My feeling about this whole matter is that what we have to do is to get together on the thing. It really isn't as bad as each group seems to feel. One of the gentlemen this afternoon, I think it was one of the mining people, who talked about our freedoms, and after all, if we would have freedom looking for minerals, we should also have freedom to travel in wilderness areas and forestry in the manner we like. We don't all want to go on motorcycles or on foot, but we all want to have freedom. Otherwise, everybody would go to opera or everybody would go to prize fights, and it would be too crowded, and I think when we go into a discussion on wilderness areas being set aside for a small number of people, it is an absurd thing. It is for the cultural development of the country as a whole. The people who have done that only a few times still feel the wilderness there is a part of their life, and the joy and spiritual advantages they have gotten from it as well as the sore backs and feet are worth great deal to them as citizens of the United States.

Also, I would like just to mention in the matter of water, which I don't quite understand, and I have no feeling against this because we would be thrilled if we had some irrigation water, but I don't quite understand the balance or the commonsense in our country raising too much wheat which goes into storage or taking out of Arizona such quantities of cotton which is not at all sure that cotton is important to our economy. I think we've got to use a terrific amount of commonsense and have everything in balance so our spiritual life and economic lives are in balance together, because after all if 2 percent of our land. is going to make our lives and our children's lives better, it seems to me we'd better live 2 percent a year less in eternity rather than take every bit of our resources, and if we are going to have nothing in the end, we'd better have it sooner and enjoy it more before it comes.

I would like to present for the record a statement on behalf of the Dude Ranchers Association.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you. The statement will printed at this point in the record.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE DUDE RANCHERS ASSOCIATION

The Dude Ranchers Association at its 33d Annual Convention held at Missoula, Mont., November 20, 21, 22, 1958, passed the following resolution, which we wish to go into the record at this hearing:

Whereas the Dude Ranchers Association believes in the basic principles upon which wilderness areas have been set aside by order of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior whereby such areas are to remain in their natural condition unspoiled by commercial development; and

Whereas one of the basic principles of the constitution of the Dude Ranchers Association is to cooperate in the preservation of the national parks and forests and the wise conservation and protection of their wildlife: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this association go on record as favoring legislation to give wilderness areas legal status, but cannot endorse the present wording of the National Wilderness Preservation Act in regard to the acquisition of lands and the indefinite use of the words "commercial enterprise" in the list of prohibitions within wilderness areas.

Senator GOLDWATER. IS Mr. McKee here now? All right.

Is there a representative of the Arizona Farm Bureau present?
Mr. Morrison.

STATEMENT OF MARVIN MORRISON, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA FARM

BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. MORRISON. Senator Goldwater, I am president of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation and I will be brief.

The Arizona Farm Bureau Federation is a general farm organization consisting of 4,305 farm and ranch families. The headquarters are at 1016 North 32d Street, Phoenix, Ariz.

At the last annual meeting of our federation in November of 1958, the voting delegates adopted the following resolution :

Whereas a small, but outspoken, 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 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 has land classified as "wilderness areas, national park areas, primitive areas, and a national wildlife refuge and range." This has enabled Arizona people to be familiar with areas so designated. Arizona Farm Bureau has had committees of land and water use for many years. These committees, composed of both farmers and cattlemen, have studied the various wilderness bills and we think it is significant that there have been no groups in our organization who voiced support of legislative proposals to create a national wilderness preservation system.

Water is our most precious commodity. At the present time a great deal of research is being conducted to discover improved methods of increasing water yield from our watersheds. It appears that proper watershed management offers great possibilities for improving the critical water situation in our State.

The mountainous areas which would probably be set aside as wilderness areas are among the highest in water yielding potential, since they are the areas of highest precipitation.

Manipulation of vegetation, which would be prohibited in designated wilderness areas, is a major phase of the watershed research program. Any measure which might jeopardize the maximum possible yield of usable water would certainly be detrimental, if not disastrous, to the future economy of Arizona.

Here in Arizona the great concentration of our population is in the nonmountainous areas, such as the Salt River Valley. Here, when the summer sun makes outdoor activities somewhat less pleasant,

39871-59-28

many thousands of us like to load up the family and head for the hills, for a brief 1- or 2-day respite from the heat. We like to take an improved highway into the pines, and once there to get slightly off the beaten path-but do it by car. Most of us would seldom have the time, money, or inclination to take a pack trip into the wilderness. Even so, for those who can and want to, the present wilderness is still available.

For the great majority of those who take a "quickie" trip to the mountains, access roads are more important than pack trails, camp grounds more important than nature primeval, and sanitation facilities more important than untrammeled arroyos.

We believe our Nation has sufficient acreage set aside as wilderness areas. This land is being administered by Federal agencies in a desirable manner. We believe present programs are adequate for the people in our country who appreciate and use wilderness areas. The Arizona Farm Bureau Federation opposes Senate bill 1123. Thank you.

Senator GOLDWATER. Is Mr. McKee back? Do we have a representative from the Arizona Tax Research Association? I do not have a name down. All right, do we have a representative from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns? I don't have a name down for that.

A PARTICIPANT. They decided they would send a brief in, but would not appear.

Senator GOLDWATER. Thank you very much. Anybody has the privilege of submitting statements, if they care to.

Mr. Mark Gruber.

Mr. STONG. Mr. Gruber has filed his statement and asked that it be presented for the record.

Senator GOLDWATER. It will be printed at this point in the record. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF Mark Gruber, PRESIDENT OF THE ARIZONA HOTEL ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE ARIZONA HOTEL ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION TO S. 1123

On behalf of the Arizona Hotel Association, I, as president of the association, urge Congress not to enact S. 1123, the wilderness bill.

The tourist business is an important part of the economy of the State. It grosses $200 million a year, and the tourist is its backbone. The tourist business is not confined to winter visitors in the desert areas. The summer tourist business is important and it is made possible by the mountains and forests of Arizona.

Areas attractive to the wilderness devotees are no less attractive to the ordinary citizen with limited time and money. If the wilderness advocates prevail, the rank and file tourists will be excluded. We understand that only 1 percent of the touring public patronizes wilderness areas. The reason is obvious— no roads. The wilderness theory is a form of snobbery: Exclude the touristyou can't have a wilderness and the American tourist too.

The citizens of Arizona and the citizens of the other 49 States are entitled to enjoy the beauties of the forests and mountain lands of Arizona.

Senator GOLDWATER. Mr. Bill Coxan of the Motel Association.
Mr. Frank Knight, department of mineral resources.

STATEMENT OF FRANK KNIGHT, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Mr. KNIGHT. Senator Goldwater, ladies and gentlemen, I will do as others have done and submit a statement and make a few comments.

I attended the hearing at Albuquerque. I sat through this one, and I have one point that has struck me particularly, and that is that all of the proponents of this bill seem to really think that the bill provides for multiple use and is confined to the present areas of wilderness. I think both of those are wrong ideas, and I would suggest that they study the bill more thoroughly.

There is a pertinent figure which I have put into the statement that hasn't been mentioned, and that is that 302 percent of Arizona's land is publicly owned lands, federally owned lands which are withdrawn at the present. In other words, 302 percent of all the federally owned lands are withdrawn from multiple use.

Now, my concept of multiple use is use of the same land by different people. That was so in the uranium lands, and it was important that it was so or our uranium development which is so important to us today might not have taken place.

In other words, if we had wilderness withdrawals in effect 5 years ago, our uranium development might not have been where it is today because prospecting would have been restricted.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a statement of Mr. Fred Gibbs and also, Mr. Mitcham, of Tucson.

Senator GOLDWATER. We will print your prepared statement at this point in the record. The statements of Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Mitcham will follow yours.

(The statements are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF FRANK P. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR, ARIZona DepartmENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES

My name is Frank P. Knight, director of the Arizona Department of Mineral Resources.

The wilderness bill, S. 1123, inflexibly calls for the establishment of large, indefinite areas of inaccessibility for single purpose, wilderness use.

Arizona and the other Western States have large areas of public lands. Their importance to the raw material and tourist industries, and consequently to the economies and welfare of these States is incalculably great. It demands that wilderness areas be definitely delimited after careful study by administering agencies and the public concerned; and that the setting aside of an area then be subject to congressional approval; instead of being subject to lack of temporary congressional disapproval, as proposed in S. 1123.

Areas of wilderness should be kept intact for posterity when it is clear that such is the highest use for the land. But, the desirable uses for our public lands are many, and no areas should be set aside for single-purpose use before most careful consideration is given to all possible uses and to multiple use. One wonders if the bill's proponents have considered the possibility, if not probability, that its passage would result eventually in drastic, unwise reversal by the predominant, motorized recreationists who would resent their exclusion from such areas.

A majority of the proponents of S. 1123 apparently do not realize the importance of multiple use of public lands. Certainly many of them do not understand its application, as evidenced by the frequent testimony that the former bill provided for multiple use of the proposed wilderness system, when the only basis for so testifying was a provision that the President could authorize and regulate mining and water conservation works. Anyone who thinks that the President would issue permits and regulations for mining here and there is unfamiliar with those existing regions where mining was to be allowed subject to regulations. There never has been any mining because the regulations never appeared.

In 1955, mining gave up all of its surface rights upon future claims, and upon many claims then existing, except for the surface use necessary for mining purposes. It believes its former abuses have been largely corrected. If further regulation is needed to prevent an inconsiderate party from needless unsightly work in scenic areas, mining probably would go along with it.

But to practically prohibit mining or prospecting in the huge areas subject to S. 1123, is unreasonable and decidedly objectionable. Proper mining, grazing, timbering, watershed, and most hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses get along pretty well. Why is the wilderness enthusiast against about all of them? And isn't his principal objection the inroads being made by the motorized recreation seekers and their servicers, who yet are not aware of the bill's proposal to exclude their motors and thus, for the most part, themselves? Let's consider our public lands and the effect of the bill upon them.

In 11 of the Western States, federally owned lands total 366 million acres. An additional 36 million acres, almost entirely Indian lands, are federally controlled.

Thirteen million, ninety nine thousands, three hundred and seventy seven acres of the 13,920,448 acres of wilderness, wild, roadless, and primitive areas. established in the 48 States and administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, are within these 11 Western States.

Therefore, 3.6 percent of the above 366 million acres of public land is already established as wilderness type area.

In addition, 22 million acres in these 11 Western States are reserved for national park areas and wildlife refuges. This is another 9.6 percent of the 366 million acres, making a total of 13.2 percent of these federally owned lands already set aside for the wilderness enthusiast. How much does he want?

Furthermore, how much should he have? In 1956, his group made less than 1 percent of a total of 53 million recreational visits to the national forests, yet 8 percent of the 180 million acres of national forests now constitutes 82 wilderness, wild, roadless, and primitive areas.

Of these federally owned lands, the following are reserved for special use:

Total___

It would be decidedly adverse to Arizona's and the Nation's interests to allow further reservations for single-purpose use unless it were clearly and definitely established that the reservation proposed the highest use and that multiple use would be detrimental to those interests. And even then, flexibility should be provided.

Not so many years ago uranium was comparatively worthless. It could have been serious if uranium prospectors had been shut out of public lands now sought through S. 1123 for wilderness areas.