years as having the ability to build a dam and move a railroad, so I am sure that the Corps has enough expertise, maybe they haven't moved the Southern Pacific, but they certainly would have no difficulty in finding a place to relocate the railroad line out in that area as important as it is for forest products.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. TAYLOR. Just one quick question: is the railroad located in the principal area or in the buffer zone?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Exactly where it goes I am not sure, whether in its entirety it is all within the buffer zone, but it is at least principally, if not entirely, in the buffer zone.

Mr. SAYLOR. Two other questions. Will you point out or have pointed out on the map the area that is owned by the State?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Bergoffen will point out there where we are. What we have taken is the map and broken it down into two sections. Actually they are not lying side-by-side. The one on the right lies underneath the left. One is the Umpqua Lighthouse State Park, which is in State ownership, and then we have the beach area out along the entire approximately 40-mile strip.

Mr. SAYLOR. And can you point out the area that is owned by the county?

Mr. DELLENBACK. The county area

Mr. BERGOFFEN. That is included in State ownership. That is the principal part here.

Mr. DELLENBACK. The principal county area in this one strip which you see along the coast right here, which is about midway down the recreation area. The other principal county operation to which I alluded: Winchester Bay, right down through here, is Winchester Bay or Salmon Harbor, in county ownership, to which I alluded earlier, but one draft considered taking it in. It is technically immediately adjacent to, but not included within the recreation area itself. So, the principal county ownership is being pointed out here.

Mr. SAYLOR. In every other area, Mr. Dellenback, we have had we have required that the State donate the lands this committee felt necessary for preserving the integrity of the area.

Now, you have pointed out two of the principal parts of State ownership. One which is a very sizable tract of land or bloc of land, and the other is the area which extends on the seashore or beach fronts for 40 miles, you say.

Would it not be advisable insofar as the beach front itself is concerned, to absolutely assure the integrity of the area, to require the State to donate that land to the Federal Government?

Mr. DELLENBACK. I would earnestly hope that that isn't the decision of the Congress, Mr. Saylor, because as I said, coming from within the State, and I know the thinking of some of my former colleagues in the State legislature, I think this would be a very difficult thing to achieve. They feel that the stand that we touched on earlier with the chairman of the subcommittee in the way of State ownership of almost the entire coastline is one of the unique and tremendously important features of the State, and I think to go to them and talk with them with the hope of persuading them to transfer this one section of ownership to the Federal Government, would be very difficult, if not impossible to achieve. It is our concept of close administra

tion-and we have the assurances to this effect from the State and the Forest Service. We feel we can get the benefits of administration which will not interfere with this, which will enhance the operation of the recreation area without making that particular requirement necessary.

Mr. SAYLOR. Well, we faced this same situation in Cape Cod; the same situation in Padre Island.

Mr. DELLENBACK. It is my understanding, Mr. Saylor, that there is no other State which has uniquely this situation where it has been part of the pride of the State, not that they have a few parcels of land along the coastline, but by declaration of years standing, that the beaches are the property of the State, and this is the unique thing about the beachlands in Oregon. It is not true in the State of California; not true in the State of Washington; to the best of my knowledge, not true in any other State, but Oregon has taken this stand a great many years ago, I think with a great stroke of farsightedness. Mr. SAYLOR. I would like to see this area preserved but I am afraid the manner which you have proposed in your bill, unfortunately, will not accomplish that.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. Just one statement: the 1969 law of the State of Oregon does dedicate all the beachland for public use, and I might state that we have created some national park areas and permitted States to retain their State parks, Redwoods being one of the examples, but in all cases we have provided that if the land is to be conveyed to the Federal Government, it be by donation.

The gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. BURLISON. No questions.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Dellenback, is it more correct to say that the beach area there is in private ownership but the State has some sort of an easement whereby this land is dedicated to the use of the people? Mr. DELLENBACK. No, Mr. Skubitz. In truth, this is public ownership.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Outside of the private homes and the railroad in this particular area, are there any other industries in the area?

Mr. DELLENBACK. No. Along the highway there are some commercial development, mild commercial developments which are by and large, compatible with the operation of the recreation area, but there are no industrial developments through the

Mr. SKUBITZ. Not on the site of this recreation area?

Mr. DELLENBACK. There are a few of them which are in the buffer zone, but those which are in the buffer zone are compatible with the operation. There is a scenic railroad, for example, and a dune buggy department which sends buggies out onto the dunes. A few of this type of thing which we feel so long as they are under good control and under high-level management

Mr. SKUBITZ. Is the buffer zone within the recreation area?

Mr. DELLENBACK. The buffer zone is part of what would be included in the recreation area itself. The principal area and the buffer zone are all part of the national recreation area.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Then you do have some industrial development?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Not industrial development, no; some commercial development, but not industrial development.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Are there any waste or storage lines through the recreational area?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Yes; there is an area where the International Paper Co. has quite an extensive plant, which is one of the backbones of the economy down in the Gardiner area.

Years ago, when I was in the State legislature the State granted rights to the International Paper Co. to get a waste line out across this then State land. IP has a permit to take it out to sea where there is a discharge.

We have covered this in here, making absolutely certain that there must be full adherence in anything like this to the water quality standards established now or in the future.

Section 11 deals with this specifically. So far as the future is concerned, if the Federal Government imposes new standards they must be met, but subject to that, those rights would continue.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Are there any storage areas?

Mr. DELLENBACK. There are some water storage areas in through here in connection again, with this waste line and again, section 11 deals with that. They are subject to applicable water quality standards now or hereafter established, and we deliberately included that language in this proposal so that we would not create anything that would be counterproductive in the future.

Mr. SKUBITZ. The waste lines through the area, are they underground or above ground?

Mr. DELLENBACK. They are underground.

Mr. SKUBITZ. They will not affect the recreational use of the area? Mr. DELLENBACK. They should not affect it at all, Mr. Skubitz. It is a very high level operation as they have done it.

Mr. SKUBITZ. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. SKUBITZ. I yield.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Dellenback, pointing out just what Chairman Aspinall was commenting on. On page 8, with regard to the easement, it says:

The Secretary is further authorized to grant such additional easements and rights

And then you have got a proviso

if permission therefore, has been obtained from the State of Oregon.

Very frankly, you are going to give the State of Oregon the right to veto anything the Secretary wants to do which gives credence to what Chairman Aspinall and myself have said: You have no place where there is final authority unless you are going to give it all to the State, and if you do that, then there is no need to establish a recreation area. Mr. DELLENBACK. I think what we would have here would be potentially a land breaking, ground breaking, sort of fine cooperation between the State and the Federal Government where in this type of situation to which you have alluded, Mr. Saylor-let's assume the State said: "No; we don't think there should be the easement granted," then the Secretary could not give it, in which case we retain it in its present circumstances, one of the protection.

So, what we are saying: What we visualize is a fine conservation of the area. Before that can be breached with anything else in the future

it must not only have the State approval, but the Secretary must give his approval for this thing, this particular thing, as always must be the case with the State.

So, instead of making it more likely that there would be disturbance to the operation of the recreational purpose in this area, we are here making it less likely.

Mr. SAYLOR. In the phrase preceding you say:

The Secretary is authorized to establish water quality standards.

Mr. DELLENBACK. No; the Secretary is authorized and directed, subject to applicable water quality standards. That will be the function of the Congress or other departments of the Federal Government. Mr. SAYLOR (interposing).

・・・ Subject to applicable water quality standards *** permit transportation and storage—

Provided permission has been obtained from the State of Oregon. Mr. DELLENBACK. Again, you see

Mr. SAYLOR. Once again you put the State of Oregon in charge of this situation.

Mr. DELLENBACK. If you will, now the section to which you are alluding, Mr. Saylor, makes clear that that permission must have been obtained before the effective date of this act. So, what we are here merely doing is touching on International Paper, the point to which Mr. Skubitz directed inquiry a moment ago.

Also under (a) there is again a provision "subject to" but it is making sure that permission must have been granted before the effective date of this act. Sections (a) and (b) are trying to write into existence something that is in existence. It is not something that will reach into the future in either of those two instances, but merely make sure that which is now operating will continue to operate, subject to water quality standards.

Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Ďellenback, I want to read from page 26 of the hearings. Mr. Taylor raised the question:

Do you see any need of conveying any beachlands from the State to the Federal Government? Does that statute you referred to vest title in the State or just the right for public use?

Mr. Cannon replied:

We are not really questioning the ownerships that be there, which leaves the inference that the ownerships in someone other than the State. We are only saying by many actions, prescriptive action and prescriptive rights, the State has acquired the rights for the public and there is an easement in the public interests, which would be an easement of use. This is what we have been able to maintain and successfully defended in the courts.

My question is: If the State has only an easement right, is that sufficient for the Federal Government, or should we have actual title to the area?

Mr. DELLENBACK. I am satisfied, Mr. Skubitz, that that which we have at the present time in the State is all the State can get. Now, there has been some dispute and some of this has been carried to the court. The State legislature, speaking of the 1969 session to which the chairman referred a moment ago, made clear its own feeling about this, that it is not just an easement; that it is a matter of ownership. There has been some litigation on this particular point, but in either

instance, the State having what it has, I think we would make a mistake if we tried to say whatever it is you have, State, and I think it is ownership, but let's assume that we have permanent easement of one sort or another, that you must convey it to the Federal Government, that this could create an impasse which, without having any need or any great advantage flowing therefrom, could therefore block what is a very important move.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Is the State transferring its easement right or any right it has to the Federal Government?

Mr. DELLENBACK. No.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Or is it maintaining control?

Mr. DELLENBACK. No; the State is retaining what rights it has in the Umpqua Lighthouse State Park area, and the two beach strips which are in State ownership, but under the terms of the act as proposed there would be this continued close cooperative management which, as I said, the State has assured us, and we have talked to people, both from the Governor all the day down, which is a thing they are anxious to do; which, from the standpoint of the Forest Service they feel there is no need for us to acquire this fee simple title or something less in order to make this a fully operative recreation area.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Then, in fact, what is the Federal Government getting out of this if the State is going to control the beaches and the State is going to keep its parks? What control do we have even over the beachlands?

Mr. DELLENBACK. The Federal Government, so far as the beach is concerned, will be under a joint administrative management.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I didn't indicate that. I said the State is still going to operate it.

Mr. DELLENBACK. But, so far as the dunes area itself is concerned, and so far as the buffer zone is concerned, so far as the park and beaches out to the east and reaching into the fresh water lakes that are there, the Federal Government's control over those areas will put it in a position where it can manage and operate this area as the Secretary deems it desirable to manage and operate it under the provisions of the act.

I think we are in danger of overemphasizing what is only a part of this; we are in danger of overemphasizing the beach area and the one park area which is State, the one little area which is county, and we are acting as if that were the whole operation. This is only an incidental part of it.

Mr. SKUBITZ. The beach is only an incidental part of this operation? Mr. DELLENBACK. It is an important part of the whole operation, the area between high and low tide, but it is only a part; it isn't the dunes themselves. It isn't the access to the inland lakes themselves; those are the most significant parts of what we are dealing with and what I am so very anxious to be sure we do not is let what we are reaching for in the way of a really effective reach-out into this inland area founder on the question of the relationship between the State and what is an important part, but only part of the whole plan, particularly when we are assured that that will not give rise to difficulty but it will be worked out very closely between the State and the Federal Government.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Would you still support this bill if we insisted that the State give us all rights that it has to the beach area?