(The documents of the Arizona Association of Soil Conservation Districts, referred to by Mr. Olsen, are as follows:)

RESOLUTION 3 OF THE ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

WILDERNESS AREAS

Whereas a small minority has recently advocated and urged the conversion of vast areas of the public domain (now open to multiple uses) 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 but would be adapted only to that restricted minority whose life pattern and inclination require availability of vast areas of uninhabited and untended primeval domain for their pleasure, we recommend to the NASCD 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(1) No additional areas of the public lands of the United States should be withdrawn from use by the general public through establishment of wilderness areas.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, first things be placed first, and action be taken to attain full use of the public lands for production of water, food, timber, minerals, recreation, and other benefits which can be derived from a multiple use of such lands.

ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, PUBLIC LANDS POLICY STATEMENT, ADOPTED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NOVEMBER 25, 1958

POLICY AND OBJECTIVES

The Arizona Association of Soil Conservation Districts, representing 47 districts legally embracing 451⁄2 million acres of range and cultivated lands, mostly in public ownership, holds that the basic tenet of public land use is:

"Public lands are held in trust and must be devoted to the highest possible use for the permanent good of all the people, recognizing sustained yield and multiple use of renewable natural resources as basic principles of public land use and management; and recognizing further that water rights established under State laws must be taken into full account in all planning concerned with conservation and development on public lands."

In connection with this policy, it shall be the objective of the Arizona association to work for the adoption of uniform land-use policies and practices by such land administering agencies as the Arizona State Land Department, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service, to the end that each acre of land, including private land, shall be treated in accordance with its needs, developed to its maximum productive capacity and used within its capabilities; also to encourage the treatment of watersheds in such a manner as to increase water yield for industrial, municipal, and agricultural use, to improve the production of timber, to improve the production of forage for game and livestock, and to benefit recreational facilities.

This policy does not envision the setting up of any new program or the establishment of any new agency to carry out these objectives.

SECTION I. POLICY

It shall be the policy of the Arizona association to

(a) Advocate that each acre of public land, as well as privately owned land, interspersed with public lands-or directly associated with public lands-be treated in accordance with its needs for protection against damage under sustained use; and that the management and development of these lands be within their scientificly determined capabilities for use.

(b) Encourage all agencies and organizations concerned with the condition and use of public lands to cooperate in the determination of principles and objectives relating to public land conservation, use and development; and to coordinate their efforts toward the solution of problems involved.

(c) Urge that the soil and water conservation needs inventory now underway in Arizona continue to include all public lands as well as privately owned, and be completed as rapidly as possible on a coordinated basis with the continued full cooperation of the University of Arizona and other State and Federal agencies.

(d) Actively support and encourage conservation improvements on public lands. It is suggested that costs of improvements on multiple-use lands, both public and private, should be shared equitably by the public and by the private users of that land.

(e) Propose or support no new programs, but rather suggest that soil conservation districts individually and collectively work for the improvement of programs now underway by State and Federal agencies and citizen organizations, such as the Arizona Water Resources Committee, and many others.

SECTION II. ACTION

In order to implement the above policy, the Arizona association will

(a) Aid in securing adequate funds for State and Federal public land administering agencies and for service agencies, for the conservation and related development work on public lands.

(b) Urge the continuation and expansion of the program of soil conservation districtwide planning by cooperative and coordinated effort of all agencies and organizations having an interest in the management and use of the public lands within each district.

(c) Encourage land-user's investment on public lands for approved conservation improvements by providing special arrangements recognizing their preferences to the benefits resulting from such improvements.

(d) Encourage the governing boards of soil conservation districts to organize coordinating committees composed of representatives from all agencies, organizations and users interested in the public lands to assist the districts in the overall conservation and development problems on those lands.

(e) Encourage constructive working relations with all public agencies concerned with the conservation and development of land and water resources and to assist such agencies, insofar as possible, to render more effective service to the citizens of the State and Nation.

STATEMENT OF J. DAVID LEE, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

My name is J. David Lee, director of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, treasurer of the Arizona Association of Soil Conservation Districts, and chairman of the Arizona Association's Public Lands Committee. I reside on my ranch near Thatcher, Ariz. I was born in Luna, N. Mex., and have lived almost all my life in eastern Arizona. I am presenting this statement in opposition to Senate 1123 at the specific request of Mr. Bill Richards, president, National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, and in behalf of the officers and board of directors of the association.

The National Association of Soil Conservation Districts is an association of the 14,000 soil conservation district supervisors of America. These 14,000 elected supervisors represent more than 2,800 soil conservation districts in 50 States, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands, legally embracing 94 percent of all the farms and ranches of America. As national association director from area VI, which consists of the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, I directly represent 250 soil conservation districts, totaling over 200 million acres, of these four States. I serve with Mr. W. A. Williams, Jr., Santa Fe, N. Mex., who is the other area VI director. Association officers and directors, both State and National, are also elected supervisors of their own local districts, and serve without pay, as do the supervisors of the soil conservation districts who are elected State officials charged by State law with the conservation and orderly development of the soil and water resources of America. The policies and programs of the national association are arrived at from the grassroots of the dis

tricts through the various State associations and the organizations of the seven areas of the national association.

My associate, Mr. Williams, presented a statement on November 14, 1958, in Albuquerque, N. Mex., before this same committee in opposition to the proposed national wilderness preservation system, and included with his statement the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts' public lands policy.

At the last national convention of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, at Houston, early in February, the association membership adopted a resolution in opposition to the proposed national wilderness preservation system. I have just returned from a meeting in Washington, D.C., of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts' officers, executive committee, and board of directors, and my instructions are to state again at this hearing our stand in opposition to Senate 1123.

Soil conservation districts, particularly in the Western States, legally embrace great acreages of lands administered by Federal public land agencies. Soil conservation districts' boards of supervisors are very effective in working out with the administrators of these public lands, cooperative and coordinated conservation and development programs. Our National Association of Soil Conservation Districts' public lands statement was developed from experiences of the districts working cooperatively with the various public land administering agencies all over the West. We firmly believe that our public lands policy is sound and practical. We are convinced that, after careful study of S. 1123, the proposed national wilderness preservation system is inconsistent with our National Association of Soil Conservation Districts established policies. Consequently, we wish to again go on record as strongly opposing Senate 1123 or any similar legislation which we feel may encroach on private landowners' rights, public land users' rights, and encroach on States rights.

Senator GOLDWATER. Mr. J. H. Moeur, State Reclamation Association of Arizona, also chairman of the National Reclamation Association's legislative committee.

STATEMENT OF J. H. MOEUR, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA STATE RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. MOEUR. Senator Goldwater, I have prepared and submitted a written statement here. I want to summarize it just a bit and touch on one or two things that haven't been touched on.

Largely, it is a repetition of what has already gone and what has already been said, and it will serve no useful purpose.

I do direct your attention to the fact that we have several grounds for opposing this legislation. There is now before Congress a number of other bills of similar import. Most of them are House bills, but, if you will examine your Congressional Record, you will find several other bills of similar import. This opposition is directed to all those bills.

There is one point that hasn't been discussed too much on which I would like to take a minute or two to discuss.

The National Reclamation Association is composed of representatives of the 17 Western States. I have been director from Arizona for a good many years, and we are vitally interested in this encroachment on State water rights resulting in some of the decisions that have alarmed us. There was before Congress the so-called Barrett bill. A lot of attention was paid to that bill and an attempt was made to work out compromise language that would meet the objections that were raised by the Departments of Justice and Interior. A lot of work was done. Governor Bennett worked on it a lot and worked with our committee, and I am apprehensive that the passage of this bill, as it is now written, might seriously interfere.

There has been introduced into the Senate a bill by Senator O'Mahoney, S. 851. I don't propose that I am endorsing that bill or National Reclamation is endorsing it. However, it is a step in the right direction, and I have no doubt that that bill will be up before your term of Congress and I am apprehensive that this act might interfere with any subject of State water rights.

I could go into some detail.

Senator GOLDWATER. There are a few questions that I would like to ask you.

Mr. MOEUR. I will be glad to do it.

Senator GOLDWATER. I am referring to the bill. On page 15, line 10, paragraph 5, it says:

Nothing in this act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.

Mr. MOEUR. That is one of the provisions I am apprehensive about. I don't know what they mean. I know that would probably seriously interfere with the O'Mahoney bill. I don't know how you could say that. This just disclaims anything and leaves it like it is now. Senator GOLDWATER. If we leave out the word "claim" it can deny the States any rights under their existing water laws?

Mr. MOEUR. That's correct.

Senator GOLDWATER. Now, let's turn to page 10, line 13, paragraph (e), and I will read part of this:

The wilderness system shall also include such units as may be designated within any federally owned or controlled area of land and/or water by the official or officials authorized to determine the use of the lands and waters involved.

What interpretation do you put on that?

Mr. MOEUR. Nothing except that they, in effect, say that the water belongs to the Government and they don't recognize any appropriation by the State. You've got to realize we depend in this State almost entirely on water that falls on forest reserves. I worked on the city of Phoenix water program and you just have to depend on that water that falls on those watersheds that supplies this irrigation and municipal use down here, and if the Government owns it and they want to do something else with it, I don't know what you would do; you would just be out of luck.

Senator GOLDWATER. The language could deny domestic water users primary rights in any water?

Mr. MOEUR. I think so; I think that is what it says.

Senator GOLDWATER. On page 4, line 20, might as well read starting with line 18:

The national wilderness preservation system (hereafter referred to in this act as the wilderness system) shall comprise (subject to existing private rights, if any) the federally owned or controlled areas of land and water provided for in this section and the related airspace reservations.

Now, two questions. What in your opinion would this mean to existing water rights?

Mr. MOEUR. That is one of the $64 questions. You've got an argument between the Water Users' Association and Indian Service up here on rights. I think we have some existing rights here. I think these rights were set up in this valley in the decrees of the court, but whether some future President or some future executive officer

would recognize those rights, I don't know. There has been a serious question between California and Arizona over the Colorado River. Senator GOLDWATER. What would these questions do to the O'Mahoney approach?

Mr. MOEUR. I think it would seriously interfere with the O'Mahoney bill or similar bills. I say I am not endorsing the bill because we have not considered it fully yet.

Senator GOLDWATER. To expedite things, would you be agreeable to preparing a brief to be inserted at this point in your remarks and our colloquy relative to the questions I have proposed and the further questions that would come to your mind as a lawyer?

Mr. MOEUR. I would be glad to prepare such a brief myself, but not by National Reclamation. We have a number of good men.

Senator GOLDWATER. They will testify or already have to this bill, but I am concerned now with an expression of an Arizona expert on water law and if it has an effect on ours.

Mr. MOEUR. How soon will this record be written?

Mr. STONG. It will be 2 to 3 weeks.

Mr. MOEUR. I would like to have this particular part of the record sent to me.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY J. H. MOEUR

The enactment of legislation to clarify the States water rights question is a subject of paramount interest in the West. This matter was before Congress and particularly the Senate last session when the so-called Barrett bill was considered. Some of the bills now pending might be termed substitutes for the Barrett bill.

For the purpose of comparison, your attention is directed to S. 851 (O'Mahoney). This is not to be considered as an endorsement of S. 851 but rather a consideration of the general subject, using that bill as an illustration. S. 851 deals with the withdrawal or reservation of areas of public land. S. 1123 would set aside certain areas that might fall outside of the so-called withdrawn or reserved land dealt with in S. 851. If both bills were enacted they would deal with separate types of reservation, and Federal agencies could still make the same claims of immunity from State laws in wilderness areas which are sought to be negatived in S. 851.

S. 1123 is, to say the least, somewhat difficult to understand and contradictory. For instance, after declaring the policy of Congress, the bill provides on line 24, page 3: "Such areas of wilderness, like all other national forest land, shall be so managed as to protect and preserve the watersheds, the soil, the beneficial forest and timber growth, and all beneficial vegetative cover," and yet the following subparagraph beginning on line 8 of page 4, subsection (e), states the basic philosophy of the whole act, i.e., that the areas set aside as wilderness areas are to be kept as such and are to be areas "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

Perhaps the most disturbing language in the bill appears in subparagraph (5) of page 15: "Nothing in this act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws." So whatever else might be said in the bill about recognizing State water laws and protecting the watersheds is certainly nullified by this language.

Mr. STONG. I wonder if you would cite the additional passages that you had made.

Mr. MOEUR. One is on 3, just beginning on the bottom of page 3:

Such areas of wilderness like all other national forest land shall be so managed as to protect and preserve the watersheds, the soil, the beneficial forest and timber growth, and all beneficial vegetative cover.

Who is going to make this determination? Who is going to say how it is going to be done? We are well satisfied with the manage