Whereas any extension of existing wilderness areas, or the establishment of more stringent regulation of existing areas, will unnecessarily and unwisely restrict the development and economic strength of many essential western industries, including the lumbering, mining, agricultural, oil and gas, tourist, and other industries; and

Whereas there are presently in existence in the State of Colorado, under administrative regulation, wild, wilderness, or primitive areas containing 610,305 acres of land, and no showing has been made that even these areas are necessary or desirable for the single purpose of wilderness preservation, or that such areas have not been adequately administered as wilderness areas under existing policies and regulations; and

Whereas the creation of another agency to duplicate the functions of existing land-management agencies of the Federal Government can serve no purpose other than to increase unnecessarily Federal expenditures of tax money, now therefore: be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the 42d General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the Senate concurring therein, That it is the policy of the people of the State of Colorado, speaking through their elected representatives, to seek the wise and beneficial development of God-given resources for the greatest benefit of all the people, and that in order to carry out this policy, the Congress of the United States should be and it is hereby respectfully memorialized to: (1) Decline passage of any of the presently proposed versions of the so-called wilderness bills; (2) decline passage of any legislation which would encourage the extension of, or increase the rigidity of regulation over existing wilderness, wild, or primitive areas; (3) decline passage of any legislation which would establish another Federal agency to duplicate existing functions of Federal land-administering agencies; and (4) decline passage of any legislation which would set aside any area of federally owned land for a limited and restricted use regardless of the need of such areas for other wise and beneficial uses; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this joint memorial be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, the members of the delegation from Colorado to the 86th Congress of the United States, and all interested agencies and departments of the State of Colorado.

Mr. BARNARD. Thank you. 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 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 and I think most organizations represent 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 instruction of programs to conserve and make better use of soil.

I wish to add also, Senator, that the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts has also opposed the wilderness legislation. 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 unfortunately, I must limit these objections today to a few statements, skipping over several that have been discussed.

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; and we have many examples of that. 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, under our experience with other water developments, 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 unsupportable.

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, then, going to some specific reasons why we feel this legislation will accomplish that purpose, I would like to first point out that when we go before your Senate committee asking for authorization for a project such as the San Juan Channel, which has recently been considered in New Mexico, we have to establish that the benefits of that project exceed its cost. We submit, in the first place, this legislation does not so

Senator MAGNUSON. That is what you try to establish. That isn't necessarily true.

Mr. BARNARD. Sometimes we are unsuccessful and our projects aren't constructed. Such standard is not applicable to primitive or wilderness areas.

Senator MAGNUSON. Might have been in bad shape if you had to do that in upper Colorado.

Mr. BARNARD. We did and the Congress approved it, and exceeding the cost.

Senator MAGNUSON. But you try; your responsibility is to show as many benefits as you can to cost.

Mr. BARNARD. Not our particular interest, sir. The Department of the Interior is responsible for making that determination.

Senator MAGNUSON. Yes.

Mr. BARNARD. However, not even this requirement exists with respect to the maintenance of wilderness areas.

Another example, or an example of why we think this gives a special treatment to wilderness enthusiasts, under our reclamation projects, unless specific exceptions are made, we have what we call the 160-acre limitation. In other words, a person can only get water for a reclamation project for 160 acres. If he owns any more he has to sell it so he can use 160 acres to support his family, but there is no

acreage limitation imposed on the number of people who use wilderness in this bill.

I would like to mention, for example, the Winenunuche Pass diversion unit of the San Luis Valley project, which is an authorized project, authorized many years ago and hasn't been constructed, even though Congress found it to be in the national interest, because there is an existing wild area, the San Juan Wild Area, through which they need right-of-way and they have been unable to attain it, even though Congress found it to be in the national interest.

We have had the same problem and same theories with respect to the Curecanti Reservoir in Colorado, and the Denver Water Board, which supplies 850,000 people, has had the same problems on some of its projects.

I would like to refer specifically to some of the provisions of the legislation that is being kicked around today and, frankly, I think that there is a great deal of misapprehension and misconstruction of the legislation. In the first place, it covers in immediately those areas designated under regulations U-1 and U-2 and wild and wilderness areas. Those are forest lands. The 20-year provision is applicable only to previous primitive areas which were established from 1931, I believe, to 1939 under regulation L-20, which was adopted for the purpose of protecting those areas until a determination could be made. This was 20 years ago and there has been a redetermination on a very few of those primitive areas.

So now we have a situation where another 20 years will elapse, and another few of the areas will be reconsidered and then regardless of quality of those areas, they will be automatically covered into the legislation. I realize, by the way, the word "automatically" has been taken out of the present version of this legislation, but the provision remains. identical as far as the inclusion without further action.

The bill goes much further than writing into law present regulations concerning wilderness. If you will compare section 1(e), which is the definition of wilderness as an area that is "untrammeled by man" with the sanction for inclusion of all such areas regardless of the amount and regardless of whether they are forest lands, public lands, or any other type of reserved lands, with section 2(e), which gives a procedure for the inclusion of all such lands, the potential lands which could be included under this legislation amount to much more than even 50 million acres. I think there are probably about 180 million acres according to estimates we have heard.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Barnard, we have run 7 minutes.

Mr. BARNARD. I'm very sorry.

Senator JACKSON. You go ahead if you want to finish. We do have a problem here; I am trying now to see if we can finish by 1:00. This is the earliest.

Mr. BARNARD. I will just make very brief mention of this. There are five different kinds of land included, other public lands which are very extensive in nature and could be included in the wilderness. If, indeed, all they want to do is to write into legislation the existing regulations, this would be simple to do and not require sections 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), or 2(e), or the provision regarding primitive areas in 2(a). This would write into legislation the existing areas. These other provisions have nothing to do with existing regulations.

The park lands are under Congress and established under Congress. The Indian lands are private lands held in trust by the Federal Government, not public lands. Wildlife refuges and ranges are not wilderness purpose, they are for the purpose of providing for the propagation of wildlife, not for the purpose of permitting people to go into the areas and the Department of the Interior has testified that it is necessary to treat those areas in order to propagate wildlife, so they are not in a wilderness category at all.

The Wilderness Council, of course, we also feel is totally objectionable and, frankly, I haven't heard any support for that council at this hearing. It is the first such hearing I have attended.

I am sorry to have taken this extra time.

Senator JACKSON. You say you have no objection to the setting up of the Council?

Mr. BARNARD. No. I say I have heard no one here support the setting up of the Council, and I have heard lots of objection, and we also object to it.

Senator JACKSON. I think there was testimony in support of it.

Mr. BARNARD. I have heard no reasons in support of it. I have heard testimony in support of it.

Senator JACKSON. Well, that is a matter for, of course, individual opinion, but I mean it was submitted here; let's put it that way. I think it was testified to.

Mr. BARNARD. Well, perhaps I didn't hear it, but I didn't hear anyone say why this was necessary or desirable.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Barnard; I appreciate your patience.

Mr. STONG. Mr. Chairman, since it was referred to in the testimony and there has been a request, may I file the resolution of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts in regard to the wilderness bill?

Senator JACKSON. Without objection, it will be included at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION No. 2 OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

WILDERNESS AREAS

Whereas there has been advocated and urged the adoption of legislation which would among other things permit the conversion of vast areas of public domain (now open to multiple use) into so-called wilderness areas devoid of roadways, sanitation, or communication facilities or fire or police protection; and

Whereas such wilderness areas, if created, would interfere with orderly programs of land and watershed management and development, and would impair present public land uses for grazing, lumbering, and mining, and would prohibit the use of such lands for transportation purposes and transmission line rightsof-way; and

Whereas such wilderness areas, by reason of their inaccessibility and lack of facilities, would neither be available nor suitable for recreational uses by the average vacationing American family; and

Whereas the policy of such legislation is contrary to the policy of NASCD, as expressed in the public lands policy statement of the NASCD recently reexamined: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts recommend to the Congress that

1. No additional areas of the public lands of the United States should be withdrawn from use by the general public through establishment of wilderness areas.

2. In management of the people's property, we should strive to attain full use of the public lands for production of water, feed, timber, minerals, recreation, and other benefits which can be derived from a multiple use of such lands; and 3. Present land-administering agencies are sufficient to carry out national policy in respect to public lands and there is no justification for the creation of an additional agency such as the proposed National Wilderness Preservation Council.

PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTING EXISTING WILDERNESS AREAS

Whereas snow studies and fire prevention measures are vital to the conservation of our ever-increasing national water supply needs: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the NASCD is in accord with the principle of protecting wilderness areas. However, it is our belief that the multiple use of Federal lands is best and can be better attained by close counsel with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior in the States or area involved and not by specific congressional enactment for a single use.

STATEMENT OF R. C. KOENIG, BELLEVUE, WASH.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Koenig.

Mr. KOENIG. I have no prepared statement. First, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify. My name is R. C. Koenig; I represent only myself. I live in Bellevue; I am an electrical engineering student at the University of Washington.

I oppose passage of bill S. 1123 in its present state for two principal

reasons:

First, this bill represents a useless drain of tax funds. Worse, it is a direct insult to the outstanding records of the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. I have been a career employee with the U.S. Forest Service and know from personal experience of the job dedication of the Forest Service people. In what other Government agency do the field employees as a matter of course work 50 hours for 40 hours' pay? In what other agency do employees perform extra services without pay, such as staying close to the office on summer weekends in case of fire as a matter of course. It is unfair to these people to state the unfounded charge that industry pressure determines the location of wilderness area boundaries.

The Forest Service strives to manage our national forests under the guiding principal of the greatest good to the greatest number over the long run and has done so since Gifford Pinchot instilled this philosophy some 60 years ago. Some weekend woodsmen in wilderness preservation groups aren't happy with this. Witness the statement by such a group reported in the Seattle Times in early March to the effect that if the Forest Service did not think it best for the whole public to include the heavily timbered lower river valleys within the proposed Glacier Peak wilderness area that they would have it made into a national park and removed from Forest Service jurisdiction.

The Forest Service has an excellent record of administration of wilderness areas. This bill would saddle an efficient agency with the expense of an essentially useless and potentially biased committee concerned with the welfare of only a very small segment of forest users. Second, wilderness areas should remain in the wilderness system only if the Secretary of Agriculture determines them to be of wilderness value. I contend that once forest land is placed in the wilderness system under provisions on page 5 of bill S. 1123, it will be extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible, to ever again return it to productive forest management under provisions on page 11. Witness the Olympic Park situation.