Mr. PETERSEN. Yes, sir; they have. Mr. CHENOWETH. What was that action? Mr. PETERSEN. That action was that the bill as now presented in its entirety was not acceptable, and that there should be more defined amendments to clarify the position of water development in wilder ness areas. Mr. CHENOWETH. They feel, then, the bill as passed by the Senate would be a definite threat to the future development of our water resources? Mr. PETERSEN. That is absolutely right, sir. Mr. CHENOWETH. They did not take any position on the theory or principle of wilderness areas as such? Mr. PETERSEN. No, except I think it was the majority opinion if there were no wilderness area bill at all, it would be just fine. [Applause.] Mr. CHENOWETH. That is all. Thank you. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you. Does a Mr. Van Gorder wish to present the statement of the Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts? You may proceed. STATEMENT OF RAY VAN GORDER, PAONIA, COLO. Mr. VAN GORDER. My name is Ray Van Gorder, of Paonia, Colo., where I have lived for the past 17 years. I am a member of the supervisors and vice president of the Delta Soil Conservation District, which embraces all of Delta County and portions of Montrose and Gunnison Counties in the State of Colorado. It is the objective of our organization to develop land and water resources and to preserve and conserve land for its greatest beneficial use within its capabilities. This includes recreational uses, protection of wildlife, as well as farming and grazing uses. It is our observation that we have a number of able Federal and State agencies which already are working our public lands. We have our Forest Service, our Park Service, our Bureau of Public Lands, and our State park recreation groups. All of these existing goups perform their duties under the laws and regulations fixed by our legislative bodies and we are unable to see where any benefit can be gained or obtained in connection with our public lands by putting the same under the control of any one person or removing it from the administration of agencies who are already experienced in its management and preservation. We believe that no changes in classification or use of public lands should be made without complete studies and that the uses should be cataloged to develop the maximum beneficial use for the overwhelming majority of our people. We cannot conceive that it is for the best interests of our country that large quantities of our public land should be set aside for very restricted uses for a very, very small percentage of our people. It is our observation that the multiple-use system, as developed and practiced by our Forest Service, still continues to be the most desirable way of handling our public lands. To us, the limitation on access roads and limitation on types of vehicle to be used in the area and the other restrictions proposed by the wilderness bill appear to us to be a dangerous practice, particularly in the semiarid West where we are constantly menaced by fire and where water development is so essential to our very existence. We believe that our public lands should be administered and managed so as to secure the greatest possible development in water resources, grazing, timber, oil and gas, mineral resources, and for recreation of the great portion of our people, and we feel that if this bill is passed that it will take the control of a large segment of our public lands away from our elected representatives in Congress and that these benefits will be lost forever. Thank you very much. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Mr. Dodd is not here. Mr. B. C. Collins is the next witness. While he is coming up, will Mr. Douglas Nelson, of Denver, also come up? You may proceed, Mr. Collins. STATEMENT OF BERT C. COLLINS Mr. COLLINS. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bert Collins. I represent my children. I represent my children here today, opposing the wilderness bill as written. I will say this: that I do not understand the bill too well. You can cross me up in a lot of ways. I want to make this observation of the testimony given here today. to thank those that have testified for the bill for doing a better job of saying that we can work out a workable agreement whereby we could continue to use multiple use of our natural resources and our forest lands. I think, to me, that is what most of them have said, that it can be done. I said I represent my children, and I say to you, never should you, Mr. Aspinall, or any other Congressman, put themselves or any future Congressman into a position whereby they can pass the buck to some administrative department of any issue that is so vitally important to the future generations of our country. I say it can be used. I said in my statement that years ago people did not use these undeveloped areas, and you say how do I know they did not use them. I was there. I was in the Black Canyon, what is now the national monument, when I was 8 or 9 years old. There was no one over there. There were no roads. I was on Grand Mesa, where the road now is, and there was no one there; there was no road. I will just say this: I do not know why they were not there, but I often thought it was because I would go up there and stay 3 or 4 weeks at a time without a bath. Thank you. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much. (The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:) I do not think the Senate bill 174, as written, will be beneficial to the most people. As I read it, setting aside designated areas of the national forest to remain as nearly as possible as were created can only be enjoyed by a very few people. When I was a boy, 8 or 9 years old, I made several trips on a burro into the Gunnison River, what is now the Black Canyon Monument, and wondered why more boys could not see this magnificent sight. As I grew older I spent several years riding horseback on the Grand Mesa National Forest where the Lands End road is now; there again I wondered why more people could not see the wonderful scenery. Now some 30 years later through initiative and progress we have wonderful roads into these areas where each year thousands enjoy these wonderful sights. Today we can find many undeveloped areas that will compare to these areas that I have described. People did not use them then, they are not using them now; how can anyone's imagination lead them to believe that people are going to use these undeveloped areas in the future under the provisions of Senate bill 174? In conclusion, my thought is merely that as long as we are a nation of free people, let us never surrender the power to any one man or group of men to curtail the development of our natural resources and scenic beauty; let's leave this to you Congressmen. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Douglas Nelson of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. STATEMENT OF CHARLES HENNING, COLORADO DIVISION MANAGER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION Mr. HENNING. Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles Henning. I am the Colorado division manager of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association. Mr. Nelson was unable to arrive in time to testify and asked me to summarize the statement he has submitted to the committee. He was to represent the Independent Petroleum Association of America. We would like to urge Congress to analyze the forthcoming report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. We believe the Commission should serve as a watchdog over the national recreation resources of the country. If legislation is passed, we would like to recommend that two important things be included: First, that the multiple-use concept be continued; and secondly, that provision be made for an inventory of resources in the area before that area is withdrawn. Finally, we urge that any legislation include provision for affirmative action by Congress on any recommended withdrawal of land into a wilderness system. One final observation I would like to make on the sometimes-heard charge that we users are being selfish regarding this bill: We are not trying to keep people out of the wilderness areas. After all, as individuals, we, too, enjoy these same areas. All we are contending is that there is room for all types of users under the concept of multiple use. One example: We have been active for some time now developing natural gas reserves up on Grand Mesa. So far as I know, these operations have not interfered with fishing, hunting, camping, or other uses of the scenic area. If it has worked on Grand Mesa, we feel it can work elsewhere. All that is required is supervision. Mr. ASPINALL. Your home is in Denver? Mr. HENNING. Denver; yes. 77350-62-pt. 2— -8 (The statement submitted by Douglas E. Nelson follows:) STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS E. NELSON ON BEHALF OF THE INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA My name is Douglas E. Nelson. I am employed as division exploration manager for the Rocky Mountain area by the Argo Oil Corp., in Denver, Colo. I am also a member of the Public Lands Committee of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and am appearing here on behalf of the association. The Independent Petroleum Association of America is a national trade association of independent producers of crude oil and natural gas, including land and royalty owners. The principal interest of the members of the association is in the domestic production of oil and gas. Every oil-producing area of the Nation is represented in the association membership. The wilderness bill, as passed by the Senate, does not adequately recognize the congressional policy of multiple-use development of the public lands. Experience has shown that operations of the oil industry, as well as activities of other industries operating on public lands, with proper Government regulations, do not conflict with recreational, wildlife, or other multiple-use purposes. We can carry on exploration and production operations without in any way destroying the wilderness aspect of any wilderness-type area. We cannot believe that the provisions for exceptions to the ban on development in these areas have any value. Because of the restrictions on obtaining this information initially, it would be almost impossible to develop the facts necessary to secure Presidential permission to carry on nonwilderness activities. The Senate bill in its present form fails to provide for a determination of the value of the natural resources of a proposed wilderness area. It seems only logical to evaluate any proposed withdrawal before putting it into a system in which the lands could lie fallow permanently. Many of the questions on wilderness which have gone unanswered up to now should, hopefully, be answered to everyone's satisfaction when the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission is completed. If Congress will evaluate the report before passing a wilderness bill, the 3 years and $22 million expended for this review will have been a better investment than if final action is taken prior to receipt of this study, which is due this year. Finally, the present version of S. 174 fails to provide for a concurrent resolution by the Congress favoring any recommendation of the President for inclusion of lands into the wilderness system. In summary, our association is opposed to the bill in its present form. In the event legislation is passed, we strongly urge that any wilderness legislation contain provisions for (1) A continuation of the multiple-use concept, as established by Congress: (2) Provision for a resources review or inventory before withdrawal; and (3) Provision for affirmative action by Congress on any recommended withdrawal of lands into a wilderness system. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this proposed legislation. Mr. ASPINALL. The next witness is Orest A. Gerbaz of Aspen, Colo. STATEMENT OF OREST A. GERBAZ, ASPEN, COLO. Mr. GERBAZ. My name is Orest A. Gerbaz. I am a stockm... and farmer and am a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colo. I am also a member of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District. I have lived in my district for 61 years. I am not as old as John Barnard, and not as wise, but I have lived a long time. I do not believe in the executive branch of the Government saying you may do this unless it says "shall." I would like to see the Forest Service still administer our permits. I do not want the executive branch of the United States to do that. Going back to recreation, mining, and watershed in our district, we are now on the upper end of Pitkin County, in the primitive area from Snowmass to Castle Creek. At Castle Creek we have an open iron ore mine at 11,500 feet, at the edge of the primitive area. They are now shipping. This summer when they got started-they just started last year-they shipped 10 cars a day for 2 months. Next year I predict it will triple. That is the mining. Skiing started with the toboggan on a 400-foot run, pulled by an old motor on the hill with a rope. One toboggan went up as the other came down. Now we have a lift that runs into the hills for these people that do not want any construction on these hills. I want to see them carry up their ski facilities on their back. Nobody walks to the top of that hill, they all ride. They do not mine with a teaspoon. It is an open iron ore mine, and they have got to get their equipment up there. If it is handled through our local representatives, our Congressmen, we can go to them and say, "We want this left out." I don't want the President of the United States-I do not care whether he is a Democrat or a Republican-to say that is going in the wilderness area. Thank you. (The statement submitted by Mr. Gerbaz follows:) STATEMENT OF OREST A. GERBAZ My name is Orest A. Gerbaz. I am a stockman and farmer and am a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colo. Mining, livestock, and recreation in Pitkin County are the essence of our livelihood. Senate bill No. 174, section 6 (c) (1), line 18, page 14, says: "(A) The President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting (including but not limited to exploration for oil and gas), mining (including but not limited to the production of oil and gas), and the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest * It does not say "shall," it says "may." We don't want to hang our future on a "may." And in line 6, page 15, same section, it says: "(B) the grazing of livestock, where well established prior to the effective date of this Act with respect to areas established as part of the wilderness system by this Act, or prior to the date of public notice thereof with respect to any area to be recommended for incorporation in the wilderness system, shall be permitted to continue subject to such resrictions and regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary having jurisdiction over such area.” My contention is that permits are yet not established. Based upon experience in the past where permits for 4,000 ewes and lambs were permitted to graze on forest lands, now the same area only grazes 1,000 ewes and their lambs. Twothirds have been removed in number and the time has been cut to 80 days from 120 days per season, all in the last 15 to 18 years, and which I now consider is definitely not yet established. As to recreation, in my opinion, the recreation opportunities in Pitkin County will definitely be hurt if wilderness legislation is adopted because each year some of the new recreation areas are extended into the federally owned lands under permits granted by the Forest Service. Some skiing areas now extend into existing designated primitive areas. There is nothing in the proposed wilderness legislation to guarantee the continued use of these public lands for grazing or recreational purposes. Even though the uses are now established they may be discontinued by Executive order. Also, in my opinion, mining and prospecting |