The Silver City-Grant County Chamber of Commerce is not opposed to the continuance of the Gila wilderness areas as the boundaries are now fixed. Rather, we urge that it be made more accessible to use by the public through the construction of access roads so that the people may use and enjoy it as it is intended that they should. We believe that the present management of the wilderness areas is being conducted in a fair and reasonable manner and we see no reason for the creation of an additional bureau with additional expense to the people of the United States to manage these areas. Mr. Chairman, if I haven't used up my time, I would like to make a comment or two. I would like to bring to mind to this group a passage in the Bible, Genesis 1:28. It says, God created this earth and gave man domination of this earth. Adam and Eve were placed in this world in complete wilderness, and I am wondering if these proponents would be satisfied if we had it all back in the wilderness agam. Thank you. Mr. STONG. Mr. John W. Murphy, of Tucson. STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MURPHY, TUCSON, ARIZ. Mr. MURPHY. Senator Goldwater, I have a written protest to this Senate bill, but I would like to make several remarks. My name is John W. Murphy, native-born Tucsonian. We own a ranch in New Mexico, north of Silver City, which is entirely in a wilderness and primitive area and comprises some 125,000 acres. It is in reality not wilderness. One of the State highways runs right through it. Over 12 sections of juniper have been eradicated by chaining and cabling. It has several hundred acres of farmlands and these roads are necessary because of the 2,800 acres that are scattered, patented land. During the past 10 years I have inquired of our foreman and cowboys and we have never had a single member of the Wilderness Society identify themselves as such on the ranch. It doesn't seem like it is necessary to have hundreds of thousands of acres set aside as a wilderness when there is so little use made of it, and I don't think we should be fooled by this legislation. There have been several attempts to pass legislation that is much more severe, and then they come up with a bill that indicates you could have softer use, but I think it is a matter of getting their foot in the door in order to eliminate multiple use, and I do not believe our economy can afford the withdrawal of such large areas; small areas, we are not opposed to certain limited areas, sufficient area for children and grandchildren to enjoy as such, but to take such huge areas and there are nearly a million acres in this area that we are in-is really preposterous. I wish to protest and I have filed a written protest. STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MURPHY, TUCSON, ARIZ. I take this means of registering my opposition to S. 1123, known as the wilderness bill. I am the owner of an operating cattle ranch situated approximately 50 miles north of Silver City, N. Mex., known as the Diamond Bar Ranch. It is my understanding that if this bill is passed by Congress, over 200 sections of land in my ranch will be adversely affected. My ranch has been an operating cattle ranch in excess of 50 years. There is a New Mexico State highway running through it, and there are many miles of roads which give ingress and egress to the 2,800 patented acres scattered throughout the ranch. Approximately 12 sections of this land have been cleared by chaining and cabling. We have several hundred acres of land which have been developed for farming purposes, and there are, of course, the necessary stock-watering tanks, approximately 50, necessary outbuildings, corrals, and over 100 miles of fences, campsites with permanent buildings and corrals, wells and steel tanks, together with windmills and pumps, and a 3,500-foot airstrip used by the Forest Service and others, situated on the ranch. It is my understanding that the wilderness bill will set aside approximately 10 percent of all public lands in the United States, or some 19 million acres, for some degree of a wilderness area; that is, an area in which roads, motor wheels, and commercial ventures are forbidden. It is further my understanding that such bill makes provision that such lands set aside as wilderness or primitive areas may be used for stock-grazing purposes. It would appear that such bill does not create an absolute right that such lands be used for stockraising purposes, but that the determination of whether or not stock grazing will be permitted will be left to the determination of an administrative agency. Needless to say, the taking of my land for the purposes intended by this bill would result in a great personal loss to myself. However, the impact of this bill would be far greater on our communities and political subdivisions, such as counties and States, than it would be on any one individual. It would seem to be clear that there would be a considerable loss of revenues to the U.S. Government, as it would not realize rentals and grazing fees presently being paid for cattle grazing. The loss of revenue to the State and county, for property taxes on equipment, cattle, and other installations on our ranch, if this bill is passed, would be considerable. It is clear that the use of this land over the past 50 years has been essentially and primarily for cattle-grazing purposes, and it would be unfair and inequitable to permit the seizure of such lands to be used solely for restricted recreational purposes. The impact on the economy of the communities in the vicinity of our ranch would, naturally, be felt, because we would not employ personnel that presently have jobs on our ranch, and we would not make purchases from neighboring communities as we presently do for supplies and equipment. I would also like to point out that during the past 50 years the lands which I presently own and operate on my ranch north of Silver City, N. Mex., have been under the general jurisdiction, control, and supervision of the U.S. Forest Service. Under their supervision, they regularly judge the quality of the range and set quotas of numbers of cattle that can safely be grazed on such premises. The forest lands under the supervision of the Forest Service are, of course, a model of conservation. It is my position that the Forest Service can best protect the rights of the public by continuing to so supervise and control such premises. At this time, of course, individuals are permitted to enter into forest lands for camping, hunting, and other recreational purposes. It would seem to be a total rejection of the basic premises of the Forest Service to permit S. 1123 to be passed. Mr. Clint Davis, Information Director of the Forest Service, stated at a recent meeting of the American Forestry Association, held in Tucson, Ariz.: "We are opposed to the present proposed legislation, as it sets up an unnecessary council. It does not give administrative authority the time and opportunity to make wilderness area determinations. Every area now a wilderness would be permanent. We don't think that this should be automatic." I would like to reiterate that, under the present legislation under which such rangelands are supervised and controlled by the Forest Service, an amicable relationship has been maintained for over 50 years, which has resulted in the conservation of the range and revenue to the U.S. Government. It would seem to be clear that these 19 million acres of lands at issue should remain subject to existing legislation, and that it is totally unnecessary to create another commission or pass further legislation to protect such land. From a recreational point of view, existing parks, public and forest lands provide ample opportunity for recreational purposes. Certainly today's citizens have neither the time nor the inclination to hike or pack into these areas. Invariably, a hunter or picnicker will use his automobile to drive to the point where he desires to use such facilities. If the wilderness bill should be passed, it would be impossible to make provision under such legislation to make easy access for our citizens and their children for picnicking, camping, or other purposes. The only means of access into such wilderness and primitive areas would be by horseback or afoot. As a citizen of Arizona, I feel especially strong on this question of any further Federal control over our lands. There are only some 15 to 16 percent of the lands in Arizona under private ownership. The balance of such lands are held by our State and Federal Governments. Needless to say, the further domination of the vast majority of the land in Arizona by the Federal Government is undesirable from the viewpoint of the citizens of Arizona. For all of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that this committee take no favorable action on S. 1123, known as the wilderness bill. Mr. STONG. Mr. Obed Lassen, Arizona State land commissioner. STATEMENT OF OBED M. LASSEN, STATE LAND COMMISSIONER, ARIZONA Mr. LASSEN. Senator Murray, Senator Goldwater, my remarks are going to be quite brief inasmuch as I was sure there would be quite a bit of repetition, so I will read them. My name is Óbed M. Lassen and I am State land commissioner of the State Land Department of Arizona. I am also serving as State water commissioner, and I serve on seven other boards, either as a member or as an ex officio member. I am responsible for the administration of some 10-million-plus acres of State school and institutional lands, and it is my duty to see that these institutions realize the utmost benefit of all moneys derived from the leasing and selling of these lands. Lands that were practically unsalable 15 or 20 years ago are now highly desirable at almost any price. I am of the honest opinion that if a national wilderness preservation system were to become established it would seriously interfere with the responsibilities placed upon this department in administering these lands to the full benefit of the State, and therefore I wish to go on record as strongly opposing the establishment of such a system. Arizona is on the threshold of what promises to be a period of vastly increased oil and gas exploration and development. Some 2 million acres of the State's lands are presently under lease through this department. It is my hope, and the hope of every citizen, that the exploration and development of these lands proceed unhindered by an enactment which might tend to discourage the operation companies by setting aside and withholding from development extensive and promising areas. As water commissioner of the State of Arizona, I am constantly faced with a serious and perennial water problem. A complete study is now being made, through our watershed management program, to determine by what method the waters that are falling on our watersheds, which are badly needed for domestic, industrial, and agricultural use, can be retained, instead of allowing these waters to be consumed on our watersheds by phreatophytes or worthless plants. I cannot help but emphasize that our water resources and water problems are probably the most important that we have facing the State of Arizona today. Any wilderness area established on our major watersheds would be seriously detrimental and contrary to the research work that has been done so far on our watershed project, and it would materially affect the goal of producing better timber, obtaining more grass, and especially in securing more water, which is the most needed product in the development of our State. Mr. STONG. Charles L. Thompson, Pueblo, Colo., Chamber of Commerce. I think we have a statement from them. It will be printed later in the record. W. J. Shumway, Reserve, N. Mex., is our next witness. STATEMENT OF W. J. SHUMWAY, RESERVE, N. MEX. Mr. SHUMWAY. Senator Murray, Senator Goldwater, my name is W. J. Shumway, and I live in Reserve, N. Mex. I have the privilege of appearing at this hearing as a member of the House of Representatives of the New Mexico State Legislature and as the official representative of the Honorable John Burroughs, Governor of the State of New Mexico. In so doing I express New Mexico's opposition to further wilderness areas being imposed upon the public lands within our State. In March of this year the New Mexico Legislature officially declared the State's position on the establishment of further wilderness areas by adopting House Joint Memorial 3. This joint memorial clearly expresses the official opposition of our State. Governor Burroughs has asked that I bring the position of New Mexico to your attention by reading the memorial as adopted. It is as follows [reading]: HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 3 Memorializing the Congress of the United States to decline passage of a bill establishing a national wilderness preservation system and designating certain areas to be maintained as a wilderness Whereas a bill is now under consideration by the Congress of the United States, which provides for useless and expensive regulations concerning the maintenance of wilderness areas and is generally burdensome upon the people of New Mexico and of the United States; and Whereas there is already an abundant supply of wilderness reservations in the Federal lands; and Whereas maintenance of lands as a wilderness area would make scenic wonders of the West inaccessible to many millions of people, and, as well, make such areas prey for insect pests and diseases, and, as well, make fire protection difficult and expensive; and Whereas it would encroach upon the water rights of the Western States, and retard their economic development; and Whereas the proposed National Wilderness Preservation Council does not seem necessary because it would duplicate and complicate existing services now capably administered; and Whereas the proposed legislation is premature until the Recreation Resources Review Commission has made its study of outdoor recreation needs and resources; and Whereas the proposed national wilderness preservation system is especially detrimental to New Mexico because of the unusually vast amount of federally controlled land within its boundaries; and Whereas this legislature and the responsible officials of the State of New Mexico recognize That the social and economic welfare of New Mexico is best served by the present uses allowed of federally controlled land; That New Mexico has an abundance of scenic wonders of which access would be deprived by the proposed legislation; 39871-59-25 That the proposed legislation is burdensome and expensive to administer and will cause great inconvenience and financial hardship to the people of New Mexico; That the proposed legislation unduly restricts the use of federally controlled lands, and encroaches upon the water rights of New Mexico: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the 24th Legislature of the State of New Mexico does hereby memorialize the Congress of the United States to take such steps as are necessary to insure that the proposed legislation or similar legislation relating to establishing a national wilderness system and designating certain areas to be maintained as a wilderness does not become law; be it further Resolved, That copies of this memorial be sent to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, and the Members of Congress, and to such other officials as the Governor of the State of New Mexico shall deem advisable. Now I am not unmindful of the limited effect of a memorial. The mere registering of such a complaint will have little influence on the Washington Senators who are so bent upon the passage of a wilderness bill. Neither am I unaware of the numerous objections to the wilderness legislation that have gone unheeded by the bill's proponents. After numerous hearings last fall, on 4028, 1123 comes out in the spring a marvelous duplicate of the same old bill. A careful and detailed review of S. 1176 through S. 1123 with seemingly dozens of House and Senate bills in between, fails to disclose anything but an apparent carbon copy of the original. With each successive printing the bill retains its fundamental faults. Sponsors of the bill claim prodigious compromise and revision. Pages from the Congressional Record produce statements from Senator Humphrey that he has labored long and diligently to perfect and refine the measure. Yet a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce categorically states that the original measure is left substantially intact. The sponsor of the bill launches into an exhaustive discourse on the floor of the Senate. He boasts of his own endeavors to modify the bill, yet in subsequent printing he utterly fails to remove the basic objections and proceeds unrestrained. From the foregoing, the essential point rises clear and sharp. The time has passed for adding other identical testimony to the pages of the record. The evidence is in and the objections are valid. The bill is bad in principle, its language is broad and ambiguous; but in theory it should meet even the fondest dreams of the most avid bureaucrat. I have one question to ask in conclusion. How much longer are the people in this area going to be confronted with the wilderness bill? Mr. STONG. Mr. E. O. Kiehne, Reserve, N. Mex. STATEMENT OF EMIL O. KIEHNE, RESERVE, N. MEX. Mr. KIEHNE. Senator Murray, Senator Goldwater, my name is Emil O. Kiehne, of Reserve, N. Mex. My family has been in the ranching business in that area for three-quarters of a century. I have been selected as one to represent the people of Catron County in opposing S. 1123. Freedom is a constant fight. Among present day threats to our economic freedom is the wilderness bill. We feel that the proposed legislation is unjust because it would gravely jeopardize the rights of a minority without creating any actual benefits for the majority. The people of Catron County have as their source of livelihood two basic |