Abbildungen der Seite


This statement has dealt primarily with the timber resources and their economic importance. However, we should like to add something we think highly important as supplemental to the principal resource-timber. There was submitted to Congress a statement by the Oregon Klamath River Commission under the title, “Forestry Implications of the Klamath Termination Law (Public Law 587 of the 83d Cong.) Its Threat to Water Resources in the Upper Klamath Basin." This excellent analysis said among other things, “As the greater part of the Klamath Indian Reservation is pumice soil, melting snows that percolate easity deep into the pumice, furnish the water to feed the springs, small streams and rivers. If this great timbered area were clear cut within a short period of time, it would certainly have a disastrous effect on the runoff of water.” This statement goes on to say, "To clear cut some 3 billion feet from the Klamath Indian Reservation within a short space of time, could easily result in a disastrous shortage of water in years of subnormal precipitation. Such a procedure that files in the face of sound forestry practice and intelligent soil and water conservation, could well result in a very serious loss to the agricultural economy of the upper Klamath Basin which is fully as important as the timber industry. It would hurt our economy not only immediately but for many years to come.


The conclusion reached by the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce has been slowly and painfully arrived at. We live in a county in which approximately 67 percent of the area is owned or controlled by the Federal Government and need no lectures on the perils of Goverment ownership and rule by bureau. We have lived with it, under it, and have fought it for years. We are firmly dedicated to free enterprise and our record will show that we have never hesitated to take a firm stand for free enterprise as against Government control whenever the issue has arisen on national, State, or local level and in cases which have been bitter issues in our own county. As businessmen we are not unmindful of the fact that if the tribal forests are put on the block our area will probably enjoy unprecedented prosperity for the next 10 years as this timber is liquidated and that once again we will relieve the golden days of the timber industry during which Lake Ewauna at Klamath Falls was lined with mills and stacks of drying lumber and the streets of Klamath Falls were filled with the loggers so aptly described by a local poet "Twas never said they worked for pay alone, Tho it was good and always freely spent.” We have also had the advantage of seeing what private industry can do in the way of sustained yield in the magnificent sustained-yield operation of the Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. in this county and if there were any reasonable possibility that the Klamath forests would be operated in a similar manner by private interests, we would unhesitatingly endorse it even though it might eventually mean the elimination of small- and medium-size operators from this forest. But, this avenue has been explored and it appears improbable that this will be the out

While the forced sale of timber will depress the market, it is extremely unlikely that it will depress it to the point that any one or group of operators will be able to hold the timber purchased on a sustained-yield basis. The laws of economics appear inexorable and only one conclusion can be reached. Either the Federal Government must take over this timber and operate it on sustained yield or this forest must disappear from the face of the earth.

Faced with this choice, we unreservedly recommend to the Congress that it consider the purchase of the Klamath tribal properties so that it may continue the scientific sustained-yield management of the forests under an appropriate Government agency.

Mr. Ganong. Thank you. Briefly, the chamber of commerce unreservedly recommends that the Federal Government purchase the Klamath tribal properties so that it may continue the scientific susstained-yield management of the forest under appropriate Government agency. This position has not been easily or quickly reached. The great majority of our members are businessmen who sincerely are opposed to Government ownership or control except in those cases where no other alternative exists. In the present case, we have re


[ocr errors]


luctantly reached the conclusion that there is no alternative to Gov: ernment ownership. If the Government does not purchase the tribal forests, they will be destroyed.

Senator NEUBERGER. We thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mr. Ganong?

Mr. WOLF. I have one. I notice that very often when we have representatives of local chambers of commerce before congressional committees, they take a position which is diametrically opposed to the national chamber. You will get local chambers in favor of Federal acquisition in this case and the national chamber may take the opposite side. You may get local chambers in favor of something down in the TVA area, the national chamber is opposed. Now, how do you think the Congress ought to reconcile this constant situation where a local chamber comes in and says “We are in accord with national objectives everywhere but here?"

Mr. GANONG. I am afraid I can't give the Congress much advice on that point. That is one where they have to draw their own conclusions.

Mr. WOLF. Then how does national chamber policy come into being when we constantly have these local situations that call for a differentiation from the national policy?

Mr. GANONG. I believe the national policy is formulated through the board of directors of the national chamber, of which the individual chambers are members. In other words, I imagine they would be sort of compared with Congress. The Congress represents the Nation as a whole, where a legislator or a county court or a city council represents a local area.

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Ganong, I would like to ask you a question. How long have you lived here in this community?

Mr. GANONG. I have lived here all my life; 35 years.

Senator NEUBERGER. The whole purpose of my question was to find out if you were here when Public Law 587 was passed, and obviously you were. This is what puzzles me. This question has come up before pertaining to the Indian community. Now it comes up pertaining to the local non-Indian community.

I read your statement earlier today and I think it is a very fine statement. I won't say I agree with the way you crossed every "t" and

Ι dotted “,” but I think on the whole it is a very ably drawn and well written and comprehensive statement. But on page 4, for example, I want to read one paragraph and then tell you what really perplexes me about the background of the bill.

The Congress substituted for section 5 of Senate bill 2745, the present section 5 of Public Law 587 which eliminated the period of further study and planning substituted a crash program, for the sale of tribal assets. This was done without the knowledge of the people of Klamath County. In fact, the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce was unaware that this amendment had been made until after the bill had been enacted and signed by the President. There was absolutely no advance warning ever given the people of this county that Congress intended to make this change and radically depart from the bill upon which hearing had been held in this county. This is what perplexes me.

Wasn't the local sentiment aware of what was in this bill that went to the very crux and core of the economic and social life of this county when it was passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States?

Mr. GANONG. Not insofar as section 5 was concerned.

Senator NEUBERGER. That is the meat of the coconut in the operation of the termination.

Mr. GANONG. With which we are vitally concerned. The Senate bill 2745 was fairly well known. In other words, it had been discussed in our own chamber and the hearing had been held at Klamath Agency on it. But, of course, that was, I would say, a radically different bill than the law that became Public Law 587.

Senator NEUBERGER. Weren't you informed by the representatives of this State in the Congress about what was in this law when it went through the Congress and went to the White House? Mr. Ganong. No. We were unaware that this change had been

. made in section 5.

Senator NEUBERGER. You were unaware that the entire operation of the termination program had been substantially changed?

Mr. GANONG. That is correct. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much. The next scheduled witness is Mr. John L. Stewart, of the Klamath Basin Water Users Protective Association,



Mr. DICK HEMSO. Senator, I am Dick Hemso, representing Mr. Stewart and the Klamath Basin Water Users Protective Association.

Senator NEUBERGER. Very happy to have you here. Does that mean,

when you say water protective association, that you are representing the irrigationists? Is that predominantly the group you are representing?

Mr. HEMSO. That is correct, over 30 users and 20,000 acres, of irrigated lands.

Senator NEUBERGER. We are happy to have you here.

Mr. HEMSO. Our resolution is rather short so with your permission I will read it.

Whereas the Senate Interior Subcommittee on Indian Affairs is holding at Klamath Falls, Oreg., a hearing to obtain information on measures to be taken to preserve the forests and protect the interests of all concerned with the termination of the Klamath Indian Reservation, located in the State of Oregon; and

Whereas certain conditions which will be brought about by the proposed termination are of extreme interest to the Klamath Basin Water Users Protective Association and are of vital importance to the agricultural development of the upper Klamath Basin, said conditions being the effect of the termination as provided by Public Law 587, on the whole Klamath watershed and on the general runoff of water into the basin; and

Whereas the final agricultural development of the area, which will eventually consist of the irrigation and drainage of over 600,000 acres of land in the Klamath Basin, depends upon the conservation and use of water; and

Whereas Public Law 587 does not provide the proper and necessary rules and regulations for a modern system of forestry as would be carried out under a plan for sustained-yield harvesting; and

Whereas Senate bill No. 2047, introduced by Senators Neuberger and Morse, authorizing the Federal Government to purchase the reservation lands, is, in paragraph 30, contrary to the facts as pertains to tribal acreage: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Klamath Basin Water Users Protective Association recommends to the Senate Interior Subcommittee on Indian Affairs that Public Law 587 be amended, for the sale of timberlands on the Klamath Indian Reservation to the United States Forest Service, to the United States Bureau of Land Management, or to some other organization, public or private, under conditions that will guarantee a plan of forestry carried along under a sustained-yield basis; and be it further

Resolved, That, in proposing amendments to Public Law 587, the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs give careful consideration, in planning for use, that portion of the Klamath Indian Reservation known as the upper Klamath Marsh; and be it further

Resolved, That this association urgently recommends that the sponsors of S. 2047 amend paragraph 30 to be consistent with plan for the Klamath Marsh, as set forth at pages 45 and 46, chapter III, of the Bureau of Reclamation Upper Klamath River Report, dated June 1954: “This natural marsh, lying at an elevation of 4,500, is fed by the Williamson River, which rises in the Yamsay Mountains, and numerous streams which rise from the east slopes of the mountains forming Crater Lake. The Klamath Marsh area contains about 85,000 acres of arable lands, of which 15,000 acres now sustain natural marsh growth in an average year and another 13,000 acres irrigated by stream diversions. A basaltic reef at the south end of the marsh provides a natural controlledoutlet elevation for surface overflows.

*Under a planned land-use pattern, 15,000 arable acres would be reserved for permanent improved marsh and open water. The remaining arable lands would be cropped to sustain an increased livestock economy. This would increase the water use about 17,000 acre-feet annually.

"The report by the Bureau of Indian Affairs presented a plan to irrigate most of the arable lands of this area. This plan consists of (1) a dam and a reservoir of 25,000 acre-feet capacity on the upper Williamson River above the main body of arable lands in the Klamath Marsh; (2) an improved drainage system through the marsh; (3) distribution pumping plants and conduits to serve the irrigable area; and (4) dikes and control works to regulate the water surface on part of the marsh area. A potential ground-water basin in the area may, if fully developed, reduce or eliminate the requirement for surface storage.”

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming here today.

I want to emphasize one paragraph of the chamber's testimony that I did not read, a very short paragraph. This is the statement of the Klamath Falls Chamber of Commerce:

Unfortunately, the bill which was passed by Congress bore little resemblance, insofar as the disposition of the tribal assets was concerned, with Senate bill 2745, upon which hearing was held in Klamath County and which was studied and discussed by the chamber and by the people of this county.

I think that is a very significant point.

Our next witness will be Mr. Chester L. Langslet, of the Klamath Sportsmen's Association.



Mr. LANGSLET. Senator Neuberger, members of this committee, we have a short resolution passed by the Klamath Sportsmen's Association, which states:

Whereas Federal supervision of the Klamath Indian Reservation is about to be terminated; and

Whereas acquisition by private ownership would limit access for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes; and

Whereas denuding the area of timber would disastrously affect the streamilow necessary for fisheries; and

Whereas the forest cover is mandatory for game, waterfowl, and wildlife habitat: and

Whereas it is necessary that the timber be marketed under a sustained-yield program in order to afford maximum protection to fisheries and wildlife: Now, therefore, be it

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That the Klamath Sportsmen's Association, Inc., recommend the purchase of tribal lands by the Federal Government. Respectfully,

KLAMATH SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much. The resolution will appear in full. I just want to ask you one question, if I may. You heard Mr. Reid's very interesting presentation of the resolution signed by some 400 citizens. What is your feeling about this question of shooting of game birds in this area?

Mr. LANGSLET. Well, Senator, I think you are familiar with the program that we have outlined here for fish and wildlife, in which we are in hopes that they will acquire title to approximately 105 square miles of land in this area for public shooting and refuge purposes. Now, I have heard this figure of 70,000 and many other thousands of acres mentioned as marshland up there. I was up to the reservation, and talked to several people up there, and as near as I have been able to determine, there is actually only 15,000 acres of marsh. The rest is grazing land. And, as I understand it, there is only around 22,000 acres that are actually privately owned.

Now, I don't think that the people in this community would hold still for the acquisition of that additional private land to make it a 70,000-acre refuge, and take that additional land off the tax roll.

Senator NEUBERGER. Well, now, let me ask you this: Regardless of the size of the area, if it is made a refuge, what is the effect, so far as shooting is concerned ?

Mr. LANGSLET. Well, apparently, they have had various amounts and various areas. We are asking in this additional land that they acquire that the maximum percentage allowable by law be open for public shooting. Heretofore, I understand, the way the law has read, anything that they purchased could not be opened to public shooting until it was fully developed.

Senator NEUBERGER. Well, let me ask you this; this is the question I am trying to get at: Regardless of acreage, acres involved—and that easily can be determined—is the status as a waterfowl refuge compatible with public shooting? And I am trying to find out, let's say, the practice on the Malheur and so on, and I am just asking for information.

Mr. LANGSLET. Well, I don't know what the practice is on the Malheur. On the upper lake here, they haven't opened an acre on the refuge on the land that they purchased. On the land that they are squatting on, which is in the Bureau of Reclamation's hands, they reluctantly opened part of that.

Senator NEUBERGER. There are no waterfowl refuges under the Bureau of Reclamation, are there? Aren't waterfowl refuges under the Fish and Wildlife Service? Those are the Federal ones.

Mr. LANGSLET. The Bureau of Reclamation, I believe, has title to the land. The Fish and Wildlife is just squatting on them, by interagency agreement.

Senator NEUBERGER. I am not talking about that. I am talking about where you have bona fide waterfowl refuges under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Is public shooting allowed in those areas?

Mr. LANGSLET. If they so see fit, as I understand it, the law right now reads that, after it is fully developed, they can open up 25 percent.

« ZurückWeiter »