the committee believes that the proposal to exchange Government timberlands as payment for the private timberlands acquired for reservoir projects is contrary to the public interest and overall economy and efficiency, and that Congress should not authorize or encourage such exchanges.

The committee's conclusion is based upon its own study and upon reports from the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Interior. The views of the three departments are perhaps best summarized in the letter dated August 9, 1959, from the acting Secretary of Agriculture to the chairman of the Public Works and Resources Subcommittee:

You also inquire as to the desirability of instituting a procedure whereby forest lands administered by this Department might be transferred to private lumber interests in exchange for their private lands, which are being acquired by the Corps of Engineers for flood-control projects. This Department as a matter of policy would strongly oppose such procedure.

The proposal would place lumber interests in a privileged and preferred position in relation to other property owners whose land is acquired or taken by the Federal Government. A basic question is involved as to whether compensation for private property taken by the Government should be in kind or by money. Traditionally, compensation for Government taking of private property has been in terms of money. To do otherwise for lumber interests in this particular situation would raise important questions of precedent. If lumber interests are to be compensated in kind rather than by money, should other property owners be similarly compensated for the large acreages of private land acquired by the Federal Government, such as for highways and military purposes? Countless farms and ranches are traversed by highways; whole towns, including urban residences and factories, as well as rural property, may be acquired for military purposes. In not one of these instances is the private owner compensated in kind by the Government providing replacement property. The proposal also would remove timberlands from assured management for sustained yield and multiple use. Although many private timberland owners practice sustained yield, there is no legal requirement that private timberlands be operated for either sustained-yield or multiple-use as are national forest lands.

The suggested procedure would disrupt lumber operations and communities dependent on national forest timberlands. It would place the lumberman whose private timberland was flooded out in a preferred position over the lumberman cutting national forest timber. It would do this because the lumberman cutting national forest timber:

(a) Would have no similar privilege of replacement timber in the event national forest timber on which he is dependent were flooded; and

(b) Might find the national forest timber on which he is dependent transferred to another lumberman whose private timber had been flooded. This, inequity would be created within the lumber industry itself.

One last point, relating to the matter of inequities within the timber industry itself:

Recently press releases announced that a new version of the dunes legislation will authorize exchanges of the existing private tree farm for commercial timberlands of the Department of the Interior rather than of the Forest Service.

The explanation offered in the press was that this would keep up the logging payroll in the immediate areas of the dunes.

But inquiry made to the Department of the Interior indicates that the only blocks of public domain timber of suitable acreage are far removed from the dunes area. Small timber operators in Clatsop or Clackamas, Tillamook, or Multnomah Counties, would find their available timber supply and payrolls reduced, while the owner of the tree farm is left whole and the dunes area timber payroll is smashed. The only other Federal timberland of the Interior Department hereabouts is O. & C. land. But the O. & C. lands are in a check

erboard pattern hardly suitable for private tree farming. And all of these existing O. & C. lands are now essential to the support of the mill operations and communities to which they are tributary. To make the exchange with O. & C. lands, wherever they may be situated, will involve a direct and dire threat to existing Oregon communities and mills for the sole purpose of reviving the already discredited policy of the Cordon-Ellsworth measure.

And how the O. & C. counties are to be compensated for their loss of lands is not clear. This would seem important in view of the counties' heavy financial dependence upon the revenues from the O. & C. lands.

The association still believes that the policy implicit in the CordonEllsworth proposal was bad; that the end does not justify the means, and that if commercial timberlands in the dues area are to be acquired by the Federal Government, the transaction should be frank and open and for cash. If there is dispute or disagreement upon the price the Federal courts are open and will do in this case the same fair justice that they do in every other case.

This is the way the United States is acquiring private lands in Minnesota for addition to the recreation areas of the Superior National Forest.

Moreover, a frank payment of cash for these lands seems to us to be required in terms of candid dealing with the people of this State and the Nation. To infer that an exchange of lands in this instance would allow the Government to acquire the tree farm at no cost is illusory. It will cost the annual value of the surrendered allowable cut for as long as trees grow and man has need of them. To permit or encourage the exchange by legislation would severely set back national conservation policy, defeat the Government's apparent solicitude for small business, disrupt local communities distant from the dunes and cost the Federal Treasury hundreds of thousands of dollars, year in and year out, forever.

Madam Chairman, both personally and on behalf of the association, I want to thank you for the time you have taken during the recess to leave your district, your home and your family, to come to Oregon to hear us, who are most directly affected by the pending proposals.

The institution of congressional hearings in the field is a tribute to our democratic form of government and to those of you in the Congress who are so heavily responsible for its effective working.

If there are any questions that you, your colleagues, or staff, would like to ask, I shall try to answer them.

Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Wright.

STATEMENT OF LEAVITT 0. WRIGHT, EUGENE, OREG.

Mr. WRIGHT. My name is Leavitt O. Wright.

Let me say we opponents are very glad for the courteous treatment we are receiving, thanks to the delightful lady in the chair, a personification of courtesy by contrast with a recent hearing.

Honorable guests, and fellow citizens:

I oppose the establishing of a national park in this area for the following reasons:

1. There is no proven need for a new Federal-supported park and there should be no additional uncalled-for spending of Federal funds, even though a mere $15 or $25 million, to add to the unwieldy national debt, and our taxes.

2. There is no denying the beauty of the fresh water lakes and surrounding lakeshore areas and the interior farms and homes, all of which appear doomed to be included in a park.

But that is no reason for the Federal Government to come in and seize private property unnecessarily. Leave our homes and property alone.

3. The sand dune seashore area is indeed a striking phenomenon, and there are days when it is fascinating to visit these dunes, for a short time.

However, they are already in expert, capable, and experienced hands, with a long-term program to control their further encroachment eastward. Leave them alone, under Federal control.

4. Senator Neuberger writes in the Register-Guard for October 21, 1959:

Why should so many people in Oregon seek to deny a new seashore national park to our State? *** I simply do not understand the situation.

The answer is simple: We do not want a seemingly free handout from Uncle Sam. It can't be free; it has to be paid for.

Call it communism, socialism, or just plain Uncle Sam handout. And we, the taxpayers, must pay. Rather, let the Senator offer to lead us toward a method for reducing our heavy taxes, even a bit at a time.

5. Senator Neuberger in his "Washington Calling" letter, volume V, No. 9, says:

Why the frenzy over 35,000 acres more? These are the acreages within the national park system in each of the three States of the Pacific coast: California, 4,058,353; Washington, 1,228,749 ; Oregon, 160,770.

Then he asks:

Will the 35,000 acres of our proposed Oregon Dunes National Seashore unduly burden Oregon's total?

My answer is this: "Isn't a 21-percent increase an undue burden?" Oregon should be congratulated that its total is no larger than it is. And yet we hear that 55 percent of Lane County is federally owned already. That is surely more than enough.

6. Congressman Porter wrote Governor Hatfield, October 12, 1959, his now well-publicized "Dear Mark" letter, suggesting "possible modifications" and he ends it hoping that—

many persons will comment on these modifications constructively and suggest additional modifications * *

I offered him this additional modification; namely, that he leave the Florence-Woahink-Siltcoos area alone and go somewhere else where you are welcome, where people do not own homes-that is, if Federal funds have to be spent somewhere, which I doubt.

So, Mr. Porter, don't ask us how to modify your bill, but what to do with it. We say tear it up and accept our thanks for this hearing that you made possible.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. Prost. Now, Mr. Hardin, will you please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HAL HARDIN, EUGENE, OREG.

Mr. HARDIN. My name is Hal Hardin, 2460 Spring Boulevard, Eugene, Oreg., a resident of Lane County and a taxpayer.

I am in accord with the stand taken by the Western Lane Taxpayers Association.

It is not my purpose to dwell on already established facts such as: 1. The existing protection of the beaches;

2. The existing recreational facilities and plans for expansion; 3. The multipurpose use of resources;

4. The loss to the tax rolls;

5. The tremendous cost to the taxpayer;

6. The constant threat of private property condemnation; and 7. The impact on the county economy by overbalancing the tourism feature at the expense of other pursuits.

There are many others.

After sifting and resifting facts for and against, it appears to me that only two arguments remain in favor of this legislation, and I refer only to the national park idea per se, not the tremendous land acquisition as outlined in the original bill or its subsequent modifications.

These two arguments are:

1. The national advertising afforded areas called national parks; 2. The unique geological formation of the dunes themselves, which includes a phenomenon known as an oblique ridge.

On point 1, it has been brought out many times already that an advertising program of considerable magnitude can be budgeted at a minute fraction of the inevitable cost of acquiring these lands and coordinating and reorganizing the proposed area. If experts are needed to back this up, many professional advertising people well acquainted with the proper national channels of advertising can be consulted.

In line with Congressman Ullman's mentioning that Western Lane Taxpayers or any opponents, of course, should have constructive suggestions rather than negative comment. I would like to make a constructive suggestion:

I find, however, I wasn't entirely original when I found the Forest Service had a similar thing in mind.

If, indeed, the oblique ridge of the dunes and the grandeur of the dunes is of such national significance as to warrant all this attention, and if, indeed, it should be placed alongside such phenomena as Old Faithful, Grand Canyon, Crater Lake, et cetera, then let's not ignore it completely, but, does it necessarily follow that the National Park Service should administer 40,000 acres in order to show this strange phenomenon which seems to have escaped anyone's notice for so many years?

I would suggest instead, legislation setting aside the dunes themselvees, particularly those portions which are of geological significance. putting them under the direction of the Forest Service-this is already the case and providing funds for the Forest Service to establish a few log buildings or huts in which relief maps and topographical layouts could be displayed.

Historical explanations and lectures could be provided by competent, properly educated forest rangers. These huts could be at logical spots physically for the beginning or completion of guided tours over the dunes by sand buggy or on foot-taking the necessary precautions against the known dangers of the area. The huts could be modest, but clean and sturdily built.

This spot could then be called a national monument, a national geological point of interest, or it could even be called Neuberger's Nomad Land.

The point is, the attention would and could be drawn to what the proponents feel is a place of unique beauty and interest.

The advantages are quite obvious. Cost would be very low. Businesses, taxes, residents, other phases of local and county economic progress, would remain undisturbed, to say nothing of the calming effect on the emotions of the people of Lane County.

I respectfully request that my foregoing statements be made a part of the record of this hearing.

Thank you.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much for keeping your statement brief. Are there questions of the witness?

Again, thank you very much.

Mr. JONES. May I have the letter from the Department of the Interior submitted with my speech? I think you have a copy. Mrs. PrOST. Do you want to place it in the record?

Mr. JONES. With my speech, please.

Mrs. Prost. We will take it under advisement and let you know. (The letter referred to appears on p. 155.)

I believe Mr. Chenoweth has a question.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I am particularly interested in your observation on the so-called Ellsworth-Cordon bill. I was in Congress when that bill was before us. I served with both gentlemen and they were both very good friends of mine.

I recall the legislation, but I do not remember what the bill provided. Was there some similarity between that bill and the present legislation. You make some reference to the comparison.

Mr. JONES. The comparison is that it is our understanding that 13,500 acres of Crown Zellerbach is to be taken in with this park idea. and that Crown Zellerbach will be given like value somewhere else. Mr. CHENOWETH. That is the present intention?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What was the Cordon-Ellsworth proposal?

Mr. JONES. That proposal was that a private timber owner that was deprived of timberlands due to Government acquisition would be remunerated in kind in another area, not in money, but in timberlands. Mr. CHENOWETH. I just want to ask Mr. Hardin: You propose a national monument to include the sand dunes. I might state in my district in Colorado we have a national sand dunes monument which