the plains. Unfortunately, it is in the elevations that produce forests in Arizona that we also find our best watersheds. Therefore, a conflict between wilderness interests and watershed interests would appear inevitable.

Finally, in our agricultural economy we must consider the effect of the creation of wilderness areas on our timber resources. Arizona has an estimated 20 billion board-feet of standing timber and produces timber products worth approximately $30 million annually. We realize the tragic exploitation of our timber resources which has taken place over the past century, but we also realize the possibilities of proper forest management aimed at the maintaining of a sustained rate of yield. In Arizona most of the timber resources are in our national forests and therefore the management of this crop is susceptible to control. However, again it does not appear that the management of the forest for timber production coincides with the creation of a forest wilderness.

I would not discount the value of recreation nor the desirability of providing spots where people can enjoy the beauties of nature. The preservation of a limited number of wilderness areas would seem highly desirable. Administrators of various Federal agencies concerned with public land now have the authority to create wilderness areas and have done so in many cases. The wilderness bill does not propose to change this system of designating wilderness areas by administrative order. The machinery and authority to do this already exist. It would appear then that the major purpose of this bill would be to establish a mandate from Congress to spur administrators to step up their program of designating new wilderness areas. It would seem that careful consideration should be given to the use being made of existing wilderness areas before urging extension additions. However, I seriously question whether Arizona, or any other State for that matter, can afford to set aside large tracts of productive land for the pleasure of a few campers, hunters, and fishermen, who would be inclined to venture on foot into wilderness areas, or who could afford to hire horses to pack in. The great majority of hunters, fishermen, campers, and picnickers still prefer to stay close to hard-surfaceed roads and appreciate developed campsides and picnic areas, none of which would be found in the wilderness areas. With no developed campsites, it would seem that control of camping would be difficult, and with the vegetative growth of the undisturbed forest, together with the carelessness of many campers, it would seem that we were providing ideal conditions for man-made forest fires.

In view of the circumstances I have described, it seems that the economic loss in forage, water, and timber, which would result from the creation of wilderness areas, would be excessive, particularly in view of the relatively small number of people who would use these

areas.

Thank you.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much for appearing.

Mr. Sol Resnick of the University of Arizona.

STATEMENT OF SOL RESNICK, HYDROLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF

ARIZONA

Mr. RESNICK. My name is Sol Resnick and I am with the University of Arizona as a hydrologist.

I believe that the proposed wilderness preservation system, as it affects the Western States and particularly the Southwestern States, is completely incompatible with the demands created by the requirements of a mushrooming population in this section of the United States. These demands include recreational opportunities afforded by public lands with facilities for transportation and provisions for food and shelter; hunting privileges; grazing for domestic animals; production of commercial timber; mining rights; and water yields for domestic, agricultural, and industrial use in adjoining areas.

As hydrologist at the Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, I am chiefly concerned with the development of water resources to meet the ever-increasing water needs of the State. To meet the future needs, it will be necessary to produce additional water supplies through such methods as cloud-seeding, paving of watershed areas, control of riparian vegetation, lining of channels, construction of flood detention basin, and evaporation suppression by chemical means. These operations would be greatly impaired if the high runoff producing areas were set aside in a wilderness preservation system.

Moreover, Federal and State agencies are currently conducting research programs in the Western States to determine the effects of improved watershed management practices on water yields. Precipitation reaching the surface of the ground or its vegetal cover as rain or snow is disposed of by combination of natural processes; for example, a portion of the snow is intercepted by vegetation and subsequently lost by sublimation. As winter runoff in many places contributes from 80 to 90 percent of the annual water yield, the interception of snow by vegetation is one of the most important factors which determines the disposition of water within the watershed. Certainly, a dense stand, resulting from uncontrolled conditions as in a primeval environment, would intercept a greater amount of snow than would a thinned, pruned, and cleaned forest.

The effect of this interception, as well as other hydrologic factors determined by the water-soil-vegetal relations of the watershed, on water yields will be determined by the research programs in progress. The importance of the results of the above research concerning water yields, which will affect the future security of every person in the Western States and particularly the Southwestern States, alone warrants, in my opinion, at least postponement of consideration of the bill S. 1123 until completion of the research program.

I believe the problem of providing recreational facilities and utilizing land, forage, timber, minerals, and especially water resources should be considered as matters of concern to the population as a whole; hence, I am opposed to the proposal presently under consideration to establish by legislation a wilderness preservation system in the United States.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you, Mr. Resnick. In relation to your testimony, I think it is interesting to point out at this time that of the proposed areas that would be made wilderness in this State, Syca

more Canyon, Pine Mountain, Mazatzal, Sierra Ancha, Superstition, Mt. Thomas, Blue Range and Black River are all important parts of the watershed program, not just of the area we are living in, but the area that we are in here today; is that not correct?

Mr. RESNICK. That's right.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Victor Corbell, president of the Salt River project, and next will be Mr. John Olsen.

STATEMENT OF VICTOR I. CORBELL, PRESIDENT, SALT RIVER VALLEY USERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. CORBELL. Senator Goldwater, my name is V. I. Corbell, and I reside at Route 1, Box 518, Tempe, Ariz. You have given me the privilege of appearing here in my official capacity as president of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, representing 250,000 acres of land and 110,000 landowners. The association also acts as agent of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in the operation of the Salt River project.

Although the Salt River project has a very definite interest in the economy of the entire State of Arizona which could be affected by the imposition of wilderness areas on our public lands, we are directly and particularly concerned in preventing the establishment of wilderness areas in the 13,000 square miles which constitutes the watershed of the Salt River project. We are firm in our belief that the public lands of this State should be managed on the multiple-use principle under which the economic life of the West has progressed for so many years. We are further convinced that multiple-use of public lands is conducive to optimum water production so vital to the welfare and economy of central Arizona.

Within the memory of a few people still living, this valley in which we live was a barren desert, flooded occasionally by huge spring torrents from the mountainous country which drains into the Salt and Verde Rivers. The flow of the rivers was so unpredictable that a stable economy was an impossibility; but, with the passage of the Federal Reclamation Act and the construction of Roosevelt Dam to control the floods and provide a stable, dependable water supply, this valley began to prosper.

With the construction of Roosevelt Dam, the Federal Government withdrew from entry thousands of acres of forest lands to assure the people that there would be no interference with the flow of water into the Salt River project reservoir system. It is particularly in connection with these public lands that the Salt River project, on behalf of the people who reside in this area, strongly objects to the installation of wilderness areas.

Over a half million people and 500,000 acres of agricultural lands, both within and without the boundaries of the Salt River project, are directly dependent upon the flow of the Salt and Verde Rivers into this valley area. It is my firm belief, based upon present experiments and the opinion of experts, that the imposition of wilderness areas on this watershed would further diminish the already short water supply for central Arizona.

In summary, we believe this legislation should be defeated for the following reasons:

(1) It is contrary to the multiple-use principle so long followed in the operation of public lands throughout the West and the public lands comprising the watershed of the Salt River project.

(2) It prevents the maximum use of forest areas for recreational purposes and limits such wilderness areas to a small minority.

(3) It would be detrimental to the State of Arizona by interfering with the lumber industry, the cattle industry, the mining industry, the agriculture industry and, last but not least, the domestic water supply of the city of Phoenix and other valley

towns.

The so-called Phoenix area of our State is completely dependent upon the water supply of the Salt River watershed. Rather than attempt by this statement to provide you with all the statistics showing the importance of water to our area and the detrimental effects of any interference with our water supply, I have taken the privilege of attaching to my statement as an exhibit a recently published booklet entitled "The Phoenix Story, An Adventure In Reclamation". By way of prose, pictures and graphs, this booklet will more clearly illustrate the importance of water in this desert valley and the unwillingness of our people to approve legislation which would in any way interfere with the management of our watershed. Thank you.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you, Vic.

Mr. John Olsen, president, Arizona Association of Soil Conservation Districts, and Mr. Moeur will be next.

STATEMENT OF JOHN OLSEN, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Mr. OLSEN. Senator Goldwater, Mr. Chairman, my name is John Olsen and I reside on the JCJ Ranch west of Paulden, Ariz. I am part owner and operator of a commercial livestock feeding and irrigated farm operation in Yavapai County, Ariz. I am president of the Arizona Association of Soil Conservation Districts, for which I speak today. I am also chairman of the board of supervisors of my local district, the Chino Valley Soil Conservation District.

The Arizona Association of Soil Conservation Districts is a voluntary association of 47 soil conservation districts and their elected boards of supervisors. The Arizona association is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose primary concern is the conservation and orderly development of Arizona's land and water resources through means of local self-government. Arizona's 47 soil conservation districts legally embrace over 60 percent of the land area of the State of Arizona, of which over 4512 million acres are range and watershed lands, of which total over 35 million acres are administered by State and Federal agencies. Arizona's soil conservation districts also legally embrace 95 percent of all irrigated land in

1 Filed with the committee.

the State. All Arizona soil conservation district supervisors serve without salary or recompense whatsoever. All supervisors are public State officials charged with the responsibility of conservation and development of the soil resources of Arizona. All association officers and directors are locally elected soil conservation district supervisors of their districts, which represent both irrigation and grazing land interests in Arizona.

Our association is officially on record in opposition to the presently proposed national wilderness preservation system. We have carefully studied S. 1123 and find it to be, in several respects, not compatible to the association's multiple-use public lands policy. One of our primary concerns is that S. 1123 disallows the multiple-use management of our Arizona watersheds with emphasis on increased water yield, which watersheds are areas mostly under the control of Federal public land administering agencies. Arizona's phenomenal population growth is demanding this emphasis on watershed management for additional water for industrial, municipal, and agricultural use. Arizona's economy is dependent upon the management and development of watersheds in such a manner as to increase water yield, to improve the production of timber, to improve the production of forage for game and livestock, and to benefit recreational facilities.

Already existing wilderness areas and wild areas in Arizona total over 700,000 acres. The Federal Government directly administers approximately 44 percent of the area of Arizona. (In addition, Indian lands constitute approximately 27 percent of the State.) We believe these areas in Arizona already constitute adequate facilities to satisfy the objectives of wilderness areas, as stated in S. 1123. In our opinion the added expenses of the establishment and maintenance of the proposed system of new wilderness areas is inconsistent with the proposed cuts in Federal funds available to service existing programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior in the field of conservation and development. As respect to the above, we make particular reference to the proposed cuts in funds for the Soil Conservation Service to service soil conservation districts and to the proposed cuts in the funds available to service the agricultural conservation program.

I respectfully call your attention to the statement made in our behalf (along with the following other Arizona organizations: The Central Arizona Project Association, Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Water Resources Committee, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona State Reclamation Association, and the Salt River Valley Water Users Association) on November 14, 1958, in Albuquer que, N. Mex., before this same Senate committee, with reference to S. 4028.

In behalf of our association, we confirm our unqualified support of the November 14, 1958, statement, now in reference to S. 1123, in opposition.

And, Senator, if I may, I would like to make reference to Judge David Lee, who was director of the national association, who has filed a statement, but is not here. Mr. Lee was directed to make this statement on behalf of the National Soil Conservation Districts of which there are over 2,800 in the United States, and they are made up of about 14,000 district supervisors, and they go on record as opposing