Wilderness Preservation System

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, in room 4203, State Capitol Building, at 10:10 a.m., Hon. Gracie Pfost (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mrs. PrOST. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will now come to order for the consideration of proposed wilderness legislation.

Before we start this morning the Chair would like to make an announcement that even though we should like very much to accommodate tape recorders, TV stations, and photographers, the rules of the House prevent us from having pictures taken or tape recordings made during a regular session. Therefore, if a picture is needed or wanted, we shall be very happy to temporarily recess, allow the picture to be made, and then go back into session so that we can accommodate anyone who wishes to take pictures.

Before we start, we should like to introduce the members of our subcommittee.

To my immediate left is the gentleman from Alaska, Congressman Ralph Rivers, and to his left the Congressman from North Dakota, Mr. Nygaard. And to my right, I am sure I do not need to introduce this gentleman because you people probably know him almost better than those of us serving on the committee with him because I understand he was in your State legislature for 10 years and lives just 18 miles from the heart of Sacramento, the Honorable Harold Johnson from your own beautiful Sacramento Valley area.

Then we have our staff members: our consultant on public lands, to Mr. Johnson's right, Mr. Milton Pearl, and to his right is the counsel of our committee, Mr. Richard Witmer, and down in front is our reporter, Mr. Karl Veley.

I am delighted to come back to the lovely, sunshiny Sacramento Valley. I have been here several times and have some friendships of long standing, and it is always a pleasure to return again.

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives has had referred to it eight wilderness bills, but in the interest of time, we are going to refer today to S. 174, the Senatepassed bill which has also been referred to our committee.

Within the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee I have the honor to serve as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, which is charged with the direct responsibility for examining the need for legislation in this field and making recommendations to the full com

mittee concerning the terms upon which this should be accomplished, if it is determined to be in the common interest to do so.

While I do not want to analyze the specific provisions of the Senate bill as passed, I would like to indicate on behalf of the subcommittee that we acknowledge the impact that the bill may have on California where approximately 5,745,000 acres of federally owned land might become eligible for inclusion in the wilderness system. These lands will be comprised of national forest land previously designated as "wilderness," "wild," and "primitive," together with elements of the national park system.

We are looking forward with interest to the comments that we are to receive here today and want to assure you that we will give careful consideration to your views.

Now we have quite a number of witnesses who desire to be heard today. The committee must be back in Palm Springs at a relatively early hour this evening. I therefore ask your cooperation to enable us to move along as quickly as possible. I can assure you that your testimony will be studied completely and thoroughly. Also, these statements will be of benefit to the other committee members who were unable to attend these hearings.

For your information, the wilderness legislation hearings will be continued next year in Washington, D.C., and the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, of which I happen to have the honor of being a member, as does Mr. Rivers of Alaska, will have its report ready the latter part of January 1962.

This committee will not be taking action on the wilderness legislation until after this report is available for study.

Our first witness is Mr. Edgar F. Norby, administrative officer, Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, Calif.

Before you start, Mr. Norby, in order to explain to the people in the audience, we are taking the witnesses in the order in which they have requested to be heard. Normally, the procedure of this subcommittee is to hear all of the proponents first and then the opponents, dividing the time equally. We have found it is a little more fair to take them in the order of their requests reaching our Washington office. Several people came up to have their names added to the list this morning, but because we had to start the hearings, we were unable to list their names. At noon today we will repeat the process of adding these names to our list of witnesses. Therefore, in the order in which they have been listed, your name will be called. You may proceed, Mr. Norby.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR F. NORBY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MADERA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MADERA, CALIF.

Mr. NORBY. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I am Edgar F. Norby, county supervisor from the Fifth District, Madera County, Calif. I have been authorized by the Madera County Board of Supervisors to speak on their behalf in opposition to the wilderness bill at your hearing today.

Madera County lies on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Range in central California. Approximately one-third of its area is under Federal ownership. This Federal land is composed of na

tional forest land, a national monument and part of a national park, a wild area, and a wilderness area, so understandably any change in the status of these areas is of utmost concern to this county.

The tax base from which our county must provide the necessary local responsible services, as well as the mandatory services required by State and Federal statutes, is made up largely of agricultural lands, their associated industries, the lumber industry, and public utilities. The cattle industry, with its grazing privileges on Federal land, is one of the most important agricultural businesses. The lumber industry is responsible for the existence of our third and fourth largest centers of population. The public utilities, which provide 33 percent of our assessed valuation, and for the most part hydroelectric installations located on Federal land.

I will limit my remarks to section 6, subsection C-2 (a) and (b) of S. 174. Under subsection (a) our objections are twofold: First, let us suppose that the President was a strong proponent of public power at the time an application for expansion of an existing utility was presented. If this proposed facility should be in a wilderness. area, we feel that said application would be denied.

The result of such action would be an additional tax burden on our property owners to provide the money to pay for the ever-increasing cost of local government, and have been derived from the new facility. Such facilities could not be built economically as public power projects as they are planned additions to existing public utility systems.

Second, under this act, our highly mineralized back country would become wilderness area and for all practical purposes would stop the development of mines. In our opinion, it would be foolhardy to lock up these resources when a national emergency could very well demand them. A mine of any significance cannot be put into production on as short notice as might be required if we were to find ourselves in a major conflict. During World War II one of the largest tungsten mines in the United States was developed in this area. Our war effort was hindered while roads were built, mill equipment installed, and the mine developed. We should not allow this situation to recur.

As to subsection (b) of this section, we feel that the present grazing privileges which would be affected by this act would be in jeopardy because there is no provision to prevent the restrictions and regulations from becoming so stringent that this use would cease to be economical, thereby adversely affecting the cattle industry in our country.

Our board is on record by appropriate resolution in support of the Multiple-Use Act of 1960 and we feel that it serves the best interest of the Nation and the people.

Therefore, we wish for the record to show that the Madera County Board of Supervisors does oppose the enactment of the wilderness bill by the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress.

Thank you.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Norby.

Are there any questions of Mr. Norby?

Mr. James G. Stearns, supervisor, Modoc County, and chairman, Public Lands Committee, County Supervisors Association of California.

Will Mr. Merelman come to the front row, please?

You may proceed.

« Previous Continue »

Books

Wilderness Preservation System: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Public ...