privilege, he will be reimbursed for the amount of improvement he has put on the range. This bill does not take away any of the powers of the Secretary. It provides for multiple use of these lands; it recognizes grazing; it recognizes game, timber, and recreation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, after studying the bill I think we are now getting everything under regulation that is provided for in this bill. In section 5, the Secretary is directed to make a study to obtain information necessary to establish a method of determining grazing fees. I might say that I think under the present system of grazing, fees being based on the market price of lambs and steers seems to be the most satisfactory means to determine fees. Sections 6 and 7 provide for hearings before the Secretary or his representatives. Then if the appellant is not satisfied he may ask to be heard by the United States court of appeals. These hearings may be too expensive for small permittees to be heard under such procedure. I would prefer to have hearings on a local level as much as possible. In section 12 it is declared to be the policy of Congress that the Secretary shall give full consideration to safeguarding mining, recreation, timber, watershed, conservation, and wildlife. Senate bill 2548 is not exactly the kind of bill the stockmen would write if they were to prepare a bill for their own benefit. I can see nothing in it, however, that would be harmful to anyone. I do feel that in section 2 of this bill it encourages the users of these lands to improve them by reseeding and making other improvements. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Barton. We are very glad to have your views on this proposed legislation. With regard to the matter of multiple use of the forests, it is proposed to use committees that are now used for the Forest Service, the reason being that those committees are made up of administrative personnel who will continue the administration, as I understand it, in the same manner as they have been conducting it in the past. Therefore it is not necessary to have authorization in the bill to continue those committees. Are there any questions of Mr. Barton? M Sa Senator YOUNG. I would like to ask one question. Does the growth of grass on these ranges vary much with the years, or do you have about the same growth every year? Mr. BARTON. You mean is there a difference possibly between the dry years and the wet years? Senator YOUNG. Yes. Mr. BARTON. Yes, there is some variation. Naturally in a wet season there will be a greater growth of grass. However, on the higher ranges it is usually somewhat comparable one year with another. It does not vary as much as you might think it would on some of these higher ranges. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thye? Senator THYE. I have no questions. Senator JOHNSTON. You have rules and regulations now that pro tect the range in case of dry weather?. Mr. BARTON. The Secretary has the authority to remove livestock from the range any time that the range needs it for its protection. I think that is provided for in the forest regulations. Im that i ho i The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? [No response.] If not we will proceed with the next witness. I will call upon Mr. Ezra J. Fjeldsted, manager of the Weber Basin Water Conservatory District, Ogden, Utah. STATEMENT OF EZRA J. FJELDSTED, MANAGER, WEBER BASIN WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, OGDEN, UTAH Mr. FJELDSTED. Senator Aiken and other distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, it is an honor to appear before you today, and I sincerely appreciate the invitation to present my views on current grazing matters on the national forests. My remarks will be limited mostly to comments on Senate bill 2548, but I do want to state that in general I think the Forest Service is doing a good job of managing the range areas on the national forests. Naturally errors have been made by the Forest Service. Their major administrative errors, however, have been in not making as much progress as they should have in taking action to correct abuses of watershed areas and to restore the forage cover on some depleted range-watershed lands. I believe the multiple use and sustained yield principles that guide national-forest administration are sound. The timber, livestock forage, recreation, and wildlife resources are all highly important, but water is the most important of all. In Utah and Idaho over 80 percent of our usable water comes from the national forests. It is imperative that the watersheds be managed so they will produce a maximum amount of usable water, and so destructive floods and erosion, which fill our irrigation systems and storage reservoirs with silt, will be prevented. Every resident of our State is vitally dependent on the watersheds within the national forests for recreation, hunting, and fishing. People from all the States come to the West for recreation, and millions of people in the lower Colorado River area are dependent upon the grazed watersheds in eastern Utah and neighboring States where much of their water supply originates. These and other uses of the national forests must be kept in mind while we think about grazing legislation. I know the livestock industry is highly important in our State and throughout the West, and I count many livestock operators among my best friends. I want to see the livestock industry receive as much consideration as possible, but I believe this can be accomplished without granting special privileges, at the expense of the general public, to those stockmen who graze on the national forests. I want to preface my remarks on Senate bill 2548 with the statement that in no way am I critical of you, Senator Aiken, or Senator Thye, who is a cosponsor of the bill, or Congressman Hope, who introduced an identical bill, H. R. 6786, in the House of Representatives. You gentlemen rank foremost among the Members of Congress who have been leaders and defenders of conservation. I understand the Secretary of Agriculture has approved this bill, and I want to say that I believe he is also honest and sincere in his efforts to promote conservation and equitable and just administration of the national forests. However, I am sure we all want any legislation affecting livestock use of the national forests to be as sound and just as possible, so it is important that all of our views be given full and careful consideration. My comments are motivated only by my desire to be assured that the interests of the general public and the needs of watershed protection are safeguarded. Although I believe it is the desire of the authors of the bill, as stated in its title, to facilitate the administration of the national forests and other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture and to provide for orderly use, improvement, and development, I am not at all sure the bill would actually accomplish this, for reasons which I will discuss. I have no objections to sections 1 to 5, inclusive. Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 seem superfluous, as they authorize policies and procedures already operative under the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture which seem to be functioning smoothly and effectively. However, I do want to point out that changing conditions necessitate adjustments in policies and procedures, which can be accomplished under regulation in consultation with the grazing permittees, but which would be extremely difficult to accomplish under fixed laws. The provisions of section 6 (a) are not new. Since the creation of the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture the livestock men using the national forest ranges have had the right to appeal from the decisions of forest officers. If they disagree with the ranger's decision they can appeal to the supervisor, and from him to the regional forester, and then to the Chief of the Forest Service, and finally to the Secretary of Agriculture. In recent years the Secretary has had a five-man board of members of his Department not in the Forest Service to whom he refers appeals for investigations and recommendations. I understand these boards and the Secretary personally have sometimes sustained the Forest Service and have sometimes ruled in favor of the appellants. Bill S. 2548 would add 3 additional levels of appeal, making a total of 4. Following appeals through the various administrative levels to the Secretary, the cases would be referred first to a three-man board which would make investigations, hold hearings, and make recommendations to the Secretary; then to a formal hearing, after which the Secretary would again make a decision; then to the United States Court of Appeals. I All of this will necessarily involve considerable delay, expense, and time for the stockmen and forest officers involved, for those who are conducting the hearing, and for those subpenaed as witnesses, who will be paid actual and diem expenses. per am afraid the time required, expense involved, and the complicated procedures will discourage the small operators from using the appeals procedure, and that the bill will prove to be a big operator's measure. Let's consider for a moment the kind of cases that may be the subject of appeals: 1. Objections by stockmen to proposed management practices such as salting, herding, bedding out of sheep, distribution of stock to various parts of the range, deferred and rotation grazing, and seasonal use. 2. Objections to penalties for alleged trespass of permitted stock on unauthorized range such as other people's allotments, areas reserved for recreation, or critical watershed areas closed to grazing. 3. Objections to penalties for alleged fraudulent use of grazing preferences such as nonownership of stock grazed on preferences, or action transfers of preferences without sale of permitted stock or commensurate base property. 4. Charges of failure to meet commensurability standards. 5. Charges of failure to comply with special rules pertaining to management of the range agreed to by the majority of the permittees through their authorized associations and approved by the Forest Service. I seriously question that the complicated, expensive, time-consuming appeal procedure proposed by the bill is really necessary to settle matters of these kinds, especially the final phase of resorting to the United States Court of Appeals. Other users of the national forests do not have this special consideration. The Secretary of Agriculture is charged with the responsibility of protecting, developing, and providing for the wise use of the natural resources of the lands being administered by the personnel of the Department, and he has access to competent legal advice from members of his staff, and should be able to adjudicate properly such cases that reach him, as I believe he has done in the past. One serious flaw, as I see it, in the review by the three-man board as proposed by section 6 (b), is that no assurance is provided that the interests and welfare of the other users of forest resources, or the general public, are given due consideration. I sincerely recommend to your honorable committee that the 3-man board provided for in section 6 (b) should include 1 member who would be representative of the public, appointed by the Secretary. It would be advisable that he be either an employee of the Forest Service operating in a region other than that where the complaint originated, or a man appointed by a joint committee consisting of representatives of the various entities of the State in which the complaint originated, such as the State water-users association, the wildlife federation, municipal, or county organizations, or any other organizations that deal with water, watersheds, and other conservation problems. The whole purpose of this suggestion, of course, is that a public representative be a member of the three-man board, because it is my belief that the public must be given first consideration in the determination of a problem that might seriously affect watershed management. The second member should be designated by the person requesting the review, and then the procedure in the bill to select the third member seems sound. Let me continue my thinking with reference to the logic of having a Forest Service employee as a member of this 3-man board of review. Forest officers are skilled, informed managers of the public-owned forest-land resources who have the responsibility of looking after the interests of all the people, both for the present and for the future. Cases that must be reviewed by the board do not fall in the categoryas in general litigation-of two parties both seeking selfish ends, but really involve the interests of all the people versus the interests of an individual or special group. However, this proposed bill rules out a spokesman for the people who actually own the land. Another thing that bothers me is that the application of the proposed appeals procedure seems certain to cause long delays in applying corrective action that may be urgently needed. It is true that section 10 of the bill provides that pendency of appeal action need not stay or suspend the application of the Secretary's decision unless the Secretary or the court so rules. But they will probably find it discreet to withhold the application of the decisions until the cases are finally settled. Even if they did not delay the application of the Secretary's decision there would probably be considerable delay before the cases would get by the first stages of the appeals procedure. Delays before the cases would get by the first stages and other objectionable features of the appeals procedure would be especially bad if a group of livestock permittees should decide to make mass use of its provisions. I believe it will be best to leave the appeals procedure as it now is. If a change must be made, I would suggest that the final decision be made by the Secretary after the 3-man board has made its investigation, held hearings, and made its report to the Secretary. Section 11 of the bill is certainly sound and commendable. I would like to see the order in which the natural resources are listed in section 12 revised so that watershed conservation is placed at the head of the list where it rightfully belongs. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Fjeldsted. We are very glad to have your suggestions on this legislation, and I am very happy to explain 2 or 3 points that you have raised. In regard to section 12, which places grazing first and wildlife last, the writers of this bill had some difficulty in deciding how to arrange that, and it was arranged, as you will see, absolutely in alphabetical order. I would like to say a word in regard to the matter of appeals. As I understand it, the Solicitor of the Department has ruled that any appeals from decisions of the Secretary are appeals to the court only to determine whether or not the Secretary has abused his discretion, and appeals are not taken as to the facts. I am further advised that under court law appeals can be taken. I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding. (Memo from the Forest Service on appeals from the decision of the Secretary referred to above is as follows:) T According to Solicitor's office Aiken bill would establish new statutory precedent for judicial review of administrative decisions re public lands. But would not narrow present scope of administrative decision nor enlarge present scope of judicial review of alleged illegal, arbitrary, or capricious actions. Would provide only for judicial review of questions of law, not facts. Would not be a review de novo but facts must be accepted by court as determined by formal hearings. Net effect would be to write into specific statute about what can now be done under court law and other precedents. Lot M Hote The CHAIRMAN. The other matter I would like to clear up—and there seems to be some misunderstanding in some of the intermountain areas with regard to this-is that appeals to the courts can not be taken solely by stockmen, but by anyone else, as to whether or not the Secretary's action was arbitrary, capricious, and so forth. In other words, an appeal may be taken by any person, and that was done intentionally, because we do not intend to limit the right of appeal to any one group of people. Now it is entirely possible that the wording of the bill is not correct. Very seldom is a bill passed in the same original language in which it was introduced. I am stating to you the purpose, and we want all the people to be treated equitably. We can well understand that if the Secretary should decide in favor of cattlemen that have grazed |