ably devote a day a month to it. I have got a mother who is a college graduate. She devotes her full time to keeping up with reports, regulations, public utility commissions, industrial accident commissions, and a thousand and one items that have been thought up and passed through our laws of the State and the country that it takes a fulltime bookkeeper on a very, very small operation such as ours to keep everybody happy.

And, fellows, that is just too much of a load for any individual. Every man down the street here in Klamath County is hitting the same thing. He's got so darn many reports to make out that are irrelevant, they get shoved on a shelf somewhere and he just can't stand any more of that load.

You are asking him to dig up a hundred million dollars here to buy this timber up here. That timber can stand on its own feet. It is a good asset. There is no reason for the taxpayer to have to dig up that money to buy that timber. That timber can furnish the money to the Indians as it is liquidated, and if we liquidated it, they would get just as much money over a period of years, and if they want it sooner, that's their business.

Senator NEUBERGER. I will make a prediction to you that the testimony you have given here today will be quoted on the floor of the United States Congress by those who are opposed to this bill and who do not want to appropriate Federal funds to buy this reservation. Mr. BROWN. I hope they do.

Senator NEUBERGER. And I think it will be quoted, in my opinion, to the adverse welfare of Klamath County and the State of Oregon. You have a perfect right to make it as an American citizen and I am glad you came here and made it, because that is the great privilege you have in this country. But your testimony will be quoted by those men from 47 other States who do not want to vote their taxpayers' money to buy this reservation so that the Indians can receive their funds at as early a date as possible and so that this great resource can be preserved intact for the future welfare of Klamath County. And, although you have a perfect right to make it, I will venture that prediction, that your testimony will be very useful to those who are opposed to this bill. So if you are opposed to this bill, I think you have certainly done a good piece of work today.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I am certainly opposed to the Federal Government assuming any more land in the State of Oregon whatsoever, whether it is for wildlife, Forest Service, or Bureau of Land Management, or anything else. I don't want any more Federal or State land bought anywhere. We have got too much of it in this State now. We can't even step out of our back yard without being on Government or State-owned property, and it isn't holding its own. The rest of the State has to support the State on the little portion that is privately owned. I don' want any more Federal land or State land. We have got too much of it now.

Senator NEUBERGER. Well, let me just say this to you: That if this bill fails, and the Management Specialists, Mr. Watters and his associates, have to liquidate this timber starting next August, in a hurry, why, I would say you would get your wish then and there won't be any more federally owned land in this county.

Mr. BROWN. I think there are other alternatives that you men are spending hours and hours and hours working up. I don't think you have the answer. Now, you want an honest opinion of an individual out here, I don't think you have the answer. Now, if that is wrong, if I am creating a lot of opposition for you, I'm sorry, but I have never had the opportunity to say what I feel where it might get to the floor of Congress, and if it does, I feel I have accomplished something with one man's opinion.

Mr. WOLF. How much timber have you bought from the Indian reservation in the last 7 years?

Mr. BROWN. I have never bought one stick of timber from the Indian reservation. I have lived right next door to it.

Mr. WOLF. How much do you propose to buy if this reservation is put on the market in 1958?

Mr. BROWN. It all depends upon the economic conditions of the time. In other words, if I can create a living for myself by buying a piece of this Indian timber, I would be happy to buy it and put it through our sawmill and sell it the same as I would any other commodity.

Mr. WOLF. How much timber does your mill cut a year?

Mr. BROWN. I would say we usually cut on the average of 2 million to 3 million feet.

Mr. WOLF. What percentage of the output of Klamath County is that?

Mr. BROWN. Very small; doesn't even scratch the surface.

Mr. WOLF. Would you operate the timber you bought on a sustained yield basis?

Mr. BROWN. Not so far. We have had no other than our own timber that we owned on the ranch. We have had no lands that were suitable for sustained yield operation.

Mr. WOLF. If you bought land on the reservation as a result of this sale would you plan to operate it on a sustained yield basis? Mr. BROWN. If financing were available to do that, I would be very happy to.

Mr. WOLF. How much timber would you have to acquire to get a sustained yield basis?

Mr. BROWN. I would say—you mean for our entire cut or for just one piece of timber over there?

Mr. WOLF. For the entire cut for your mill.

Mr. BROWN. For our entire cut we would probably have to have at least 25 million feet to take the high risk out of it as a period of time went on and on the cut, the virgin stand, in other words, maintain the same amount of timber there at all times.

Mr. WOLF. If you are cutting 3 million feet a year, 25 million feet would last you how may years?

Mr. BROWN. Long enough for me to make a living on it. There is enough of it dies in 25 million feet of timber to run our mill.

Mr. WOLF. That would be 8 years' cut. Is that sustained yield in your definition?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir. Your timber is going to grow enough on a 25 million feet unit, if we were capable and had financing to buy it, I think we could sustain our operation and have sustained yield after we had run a considerable number of years.

Senator NEUBERGER. I want to ask you something, because I think this is at the heart of one of these problems. Do you know Mr. Watters, chairman of the Management Specialists?

Mr. BROWN. I know of him.

Senator NEUBERGER. Do you know Mr. Favell ?
Mr. BROWN. No; I don't.

Senator NEUBERGER. I think both of them are businessmen and very conservative Republicans in this community and Lakeview, if I am not mistaken of their background. I think both of them strongly recommend and have recommended, and did so here today, Federal purchase. Do you think they don't believe in free enterprise?

Mr. BROWN. I don't know their opinions, sir, other than what I have listened to and read, and I don't disagree with them. I don't say they are wrong. I am expressing my opinion from my standpoint. I may be wrong, but you are trying to collect a great many opinions here today.

Senator NEUBERGER. And we are glad to have your opinion.

but

Mr. BROWN. And naturally some of them are going to be wrong or they would all be the same opinion. Therefore, maybe I am one of the wrong ones that are wrong, but I am going to have an opinion in there, and Puckett is going to have one, but maybe he's wrong, he expressed it and I think that is the responsibility of the citizens of this country, whether he is right or wrong, to get up and say something. If we lose that, we have lost everything.

Senator NEUBERGER. We are very glad you came today and we appreciate your views. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

(By direction of the chairman, the following letter and enclosure were made a part of the record:)

Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

United States Senate.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

FOREST SERVICE,

Portland, Oreg., October 23, 1957.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: This letter is in response to your request made at the hearing at Klamath Falls, October 2, for background information on Mr. Dan Brown's statements derogatory to national forest administration.

Mr. Dan Brown and his father, Francis D. Brown, own and operate a stock farm and small sawmill and logging business adjacent to the east boundary of the Rogue River National Forest, about 10 miles south of Fort Klamath. Dan's grandfather and uncles homesteaded and owned land in this vicinity long before the national forest was created.

Our files record frequent difficulties in administering transactions with the Browns. Fees for grazing permits, special use permits, and payments on timber sales have been collected in many instances only after prolonged effort and argument. Operation in advance of executing the contract or bond, and disregard of contract terms, also have been a problem.

We have a voluminous file covering the trespass and collection for a small volume 30.75 thousand board-feet) of pine cut in 1950 by Francis D. Brown on national forest land without benefit of permit. The record indicates Dan Brown participated in this operation. Settlement was delayed several years during controversy over the proper location of the property lines at point of trespass. A resurvey showed Brown's alleged location to be in error. The case finally was settled by Mr. Brown paying in 4 installments the appraised stumpage value ($451.41) for the timber cut. Final payment for this small quantity of timber was not received until May 2, 1955, more than 5 years after it was cut.

Over the years the Browns have been applicants for unadvertised timber sales. Several such sales have been made to them. They appear to hold the

view that timber close to them should be sold to them without competition. We have been unable to convince them that the law required advertising and competitive sale of timber in excess of $2,000 in value, and that our policy of informally advertising any sales under $2,000 in value where there is more than 1 party interested is equitable.

This summer we were obliged to cancel a special use permit for a summer home lot held by Dan Brown. The reason for cancellation was failure to comply with the requirements for initiating construction during a stated period, and continued failure to pay the stipulated annual rental.

Concerning Mr. Brown's complaint of Forest Service delay in sale of firekilled timber, I believe he was referring to the Gardner Peak fire salvage. Some delay in selling this timber did occur, but there were some reasons for the delay. The economic value of the timber was not great, and the economic loss due to delay seems to have been slight. Our supervisor and ranger do not recall that there were any applications to purchase this timber at the time it was killed or later. They have been unable to find any support for Mr. Brown's statements at the hearings that he applied for it immediately after it was burned. In fact, Ranger Cooper and Supervisor Brown both were surprised when he bid on the sale. They had assumed he was not interested in logging this year, since he had made no effort since February to operate a sale of 150,000 board-feet of Ponderosa pine bought by him October 8, 1956.

The pertinent facts on the Gardner Peak fire salvage sale are as follows: Timber was killed by fire in September 1955. It started from a dry lightning storm that set numerous fires in southern Oregon and northern California during a period of extreme fire danger. This particular fire was located entirely in high mountain country within the Sky Lakes limited area, a relatively inaccessible area tentatively withdrawn from commercial use for possible eventual classification as a wild area. The timber was a low-value stand of high-altitude mountain hemlock and Shasta red fir, with occasional short white pine.

The actual mopup of the fire was completed by the fall rains and early snows. High-elevation heavy snow prevented further work on the area until well into the summer of 1956 when cruising and road location work was done. Due to pressure of other work at that busy time of year, the appraisal was not made until October 1956. It indicated negative values. It seemed doubtful whether an economical operation could be made of salvaging this timber. In July 1957, the demand for this type of timber appeared to be improved. Review of the appraisal indicated a stumpage value of $2 per thousand board-feet, provided road requirements were limited to a temporary road that would serve for removal of the material in short log form. Timber on the burned area was advertised for sale at $2 per thousand on July 29, 1957. We were pleased to have the timber sell at all, and quite surprised when Brown bid it up to $6.85 per thousand. We hope he is successful in his operation. Ranger Cooper advises a check of scale books shows less than 1 percent defect in logs removed to date. Mr. Brown was critical of Forest Service arrangements for scaling. We get the impression he would like us to accept his scale for timber taken. Scaling provisions in his sale are the same as on other similar-size sales on this forest; i. e., Forest Service will provide continuous scaling as long as the operator is presenting logs for scaling at the rate of 12.5 thousand per hour. (Scaling this much per scaler hour is the basis for scaling cost estimates in budgets.) If production drops below this rate, the purchaser is to stand increased costs of scaling due to lower production. Brown has not produced at this rate, but until recently Ranger Cooper has arranged to have a scaler available at no cost to Brown, by having a scaler work on other nearby projects between loads. This arrangement was made at some sacrifice to other projects and could not be continued.

Regarding Mr. Brown's allegations that the Forest Service would not sell him timber even though quantities of dead and dying national forest timber is visible from his place.

1. The forest has sold him timber. Attached is a list of sales to him.

2. The forest has been selling timber up to the allowable cut of the Klamath working circle. Reinventory planned for fiscal year 1949 may furnish a basis for increasing allowable cut somewhat.

3. The forest has not had manpower or roads to handle the salvage sale of all trees as they die in the undeveloped virgin portion of the forest. The area adjacent to the Browns happens to be the largest uncut block of virgin timber in the Klamath district. Present plans will result in timber sales covering this

area with light partial cuts within the next 10 years. This program will permit development of a road system.

We hope this information will be of assistance to you in appraising Dan Brown's statements.

Sincerely yours,

J. HERBERT STONE, Regional Forester.

Following is a list of sales made to either Francis Brown (father) or Dan Brown (son) who work together:

(a) Bureau of Reclamation sale, October 8, 1956. Volume: 150,000 boardfeet. Price bid orally by Brown: $40.10 per thousand. Volume removed to date: 20.04 thousand board-feet. No more timber has been removed since February 1957. Original expiration date of contract was December 31, 1956. Extension was granted to December 31, 1957. It appears as present that the requirements of contract will not be satisfied or volume removed before December 31, 1957. (b) Old road salvage sale No. 1, August 12, 1955. Volume; 101.93 thousand board-feet.

(c) Old road salvage sale No. 2, August 12, 1955. Volume: 192.71 thousand board-feet.

(d) Section 2 salvage, October 4, 1954.

feet.

Volume: 14.88 thousand board

(e) West side highway, May 14, 1953. Volume: 32.89 thousand boardfeet.

(f) Nannie Creek Salvage, August 14, 1953. Volume: 72.65 thousand board-feet.

(g) Class A sales: 1. December 1, 1954: 10.8 thousand board-feet ponderosa pine. 2. May 15, 1953; 12.3 thousand board-feet Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. 3. April 24, 1953; 12.8 thousand board-feet white fir and ponderosa pine.

Senator NEUBERGER. The next witness is Mr. Maurice Strantz, the manager of Tule Lake Irrigation District.

STATEMENT OF MAURICE STRANTZ, MANAGER, TULE LAKE

IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Mr. STRANTZ. Senator Neuberger, I have a statement here which is really Mr. Anderson's statement, the president of our district, and I would like to have it appear as Mr. Anderson's statement, and a resolution attached to it.

Senator NEUBERGER. Yes. We have seen the resolution and we would be glad to have both Mr. Anderson's letter to me and the resolution of the Tule Lake Irrigation District appear in full in the record.

(The documents referred to appear following the oral testimony of Mr. Strantz.)

Mr. STRANTZ. I would like to mention just a couple of collateral facts, Senator. We are the largest irrigation district on the Klamath project, and we are in California; we have a line across the line in California. We are also the low point of the project and collect the bulk of the project return water, and as a result we are interested in the runoff of the basin, particularly the reservation.

I would also like to mention that we are members of the Klamath Basin Water Users Protective Association, and our recommendations are not substantially different from theirs, except that our directors do feel very strongly that they favor private purchase, if at all possible. Senator NEUBERGER. Private purchase?

Mr. STRANTZ. Yes. As much private financing as possible. We also would like to take a position with regard to the upper Klamath marsh, in which we would like to see that marsh not turned over to the Fish and Wildlife Service at the present time. We don't believe that