STATEMENT OF DAN CLARKE, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA COTTON GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. CLARKE. I offer this statement as president of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association, an organization representing the 4,000 cotton farmers of Arizona.

Our association is opposed to S. 1123, known as the wilderness area bill. This statement will explain our reasons for that position.

Cotton is the major crop of Arizona, accounting for about 40 percent of the agricultural income of the State. In some years the percentage has been 50 percent. Last year the gross income from cotton for Arizona was over $150 million.

Every acre of our cotton is irrigated. In this State of limited rainfall water is our most important and most valuable possession. Availability of water is the limiting factor in our agricultural economy. Availability of irrigation water not only determines where and when crops may be grown, but also determines to a large extent the productivity of the land.

Essentially all of our irrigation water comes from rain and snow in the higher elevations of the State. It is in this rainfall that finds its way into the storage dams on our rivers and which recharges the underground water supplies.

We are, therefore, very much interested in any land management practices which would affect the conservation and use of the moisture falling on those areas which provide the runoff that finally finds its way to our fields as irrigation water.

There is presently underway in Arizona extensive research, as just mentioned by Kel Fox, which if successful will result in the development of management practices which will give increased runoffs into our reservoirs, while at the same time maintaining the timber and feed production of our forest areas. Preliminary indications are that methods of handling the forest lands can and will be developed to achieve this three-sided goal.

We are, therefore, very much opposed to any proposal which would hinder or prevent the carrying out of practices developed by research which would increase the beneficial use of water falling on our mountains. This proposed legislation would certainly fall in that category. On the negative side, we do not understand what can be gained from setting aside so-called wilderness areas. The public lands of the United States are held by the Government for the benefit of all the people. Legislation which would in effect bar such lands to use by any except a small minority of the people does not appear to us to be desirable legislation.

At present our national forests are providing lumber, pasture for livestock, and recreation for large numbers of people.

In addition, there are already in this State 700,000 acres of land held as wilderness areas. If research mentioned previously is successful, and certainly data to date are encouraging, the forests of this State can also be managed to provide additional water runoff. Under such an arrangement virtually the entire population gains, but we do not understand what benefits can be expected from closing large areas to all beneficial use except for perhaps a few people who would like to fight their way through the underbrush and feel they were in the forest primeval. And surely 700,000 acres should meet this need.

We, therefore, Senator Goldwater, respectfully request that this legislation be disapproved by your committee.

If I have just a minute, I would like to add a few comments. It seems as though the advocates of this legislation are missing the boat when they keep talking about their unborn children, when they say they want their children to see buffalos. I never saw a dinosaur, and it didn't seem to make any difference. It seems to me it is later than we think. It seems that we should preserve our freedom, and every time we give in to individual rights, we are losing our freedom, and I think the people that are advocates of that bill should take another look.

Senator GOLDWATER. Call Mr. A. P. Morris of Kennecott Copper Corp.

STATEMENT OF A. P. MORRIS, REPRESENTING THE KENNECOTT COPPER CORP.

Mr. MORRIS. Kennecott Copper Corp. is opposed to the proposed wilderness bill because of the following:

(1) The effect it would have on mining and prospecting. We can live with the present law but we could not live with the proposed law because it would be detrimental to future develop

ment.

(2) The proposed bill would make recreational facilities for a very small number of individuals and this is substantiated by reports from the department of forestry.

(3) A requested report on this proposed bill by the 85th Congress is now in progress and a change should not be made until that has been received and analyzed.

It is a matter of history that the strength of our country is built upon our natural resources as ingeniously and freely developed by our people. One of the greatest of the industries built upon a natural resource by the ingenuity of a free people is mining. If we are to continue our position of leadership in the world, we must continue to have a strong domestic mining industry. Most of the easyto-find mineral deposits have been found. The present-day prospector needs more than a pick and shovel to find the producing mines of the future. By means of geology, geophysics, geochemistry, and subsequent drilling, he is probing ever deeper and at greater expense to find the hidden deposits. No one can predict with certainty where they will be found.

Certainly the Soviet Union, the enemy of the free world, would be delighted with the passage of such legislation that would limit the development of the natural mineral resources given us by a bountiful providence. Who knows what the needs of tomorrow will be in the way of minerals necessary for our survival as a free people. It is unthinkable that we should take any action that would limit the fullest development of our mineral resources for the benefit of future generations. The enemy of the free world is doing everything possible to explore and exploit the mineral resources of not only its own territory, but that of the countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Under the existing Forest Service regulations concerning wilderness areas within its jurisdiction, the areas are open for prospecting, claims can be staked, and exploration can be done. When road access to a mining property is needed, such access cannot be denied. When mining roads are built, the portions of the wilderness area affected must be withdrawn.

These regulations are in accord with our tradition of free enterprise and continued development of the country. They are in accord with the multiple-use concept adopted by the Congress a few years ago. But there is a vast difference between a Forest Service wilderness area under existing regulations and a wilderness area under the proposed system. The only provision for prospecting or mining in the several wilderness bills is the following:

Within national forest areas included in the wilderness system the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting, [and] mining, * * * including the road construction found essential to such mining * * * upon his determination that such use of the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial.

Yet no one can say where the mines of the future will be found. In fact, one wonders whether or not they ever will be found if tors are not permitted to look.

prospecUnder the existing Forest Service regulations, a citizen exercises his rights in our best tradition. Under the proposed system, a citizen would become a supplicant, subject to the whims of bureaucracy.

The several bills proposing a national wilderness preservation system seem to emphasize particularly the preservation of certain areas of the public domain in a primeval state for recreational use by all the people. Such a nostalgic longing for the wilderness is understandable, but few people avail themselves of the existing opportunities to enjoy the wilderness.

In a study made by the Forest Service of an area in the Cascades of Washington which was under consideration as a wilderness area, the Forest Service found that—

*** There were 1,875 visitors to the Mount Baker portion, and 1,000 visitors to the Wenatchee portion of the proposed area in 1956. In the aggregate, these figures represent one-half of 1 percent of the total number of recreation visitors to both forests * ** (although the area proposed for wilderness preference represents 12 percent of the total land area of these two forests).

In the same study, the Forest Service states a succinct definition of a wilderness area:

A wilderness area is * * * characterized by primitive conditions of transportation and location. It contains no provision for the passage of motorized transportation, and resorts, organization camps, and summer homes are excluded. It is a special type of recreation area catering to special classes of recreationists who possess the physical energy to hike or climb over rugged terrain, or who are financially able to hire pack and saddle animals to travel in the area.

As a matter of fact, the last Congress established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which is charged with the task of ascertaining present recreational facilities and opportunities, predicting the needs to the year 1976 and the year 2000, and making recommendations as to the developments necessary to meet the demand

to the Congress and to the President of the United tSates. The report of this Commission is due in 1961. This very comprehensive study will include a survey of, and recommendations for, wilderness areas as an important recreational use of the nonurban land. It would seem to be neither feasible nor desirable to pass legislation advocating a major change in administrative approach and philosophy until such time as the Commission's report is available as a foundation upon which such major changes may be developed.

Senator, I wish to thank you for your insistence that public hearings be held.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you.

I wonder if Glen Taylor is here.

Mr. Raymond E. Seltzer, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona.

Next gentlemen will be Mr. Sol Resnick.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND E. SELTZER, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

Mr. SELTZER. Senator Goldwater, the wilderness bill (S. 1123) proposes to set aside large areas of America's public lands as wilderness preserves. It is my understanding that the program proposed would, as nearly as possible, keep these areas in an untouched, natural state with no access roads, no planned management of the resources within the designated areas, and no development or modification of the resources in the areas.

I realize that the bill states that under certain circumstances, due recognition would be given to the multiple-use capabilities of these lands, but at the same time, it is clear that primary consideration would be given to encouraging conditions which would result in these areas reverting to primitive tracts of wilderness. If this were not true, there would be no real need for this proposed legislation.

Speaking as an agricultural economist, I would like to indicate the nature of the economic effects of large-scale preserves on the agriculture of Arizona.

Land and water are America's most precious natural resources. Substitutes have been found for resource sources of energy such as oil and for many minerals and other materials occurring in nature. No one has to date devised a satisfactory substitute for land or for water as these resources are valued for their productive value in agricultural, industrial and residential uses.

As the wilderness bill is now written, it is my understanding that it would apply only to Federal lands and to lands held in trust by the Federal Government for Indian tribes. This being the case, this legislation has particular significance to Arizona since over 71 percent of the land area of this State is owned or controlled by the Federal Government and would therefore be eligible for withdrawal as designated wilderness areas.

The management of these Federal lands is of vital importance to the cattle industry, to irrigated farming and to the timber industry of Arizona.

Arizona has always been an important cattle-producing State, and the cattle industry during 1958 produced products valued at $101.5 million, of which approximately $70 million can be attributed to the

range cattle industry. The range cattle industry is vitally dependent upon the use of public lands for grazing cattle. Cattle ranches in Arizona usually consist of a relatively small amount of privately owned land, plus larger amounts of Federal and State leased lands, plus national forest and grazing district permits for grazing a designated number of cattle. This pattern of ranch organization has developed over the past 50 years and ranch units are bought and sold on the basis of this combination of owned and leased land and grazing permits. Insofar as the creation of wilderness preserves would limit the use of Federal lands for grazing purposes, it would have disastrous results on the value of ranch units. As cattle graze these lands, any restriction on their use would have an immediate and direct effect on the cattle industry of this State. Management of these lands for grazing purposes may not be consistent with plans for the return of these lands to a primitive wilderness condition. In order to improve the grazing characteristics of the Federal lands, stock water must be developed, access roads must be maintained, in some cases fences must be built to control grazing, and noneconomic trees, shrubs and plants must be removed to permit the improvement of range forage.

These range improvements are often complementary to other land uses such as watershed development, hunting, fishing, timber production, and general recreational uses.

The management of public lands in Arizona is also of concern in that most of the productive watersheds in this State consist of Federal lands. Water is a critical problem in this State and the future growth of Arizona is largely dependent on adequate supplies of water for agricultural, industrial, and residential use. In order to maintain our economy, we are forced each year to pump from underground reservoirs an amount substantially in excess of the natural recharge rate. The result is a continuously declining water table. During 1958 we used more than 6 million acre-feet of water for irrigation, of which approximately two-thirds had to be pumped from underground sources. There is little hope of discovering major new sources of underground water. Therefore, our only source of additional water, barring major developments in salt water conversion, would appear to be increasing the runoff resulting from precipitation on our watersheds. This possibility has sufficient promise that an intensive research program relating to watershed improvement is in progress. State, Federal, and private agencies are contributing their efforts and money toward the solution of this common problem.

During 1958 Arizona's agriculture produced products valued at $421 million. Subtracting from this the value of range cattle and sheep produced, about $75 million, leaves $346 million as the cash value of products of our irrigated agriculture.

The principles of efficient watershed management are not consistent with the abandonment of land to permit its development as an unmanaged wilderness area. Management of watersheds for the purpose of obtaining maximum runoff demands the control of noneconomic plants of all types, the establishment of ground cover to maximize runoff and minimize erosion, and the construction of various water structures designed to collect and impound the runoff produced on the watershed. I would anticipate that the major interest would be in locating wilderness areas in forested regions, rather than on the desert or on

39871-59-26