STATEMENT OF FRANCIS P. MURPHY, RANCHER AND STOCKMAN FROM WALDEN, JACKSON COUNTY, COLO.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is my pleasure to be here. I am a ranchman from Jackson County, Colo. I am speaking for myself and the stockmen of Jackson County, Colo. In reviewing Senate bill 174, the first thing that stands out, to me, is the fact that this bill, although it reflects a lot of valuable work and thinking, is taking away from the people and the State in which these wilderness areas are located, all the rights of administration and regulation of their use.

We realize there is a place for preservation legislation, but Senate bill 174 does not answer the question of how much wilderness there should be set aside for nonuse or how the value of wilderness nonuse is going to be measured against the value of wilderness use for production of water, timber, grazing, mining, and recreational development. The only safeguard the people would have under Senate bill 174, who use the area at the present time, would be an appeal to the President of the United States. This, we know, is almost impossible because the cost both in time and money would be out of reach of the average individual, and we know that in 90 percent of the cases they would lose due to the fact that they would be too small to be given consideration on a national basis.

It is the firm conviction of our people that this bill would give too much power to the Secretary of the Interior in administering the law. We also strongly endorse Senator Allott's amendment which would require that no area could be created as a congressionally established wilderness area without a specific act of Congress.

Over the past 75 years these Federal lands have been utilized as multiple-use areas which have served the various interests, such as timber, grazing, water development, mining, and recreation. Now, under Senate bill 174, all uses-with the exception of recreationwould be drastically curtailed at a great cost to the State in which they are located. As for the recreation angle, they would be building a millionaires' paradise because the average American citizen could not afford to pay the price of having pack outfits to take them into the interior of these areas.

It is true, our vast wilderness areas must be conserved, but at the same time must be used to their full productive capacity to serve and provide the people of this Nation with the materials that they produce.

Our people urge this House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to give serious consideration in their recommendations on this bill to the future development of water storage which will be used for irrigation of agriculture land outside the area. This is very important as many of these reservoirs are very small in comparison to big reclamation projects, but at the same time are very vital to our agricultural program.

We are strongly opposed to any change that would transfer to an administrative branch of the Government any powers that should be maintained by the Congress.

We are opposed to S. 174.

Mr. ASPINALL. That is what I understand. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

If not, the next witness will be J. Fred Schneider, of the Western Slope District County Commissioners Association.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF J. FRED SCHNEIDER, REPRESENTING WESTERN SLOPE DISTRICT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we prepared this during the noon hour, because a number of the western slope counties felt the sense of urgency for enactment of S. 174 was not only artificial but fictitious. They felt there should be something brought before the committee in behalf of the taxpayer.

Nothing has been said concerning the effect on the tax roll when you remove some of these areas by virtue of this bill, such as the south half of Ouray County, taking two of the biggest mining operations in the State, namely, Idarado and Camp Bird mines.

When the bill was passed we had asked Senator Anderson to address the Interstate Association of Public Land Counties. The Senator was in the hospital, we learned, in New Mexico, with a very major operation, so he sent a staff member, Robert Wolf, to speak to the representatives from the Western States.

Mr. Wolf made a very able presentation.

I want to commend the Members of the Senate for attempting to recapture some of the authority they have been delegating to the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture and to the President of the United States for the last 75 years. They did try to recapture some of that authority.

With some amendments to this bill, we might be able to live with it. Thank you very much.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much.

(Prepared statement of Mr. Schneider follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. FRED SCHNEIDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, REPRESENTING THE WESTERN SLOPE DISTRICT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION

This statement is made in behalf of the 24 western slope counties of Colorado who are opposed to the bill S. 174 in its present form.

1. Many of the counties of this group are still somewhat dependent upon mining. The south end of Ouray County is chiefly mining and is included in the wild area encompassed in the bill. As a matter of fact two of the largest mining operations in the State of Colorado, the Camp Bird and the Idarado are in this wild area and the restriction of prospecting operations in this area would seriously affect the tax structure of Ouray County. Large areas of San Miguel County are in the wild area and likewise would affect the tax structure in San Miguel County.

2. Nearly all of the western slope counties are dependent upon the raising of livestock and while the bill permits a continuation of grazing under certain conditions, the whim of an administrator could abolish this.

3. This entire area of the State of Colorado was developed on the theory of so-called multiple use and has prospered under that setup. To discontinue this principle would seriously endanger the tax structure of all of these counties. 4. Some of our counties are enjoying excellent timber operations. Under the bill as we interpret it this phase of our economy could be seriously affected, and would jeopardize our communities, our jobs, our homes, and the future of our children.

5. We feel that the "sense of urgency" that lies behind the drive for enactment of S. 174 is artificial and fictitious, that so few persons can benefit now or in the future. Only the tough, rugged mountainmen can now take advantage of this proposed legislation and will not fill the bill of the masses east of the

Mississippi River who apparently are demanding the urgency of passage.

6. Water development is now in its infancy. Presently these wild areas are the cradle of our water resources. The closing of these millions of acres would not only hamper the development of some of our communities but could effectively stop their growth.

We respectfully ask therefore that this legislation be given further and continued study.

Mr. ASPINALL. Let the record show that Mr. Horn's statement did have some matters in it relative to the tax base.

Are there any questions?

If not, the next witness is Mr. Ross Chambers, vice president of the Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ROSS CHAMBERS, VICE PRESIDENT, COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Chairman, I am Ross Chambers, vice president of the Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts, more specifically representing our local Soil Conservation District of Eagle County.

I have lived in Colorado and have been a rancher or connected with ranching for all of my 53 years. Prior to the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act, our public domain was admittedly badly overgrazed. There were many ranchers who vigorously objected to the Taylor Grazing Act and subsequent acts regulating the use of our national forests and other public lands. We have lived to see that these acts were indeed wise in principle and generally in practical application.

Since these acts the land has been used wisely, our forests and grasslands are again productive, and wildlife has increased to numbers probably greater than before the coming of the white man. Our streams have cleared and the forests have helped conserve our waters. I believe that there are few of us who still believe that these acts should be repealed and the stockmen, lumbermen, and miners be given unlimited use of the public domain.

This does not, in our thinking, mean that the lands or any of them should be completely set aside by bureaucratic dictation for the use of a favored few. The geography of this country is such that there are certain areas that will never be usable for production of livestock, metals, or timber. It is right that these lands remain in a primitive condition and that access to same by roads be limited. We do not believe that economic use of large areas of our forests should be prohibited.

My own experience is that the last number of years has shown a great deal of cooperation between the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and the ranchers and other residents of the area who are dependent upon the forests for their livelihoods. While I am on that subject, I might refer to the often stated misconception that the ranchers and lumbermen wish to hog the lands belonging to the public in general. Certainly we wish to use these lands. Ranching, lumbering, and mining would be economically prohibitive in the West without the use of so-called public lands. Our grandfathers came here because there were public lands to use and develop. We do not have here the adequate rainfall, the level lands, the long growing seasons which make it possible in the eastern part of our country

to economically farm one's own land only. Yes, the ownership of these lands is in the Federal Government, but there is an equitable right in the farmers, ranchers, lumbermen, and miners to use and develop these lands.

The properly managed economic use of the public lands helps, rather than hurts, the recreational use of these lands. The counties and the individuals have built roads which give access to these lands, for the use of the public as a whole. Our own game and fish department has conducted studies which show that proper grazing by sheep and cattle is not detrimental to game but is actually helpful, in that the domestic animals as a general rule feed on different plants than do the game species, and that the balanced grazing is beneficial to the forests.

I do not think it can be disputed but that properly managed lumbering is necessary to preserve our forests. Like other living things, timber matures. If not harvested when mature, it must die, to become disease ridden or a fire hazard. Proper harvesting may well have prevented or decreased the seriousness of the spruce beetle infestation in Colorado of recent years. Unmanaged wilderness areas may well become the breeding grounds for insects and plant diseases which will spread throughout our national forests.

We ranchers know better than most people the dangers of promiscuous vehicular traffic through the forests. But established roads remain a necessity, with proper management to insure that traffic stays on these roads.

Mining was the basis of our economy here for many years. Mining is now practically dead. Certainly the mining situation will not be improved if prospecting and mining are restricted so severely as provided in this bill. Granted that there were also abuses in mining in the early days, that the country was defaced and the streams polluted, with modern methods of mining and tailings disposal, proper mining is inoffensive to the beauty of the forests.

The soul of the economy of the Western States is water. I believe we will find it much more important to develop water to the fullest possible extent in our forests than to restrict our forests to the use of those wealthy and fortunate enough to be able to pack in to our primitive and wilderness areas.

Overall, our forests have been well managed in the last number of years without this bill being in our laws. We, the residents of these forest areas, have realized the necessity of cooperation with the agencies of the United States in conserving our public domain. But we see no valid reason for our forests to be withdrawn from economic use by Executive decree as is provided in Senate bill 174.

If not, the next witness is Jack Rigg. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. RIGG, DENVER, COLO.

Mr. RIGG. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jack Rigg. I operate the Summitville Mine-and my statement is up there under 5 feet of snow at the present time.

We have lived with the multiple-use bill the last 5 years in the mining industry.

77350-62-pt. 2- -9

As an individual surrounded by the Forest Service, I wish to state we find the Forest Service to be a most inhospitable neighbor. They do not appreciate the mining industry. They are, frankly, I think, against mining. Their pamphlet on "Operation Multiple Use," I will leave with you. It lists here five things that are multiple use. Mining is not one of them.

To the man from the Izaak Walton League here earlier, who stated he had talked to a number of geologists and mining engineers, and all the minerals were found, I wish to state to him at Summitville in the last 6 years we have taken a district gold mine closed down by the war and have now developed it into a copper mine. It has taken 6 years of work, and a lot of labor, but the ore is still in the hills and the wilderness bill will deny a person like myself, who is out for profit, I admit, the right to go out and look for the minerals of Colorado.

It does not take much land to make a mine, you know. Climax Mine only covers about 20 miles, and is one of the largest mines in the world.

As miners, we need any area where there is a possible mineral deposit, the right to be able to look at it. I look at it from a personal standpoint. I do not want to be denied the right to go any place in the State.

Thank you.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

Mr. CHENOWETH. How long have you operated the mine?

Mr. RIGG. Six years.

Mr. CHENOWETH. You say your relations with the Forest Service have not been pleasant or congenial?

Mr. RIGG. They have been terrible.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What is the difficulty?

Mr. RIGG. I have some unpatented mining claims up there, as well as my patented mining claims. I did some exploration work on them, cut down some trees and built a road to get into these unpatented claims. They got up and made a public statement at the chamber of commerce meeting that I was in trespass.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Where?

Mr. RIGG. South Fork, Colo.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What did they tell you?

Mr. RIGG. They told me I had to pay them for the timber that I cut down on these mining claims to use for windrow protection against the snow. I would not do it, and then they told me I had to burn them, and I would not do that, either; and they told me I had to sign a permit to build a road on my own mining claim, and I would not sign their permit.

I find they are very easy to get along with if you just ignore them. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much.

(COMMITTEE NOTE.-The complete statement referred to by Mr. Rigg follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. RIGG ON LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM

My name is John B. Rigg, of Denver, Colo. I am speaking as an independent mine operator. Since December 1956 I have been associated with the redevelop