I want to emphasize again the fact that to take these areas out of the forest reserve and place them in the National Park Service could not very well increase the recreational opportunities that the lands now afford. There is nothing in the way the Forest Service is now administered that keeps anyone out. They build trails and roads and put up signs just exactly as the park service does. In actual practice, with the exception of some rare phenomenon, the forestreserve lands are utilized to a larger extent than the national park lands for just general mountain camping, tramping, and sight-seeing. Of course that use is increasing under the Forest Service system of road building and trail building, as it is likewise in the national parks. But to take those lands from one service and place them under the other for the purpose of increasing recreational opportunities does not actually accomplish that purpose, because the recreation is available under either service about equally, except that you can hunt on the forest-reserve lands and you can not on the nationalpark lands.

To take those lands and put them in the National Park Service would immediately destroy their annual grazing value, and that grazing value is a good deal like the coal-mine analogy that I drew. The pasturage is there yearly. If you destroy it, you just destroy the use of it; but if you move the lands into the National Park Service, even though the number of animals that can be grazed may not be very considerable, it is perpetual. It is something that grows; and if it is consumed, it is conserved; and if it is not consumed, it is gone forever, and the use of it is lost to mankind.

The subject of the mining values of this area will be developed by persons here who are familiar with it. They are very considerable, and, of course, are very important.

I think that covers what I wanted to offer.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent would farm values be deteriorated if this park extension were to be made?

Mr. GREEN. Well, of course, that would depend on the area. you go down and parallel the large proposed extension for the Sequoia Park, that would immediately affect the-this is with relation to grazing. There are some other relations that I will develop with regard to that. With relation to grazing, that will affect a foothill area there that just about parallels the park area. It would depreciate those lands. I would say, at least 50 per cent where the people have grazing permits, and in many cases more than that, because where people have no grazing permits they usually do not own those lands. They have no seasonal use of them, because they just have feed at a certain time, and there is nothing to take the place of it when it is gone.

The CHAIRMAN. If this transfer were made, would the land develop anything to contribute to the support of the local government in the way of taxation?

Mr. GREEN. No; it would do the other thing; it would decrease the amount of taxes.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it, on the other hand, create anything to offset that which it destroys?

Mr. GREEN. It would not. All of that large area, which I identified as being 40 miles wide and 240 miles long, is affected to some extent by that question-to a very considerable extent as will be

developed by Senator Chandler, because the supply in that large area is gradually dwindling. It is not that we have not enough water; it is that a part of the water flows out because it is not conserved by storage dams up above. If this area went into the national park there would be a certain area of land that would never get that water, because it could not be stored; and that area is, of course, very considerable in extent, I would say not less than 100,000 acres. That is, there could be sufficient water stored from the supply that flows out of that particular area, in sites that will not be available if the land goes into the national park, to irrigate 100,000 acres. The CHAIRMAN. Does this area as it now exists outside of the national park afford an opportunity for recreational life? Mr. GREEN. Yes; of course it does.

The CHAIRMAN. Would that opportunity be increased to any appreciable extent by adding it on to the park, or extending the park area to cover it?

Mr. GREEN. I do not think so. At present those areas are being developed as to roads and trails, and that is the only way that their use can be increased. That work is being carried on by the Forest Service as actively as the National Park Service carries it on in its

own area.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the utilization of the resources of this area in any way detract from its recreational advantages?

Mr. GREEN. No; it adds to them. I could illustrate that by citing the creation of a lake called Bass Lake, a little lake 7 miles long and a mile wide. On admission day there were over 3,000 people visited that lake, and prior to the creation of that lake and the reservoiring of the water there would not have been three people in there. The CHAIRMAN. You contend that the extension of this park to include the area to which you refer would be only for the purpose conserving its recreational advantages?

of

Mr. GREEN. This area as a whole has not anything in it that requires any particular preservation. A good deal of the land is above the line of merchantable timber, and that question does not really arise in these particular areas to any marked degree. So it is not a matter of preserving anything other than the general appearance of the country. There are people who have the point of view that if you build an artificial lake it destroys the appearance of the country as it was originally, and that that spoils it for recreational purposes. It is my experience that while those people are very sincere in their opinion, the number of them compared to the vast number who do enjoy the additional facilities that are created by these other uses is insignificant.

Senator ODDIE. What is your idea as to the relation of this question to fire hazard?

Mr. GREEN. Well, I heard a chief of the Yosemite National Park say yesterday that he had not had an important fire for 10 years. and then I heard a sheepman ask him if he hadn't had one burning for the last 60 days, and he said yes. I may not have quoted that thing exactly, but that is what happened. I believe that grazing is a benefit in the matter of fire hazard. I haven't any doubt of that. The question of fire hazards, of course, depends so entirely on the particular character of the land involved that you almost have to pick out your area in order to say. A person might say "I have had no

fires for 10 years," and that might be because he could not have had any. He would not have had any area in which there could be any fire. But certainly this is true, that the Forest Service are better prepared by training and by experience to look out for fires, in my opinion, than the National Park Service are, because that has been their principal occupation. They have developed the question of fire control and they have studied it until they are getting somewhere with it. Of course the fire hazard that is increased by tourist use will be increased under whichever service it exists. It is only a question which service takes care of it the best. The Forest Service has certainly made no failure of taking care of fires; after they have been once lighted they take as good care of them as any service could. I think.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Green, could you supply us with any figures as to the depreciation that would result to dependent property if this extension of the Park is to be consummated?

Mr. GREEN. I could, Senator, but I have nothing now.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you do that at a later date and mail them to this committee, the Public Lands and Surveys Committee of the Senate, at Washington?

Mr. GREEN. I will do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator ODDIE. What is your idea as to the duty of the Government in regard to property that it depreciates in value by its own acts?

Mr. GREEN. It ought to pay for it. You are just taking the property of some one away from him by reason of the fact you can, and while you may not use the right of eminent domain or some condemnation right whereby you would pay for it, you are just stepping around it.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe that there can be, you might say, an intangible damage as well as a tangible one which would be equally as injurious?

Mr. GREEN. I am not sure that I understand your question, Sen

ator.

Senator ODDIE. If the Government should take a piece of your property under the process of eminent domain it would be taken by metes and bounds, you might say.

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. But if you have a piece of ranch property which is dependent to a certain extent for its value on the surrounding range or adjacent range or range in the same community, do you believe that that ranch land can be just as seriously damaged by the taking away of that range property or the privileges to use the range?

Mr. GREEN. Why, yes; of course it can. The value of these foothill lands is dependent almost entirely upon the forest-reserve permits that are held by the owner.

Senator ODDIE. Then, if the Government should take away a man's right to graze on the national forests, do you think that this man should be recompensed for what he loses by the Government's action? Mr. GREEN. Yes; I do.

Senator ODDIE. You spoke of riding a certain distance in the buffer

area.

Mr. GREEN. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. Were the roads or trails well developed in that area?

Mr. GREEN. Well, no road.

Senator ODDIE. Is it possible for tourists to get into that area without great effort?

Mr. GREEN. No; the area does not lend itself in its present condition to anyone except the pack-horse tourist. And the general conditions are such that it is impractical for very many people to pack. They don't do it. They can't do it. It is too difficult to get stock and make their arrangements.

The CHAIRMAN. What national forest does this area lie in?
Mr. GREEN. Sierra National.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know whether or not there is less summer range in the country which you are speaking about than there is spring and fall and winter range?

Mr. GREEN. Well, are you speaking now of the proposed park area?

Mr. BOWDEN. I am speaking now of that section of the country in which the foothills and the proposed park extension are located. Mr. GREEN. Well, we graze most of our cattle and sheep in there in the spring, and keep them in there. They are not out yet. Mr. BOWDEN. What season of the year do you use the range that is proposed now to be taken into the park?

Mr. GREEN. Well, as soon as the snow is off. That depends: it varies from one year to another.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is that a summer range?

Mr. GREEN. Yes; it is a summer range.

Mr. BOWDEN. And your foothills are the spring and fall range? Mr. GREEN. Yes; that is true; and winter range.

Mr. BOWDEN. And then you winter either down on the deserts or you winter on the farms or feed lots?

Mr. GREEN. Yes; we winter on those farms.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, have you enough summer range at the present time to take care of the stock that you could handle on the foothills in the spring and the fall?

Mr. GREEN. I don't think so.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then, if you take out the summer range, you throw out of use lands in the foothills or lands on which feed can be raised down on the meadows?

Mr. GREEN. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Green, unless you have a further

statement.

Mr. GREEN. No; I have nothing further.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Chandler.

STATEMENT OF W. F. CHANDLER, FARMER, FRESNO, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Chandler, will you give your name and address to the reporter?

Mr. CHANDLER. W. F. Chandler; Fresno, Calif. Farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a statement to make to the committee in your own way, Senator?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir. I am here to represent the irrigationists in the delta of Kings River. Kings River rises in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and flows down into the San Joaquin Valley below Fresno, and at the present time and probably for the last 15 years, the waters all go into the ground. Its natural outlet formerly, before there was so much irrigation practiced as there now is, was Tulare Lake, which lies principally, or did then, in Tulare County. It lies now in Kings County, because there was a new county created. When Tulare Lake got so full that it spread over much territory the water overflowed into what we call a slough and entered into the San Joaquin River, which was north of the Kings River delta.

I will talk in a rather disconnected way probably, Senator, because we have not very much time here, for we are going out of here to-night, and I want to cover as much ground as possible, and take it up in the way that it occurs to me. And, by the way, I will correct that by saying that all of the waters of Kings River are used for irrigation; every bit of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is Kings River?

Mr. CHANDLER. I will indicate it on this map. I want to say that we are handicapped to-day by the fact that Mr. Schaefer, of Selma, who is the engineer for the Consolidated irrigation district, and one of the oldest irrigationists in that country, suddenly took sick yesterday, and is now in the hospital, and I have not the data which he had with him. Had I known earlier of his illness I would have procured this data, but unfortunately I was not able to get it, and therefore I can not give you some of the data that otherwise we could give you in the way of acreage. He was our valuable man, but had a sudden attack yesterday, and is now in the Lane Hospital in this

city.

Kings River is in, we will call it, the center of San Joaquin Valley. Probably below the center. It rises in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and flows out, as I said, onto the plains or delta, and is all used now for irrigation.

Fifty years ago or more, when they commenced taking water out of the river for irrigation purposes, the water level in that territory, what we call the water level, which lies in a blanket formation practically over the whole valley there, was about 50 feet from the surface. After the irrigation ditches had been brought out and the water scattered out over this territory the water level rose. The formation there is usually a loose formation, not much rock, some hardpan, but practically a loose formation. The water level rose from 50 feet up to about 8 or 10 feet of the surface; filled that country up.

In 1889, when I went to Fresno, the water level at my place was 2012 feet from the surface. About 10 years from that time it was 8 feet from the surface. Now our drainage, our demand on water, is such that we are reducing that level, and on January 1 of this year it was just 2012 feet from the surface, showing that we had pumped out of that territory-an area covering a million acres of land or more-water so that we had lowered the water level from 8 or 10 feet to 2012 feet. We had pumped out 10 feet of water.

43213-25-PT 14 -3