"LOVE THY ROCKS AND RILLS, thy woods and templed hills." These familiar phrases express the personal interest that all of us have in the conservation of natural resources.

If it is important for the Government to contribute to the protection of watersheds on privately owned lands, how much more important it is to assure that watersheds owned by the Government are protected.

I seem to recall that my high school economics textbook defined "water" as a free gift of nature. As water becomes scarcer, it is becoming more and more a commodity to be provided through economic effort. Watershed protection should not be viewed merely as a side effect or by-product of commercial land uses, but as a productive economic activity.

One of my duties as Director of the Bureau of Land Management is to carry out the laws and regulations dealing with watershed protection of the national land reserve. These lands, consisting of nearly 177 million acres in 10 western States, are administered through the Bureau under a program of balanced usage.

Let us bear in mind that one of the stated purposes of the Congress, in enacting the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, was "to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil erosion." This objective has yet to be realistically achieved.

Our task in administering the public lands has been simplified and strengthened by the clear-cut mandate contained in President Kennedy's natural resources message of February 23. Under the direction of Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, the President's mandate is being carried into effect as rapidly as possible.

One reason I am happy to write on this subject

is that it permits me to reminisce about certain watershed treatment studies in Arizona in which I participated some years ago.

I am not a physical scientist. Professionally, I am a land economist and an attorney-at-law. However, one can't rub elbows with foresters, engineers, and range examiners over the years without picking up many of the technical ideas and a lot of the jargon.

My connection with upstream conservation work began at an early Soil Conservation Service project manned by a company of the Civilian Conservation Corps which I commanded. Those were the days of trials and error in soil conservation. I am sure that great strides in technical progress and methods of operations have occurred since those days.

Later on, I joined with Forest Service technicians in the study of watershed treatment plans in the Upper Gila River watershed and other Southwestern areas. It was there that I first became aware of the manifold problems of conserving and managing public lands.

In these experiences in the Department of Agriculture, and later in the Department of the Interior, I have been impressed by the constant search for knowledge, not only as to the physical facts needed for conservation work, but also as to human aspects related to accomplishment of needed work within our institutional framework of society.

I will not dwell on the technical aspects of measures being installed or planned for public lands, nor with their physical attributes. Instead I will consider the problem of getting needed treatment measures applied on the ground through our social and economic processes. This is what we sometimes call the problems of implementation.

how people think and what actuall have seen some ranchers who seem to only about production of the land immediately ahead, or in the real est their property. I have seen others mind leaving the land in the same they found it or in a better condition They view this contribution as an in tomorrow or an obligation to genera

It is not easy to make accurate est the costs and returns of rangeland in At some rangeland conservation proj cost analyses have been made. Such be compared to studies of the econom of reclamation projects. These studie the subject of challenge and debate. feel, I suspect, that benefit-cost ratio thing if the results agree with opin formed. On the other hand, if benefit turn out unfavorable, the tendency presume that an error was made in the

Without implying anything in part the feasibility of reclamation project to say that many rangeland projects with equivalent or superior economic from the standpoint of range forage alone, without regard to additional f fects in wildlife, recreation, and protection.

While the experts are further dev nomic measurements of investment o in natural resources, we who are ad no doubt should apply a great deal common sense in making our decisions like to allow considerable room for be called "self-evident truths" or "in lic opinion." I believe that the wishes

of informed local people should have a large part to play in program formulation. Not just one group, but all interested persons should have a chance to contribute their ideas.

Watershed conservation projects on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management are in three categories. First, there are projects built by the Government entirely with Government funds.

Second, some projects are constructed under cooperative or joint agreements under which the Government puts up part of the funds and the range user puts up another part. Sometimes, these improvements are built at the Government's suggestion to benefit the public lands as well as rancher's grazing operations.

A third type of project-involving probably the majority of improvements is financed entirely by stockmen under permits issued by the Bureau of Land Management. Private investment for public land conservation projects has amounted to several million dollars.

The long term program for the conservation of public lands should involve a balance between all three kinds of investments. The task of restoring public lands is a task for everyone; range users are entitled to be called conservationists to the extent that they practice conservation and aid in its accomplishments.

We must be aware of the part that other local citizens not just the land users can play in getting programs carried out.

I am glad to note the recent action by Secretary Freeman to reinforce the Rural Areas Development Program in his department. He has established a Rural Areas Development Board with membership from 11 departmental agencies. One of the objectives is to stimulate local initiative to develop more efficient family farms and greater local opportunity. This is done through many ways, including soil, water, and forest improvement and conservation of resources. I am sure that Secretary Udall and the Department of the Interior will cooperate in this program.

The means available to Secretary Udall to carry out conservation of public lands include many ways in which local people may cooperate.

There have been charges, however, that worthwhile treatment or conservation measures on public lands have not been installed because of opposition from range users. There is a further repeated charge that range users, through the Grazing Advisory Boards are the ones who really decide what will be done with the Federal range.

What specifically are these criticisms? For the most part, they concern either the working relationships between the grazing advisory boards and the Government offices they advise, or else what has been called the narrow perspective of range users toward the balanced usage of public lands. This conflict in interests comes to light, for example, when range use permits are adjusted

downward for the purpose of protecting and restoring the range.

The Taylor Grazing Act and the Federal Range Code limit precisely the function of the grazing boards to an advisory role. The boards lack the legal capacity to make any final decision.

I will strongly support the authority delegated to Bureau field officers, as well as the authority delegated to me by the Secretary, to make decisions affecting public lands without favor or prejudice. At the same time, I will defend the right of a range user to appeal or to have a fair hearing from an adverse decision, and I will always welcome constructive suggestions for the improvement of the system.

A proposal has been made to extend the types of representation on the boards at the district, State and national levels. The growing importance of outdoor recreation, watershed protection, mineral development, timber sources, and water supply has given rangelands added values. Many people have suggested that broader sources of counsel and advice are needed, and these suggestions are now being considered.

In some parts of the country, amid checkerboards remaining from the days of land grants, the lands in the national land reserve are intermingled with private and State lands. The pattern as between two or more Federal agencies is itself sometimes complicated. A complicated land pattern adds to operating costs, discourages private (Continued on page 12)

THE RES land comes

HE BASIC RESOURCE of every Nation is its

land. From the land comes the resources, the food, and the space necessary for life. Our Nation has been endowed with many of resources we need. So far nature has been generous with our mistakes.

As President Kennedy said in his special message on natural resources sent to Congress last February 14 "our entire society rests upon, and is dependent upon, our water, our land, our forests, and our minerals. How we use these resources influences our health, security, economy, and well-being.

"But if we fail to chart a proper course of con

servation and development-if we fail to use these blessings prudently-we will be in trouble within a short time."

The scale of predictable future needs will not allow us to resist our clear responsibilities for proper conservation and development of the Nation's land base on both public and private lands. To meet our Nation's goals, the Department of the Interior is under mandate to manage public lands and resources wisely, to prevent waste and destructive exploitation, and to preserve and protect the priceless heritage and destiny of the public resources in the Department's trust.

The 477-million acre national land reserve under the stewardship of the Department's Bureau of Land Management is a vital national storehouse of land and resources. These lands, located chiefly in 11 western States, have enormous present and potential value to every section of the country.

But much of this land needs the healing hand of conservation. Nearly one-third of the usable land in Federal grazing districts is in poor or bad condition. About one-fifth of these lands is still being allowed to deteriorate and decline. Every year the cancerous spread of poisonous range weeds eats into areas that once supported succulent stands of good forage for wildlife and livestock. And every hour tons of precious topsoil are scoured off naked slopes to silt our streams, clog our irrigation systems, pollute our water, and be lost to us forever in a headlong dash for the

ity to set an example by word and deed and to broadly share its technical skills and knowledge to facilitate and assure the conservation and wise management of all of the lands of the Nation's resource base. This responsibility will require close cooperation with other agencies having complimentary goals.

In the field of public lands President Kennedy, in his special message on natural resources, directed the Secretary of the Interior to:

(1) accelerate an inventory and evaluation of the Nation's public domain holdings to serve as a foundation for improved resource management

(2) develop a program of balanced usage designed to reconcile the conflicting uses-grazing, forestry, recreation, wildlife, urban development and minerals; and

(3) accelerate the installation of soil conserving and water saving works and practices to reduce erosion and improve forage capacity; and to proceed with the revegetation of range lands on which the forage capacity has been badly depleted or destroyed.

Inventory and Classification

The national land reserve is the remnant of 150 years of operation under the public land and mineral laws. There is pressing need for an inventory and evaluation of this resource. The public land must be classified for its highest and best use. Major land tenure adjustments must provide efficient units for resource management in both public and private ownership.

The Bureau of Land Management must identify and set up a system of land and resource management units. These areas will serve as the basic unit for classification, inventory, and evaluation. Detailed management data will then be developed on the basis of which sound tenure and resource decisions can be made.

Public lands will be classified where appropriate for transfer to State and local agencies and individuals to provide for expansion of local economies. Initial inventories will be accelerated and completed within two years. High priority will be given to identifying and planning for present and potential areas for public recreation and scenic enjoyment.

Classification of public land and land tenure adjustments must substantially be accomplished in the 1960's. This will require an immediate fivefold increase over present activity. Implementation of this land inventory and evaluation program will involve proposals for changes in the public land laws.

An inventory and classification program for the public lands will offer large benefits to the Nation. It will provide units for long-term management of land, outdoor recreation, wildlife, minerals, soil, water, forests, and grass. It will provide strategically located public land to meet the mounting need for outdoor recreation. It will provide land

for the expanding economy of the western States and cities. The return to the Nation in direct and indirect benefits will far exceed cost.

Program for balanced use

New programs (and in some cases new legislalation) are needed to develop and support balanced use of the public lands-grazing, forestry, recreation, wildlife, urban development, and minerals. At present inadequate information is available about the physical and economic characteristics of the public lands. Major on-the-ground studies of soils, water, forage, timber and other resources need to be combined with data on recreation and other public uses, economic values, and potential future uses to provide a sound foundation for longterm tenure arrangements in orderly patterns of

management in the development of programs and projects. For example, study will be made of the feasibility of including wildlife and waterfowl habitat and public recreation development at major soil and moisture conservation projects constructed by the Bureau of Land Management. The added cost of providing a permanent body of water behind large watershed structures for public recreation, particularly in the Southwest where opportunities for water-side recreation are limited, may be small in comparison with the benefits.

Greatly accelerated research should be undertaken on techniques of resource development and of the impact and significance of public resource programs and policies on private resource investment and development.

For each major land area, comprehensive man(Continued on page 13)