis of the bill will bear this out. We disagree with this philosophy of nonuse.

We believe in the philosophy of wise use of God-given resources. We believe it to be morally right, and cite in support thereof, the parable of the 10 talents, contained in a work commonly known as the Holy Bible.

Aside from the fact that we disagree with the basic philosophy of preserving wilderness for the sake of preservation alone, we also feel that the legislation itself is ill-conceived because it gives no consideration to the needs of the people for other uses. How much wilderness is needed? The bill gives no consideration to how much in comparison with how much is needed for other

purposes. The only standards as distinguished from procedures for inclusion in the wilderness system are based on character, not existing or future need, nor is there any effort made to balance this need with other needs. Presumably, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission will report on desirable needs for recreation purposes, but the wilderness supporters aren't even content to wait for this much information before reversing the long established multipleuse policy. Parenthetically, we are aware of section 1(d), S. 1123, and its reference to multiple-use policy. We submit that this part of this subsection is rendered meaningless by other sections of the bill.

Thirdly, we think soil treatment measures and proper forest management measures, including scientific harvesting of mature stands, and active and immediate institution of fire, insect and disease prevention, and treatment measures, are desirable and do not seriously interfere with the use of lands for any legitimate recreational or scientific purposes. Yet, such measures are either prohibited by the bill, or so tied up in bureaucratic redtape that they can be instituted only on the basis of too little, too late.

Our fourth point is that the imposition of the restrictions contained in the bill, even on a limited basis, will adversely affect the use and development of much larger areas. Water is the lifeblood of the semiarid areas of the West. To develop the available water, canals, ditches, and reservoirs are essential, as are proper forest management practices in these areas of very high water yield. Such works also, incidentally, greatly enhance recreational opportunities for our people.

Such works do not adversely affect the natural conditions of areas where they are located to any measurable degree. Yet, such works can only be constructed under this bill, in or through wilderness areas with a specific exception granted by the President. We submit that the President has a few other duties to attend to, which are quite important. The practical effect of these provisions is to halt water development for multitudes of persons and thousands of acres of other public and private lands to protect an insignificant acreage for the wilderness purist. This is totally insupportable.

Finally, we object to the creation of a council to spend tax money to give special treatment to a special, limited use; we object to the permission granted under the bill to continue attacks on water rights established under State law; we object to limiting development of resources which are or may be essential to the national security; and we object to legislation, disguised though it may be, which sets aside for the privileged few, property of the public which should be managed with the end of contributing to the health, happiness, and prosperity of the many.

In conclusion, gentlemen, we submit that if we do not continue to be economically and, consequently, militarily strong in today's world, we may indeed see our Nation returned to total wilderness, untrammeled by man, but with no one left alive to enjoy it.

With the permission of the committee, I would like to submit as appendixes, copies of the Colorado Water Congress Newsletter dealing in more detail with our position, and copies of House Joint Resolution 8, adopted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, opposing this and similar legislation. Thank you.

COLORADO. WATER CONGRESS NEWSLETTER

Two philosophers stopped by a remote mountain stream. One spoke: "Ah, Wilderness. You wild, beautiful virgin. Let me protect you from those who would exploit your beauty. Come with me to a faraway place where your untouched beauty will be preserved forever for people like me who truly appreciate you." "Wait," said the other philosopher. "Do not take Wilderness away. I can't go to that faraway place. Neither can my friends. I love the beauty of Wilderness, but in a different way. Is not beauty where you find it? I see the beauty of Wilderness in her water, in her timber, in her oil, in her minerals, in food on the table, in security for my family, and in security for my Nation."

Many know the first philosopher as the great protector of our dwindling wilderness lands *** the roadless, uninhabited, and beautiful backwoods country of our Nation *** the priceless heritage for millions of future Americans who will inhabit concrete jungles and smog-filled city canyons. Others know him as an exponent of emotion and fantasy.

Many know the second philosopher as a spokesman for facts and reality who believes that the real definition of conservation is wise use. Others know him as the spokesman for economic interests who have dollar signs for eyes.