The national energy shortage may require, in the overall national interest, the development of such lands for the production of oil, gas and other minerals even though groups with local orientations may oppose such developments of refining and electric generating sites.

Accordingly, the Institute urges that Section 203 (h) be amended to read as follows:

"(h) The Secretary shall not make conveyances of public lands which would be in conflict with State and local land use plans, programs, zoning, and regulations unless such sales are required by the overall national interest."

This amendment would provide a mechanism to insure that the national interest is protected in all conveyances of Federal lands.

PRESENTATION TO THE STATEWIDE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SACRAMENTO, CALIF., BY W. F. HERBERT, MANAGER, NATURAL RESOURCES, SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND CO.

I want to tell you about the magnitude of the problems of "Private-Public Land Exchanges"; explain why it is of concern to California Business and the general public; give some reasons why the program is moving so slowly; and say what should be done and where you in the Chamber can be an important link in the program.

The magnitude of the exchange problem can be better visualized with a few facts. The acres and money mentioned will only be Southern Pacific Land Company properties, but other landowners face the same type situation. Because the agenda today is generally concerned with Forest lands, I will concentrate on exchanges with the United States Forest Service in northern California; however, the same problem exists on hundreds of thousands of acres with the Bureau of Land Management in southern California and with other governmental agencies throughout the state.

In northern California, Southern Pacific Land Company has 213,000 acres of its property withheld from use currently in wilderness, primitive, scenic, special study and roadless designations. Studies are being made by the Forest Service, and some have been in progress over twenty years. Our company long ago determined which of its land is most suitable for continuous timber production, recreational use, to remain unused and pristine, commercially developable or better suited for others to own. Some of the exchange property should be consolidated for better management. Much of it is more suitable for government ownership and is truly unique, located in areas that should remain pristine. We have had numerous meetings and correspondence with local and regional Forest Service personnel, and they have indicated the desire for its acquisition. This property is costing us a great deal of money while the studies are being made, and this year the property taxes alone cost us over $506,000 on the 213,000 acres of exchange property. This does not include our overhead expense or the return that should be coming in from the value of the property.

For example, Southern Pacific Land Company property is located in the following areas where we have refrained from putting the land to its highest income-producing potential in anticipation of the Forest Service is going to acquire it: Approximately 3,800 acres are located within the Lake Tahoe basin; 10,100 acres are within the Granite Chief special study and roadless area; 53,000 acres are within the Salmon-Trinity Alps primitive area; 7,000 acres are within the Shasta Lake recreation area; 8,900 acres are within the Clair Engle Lake recreation area; 11,500 acres are within the Grouse Ridge Lakes basin area; and so on. These are the move obvious exchange potentials, and do not include the thousands of acres where ownership should be adjusted to facilitate survey management and other problems.

Why is this of concern to California Business and the general public?

This unique property is available now for the government's acquisition to be kept pristine for the public's enjoyment, but this opportunity may soon be lost forever. Private owners cannot continue to hold property in a nonproductive condition aond continue to pay the heavily increasing tax burden while waiting for the Forest Service to complete its studies and decide on exchanges. The property is going to be sold to others with differing land management policies or put to another use that produces income.

Imagine the adverse impact on the present open space and environment if you have many hundreds of property owners of the timber and scenic lands instead of a few.

We favor the Forest Service's acquiring property through exchange. There are many locations where it would be to the mutual benefit of private owners and the government to consolidate its holdings into logical management units or for private firms to acquire government land lying in urban areas that logically is suitable for development and other commercial use.

It is important to define the government's responsibility and the private sector's responsibility. The government should own the unique scenic lands that have a special value and are to be preserved for the public's enjoyment. The private sector should own the commercial and developable lands at it is in its proper role and area of responsibility, supplying the venture capital and taking the risk of

success.

There are other benefits to the program, such as greatly needed winter and summer vacation resorts, with adequate lodging, eating and recreation facilities, which would be built on private land in the proper areas. This is in contrast to the typical automobile-congested weekend oriented resort on government land here in California. Unfortunately, adequate financing of buildings and utilities is difficult on government property, and other government restrictions prevent the flexibility needed to assure a successful operation on its lands.

There is much timber land that is withheld from use that properly should be logged on a continuous forest production basis. This timber is locked in areas that obviously are suitable for logging while endless studies are made restricting its use.

I have deemphasized the Forest Service's acquiring more land through purchase as it should concentrate on the quality of its land management operation and remain in its role of responsibility. I personally feel that a better contribution to society can be made through private ownership of property whenever possible. There are thousands of acres of government land in locations where it should not have ownership and which should be used for exchange. Exchange has the benefit of not upsetting the county's tax base as an equal value of property can be exchanged within the county with the private owner's continuing to pay the same taxes.

Even though after many years of effort, we recently concluded a 1,600-acre exchange with the Forest Service, and conditions are improving with other exchanges in various stages of progress, the program, for all practical purposes, is moving too slow to be of any real significance. At the present rate, it will be 100 years before we complete our program with the Forest Service, and this doesn't include other private land which should also be exchanged.

Now, if this program to exchange private-government lands is so logical, and there are benefits to each party, why isn't the program moving faster and being more actively pursued?

We have been given reasons, such as: there are not enough funds available for appraisals; the conservation groups may object to the Forest Service's giving up any of its land; the off-road vehicle groups may object to the Forest Service's giving up any of its land; the timber industry may object; others may object; the Forest Service may be accused of favoritism; the Chief at Washington has not set the policy; even though the past supervisor recommended an exchange after taking three years to study, he was promoted to another location and the new man needs to make another study; small area exchanges can't progress as the total picture has to be studied first; however, it has not been determined if the total picture is by drainage area, by county, by district, by region, by state, etc.; the Forest Service requires plans and reports for its approval on uses the private party intends to make of the Forest Service property to be exchanged; the Forest Service doesn't want to exchange away commercial timber land, release recreation land, release developable land, and so on; there has to be a trade off, and it has not been determined what will the government allow the private party to acquire in exchange for the wilderness and scenic lands; the local District Forest appears to be waiting for direction from the Region; the Region appears to be waiting for a policy decision from the Forest Chief at Washington, D.C.: and the Chief appears to be waiting for recommendations back from the local District.

These are just a few of the reasons why the exchange program is moving so slowly. I believe the benefits to all are so important, and too much can be lost by further delays, so that we should not accept this status quo-custodial situation. Its unexplainable why the governmental agencies are not responding actively to the public's desire to protect the truly unique properties and why they are

not taking the initiative to rapidly acquire them while the properties are so readily available.

What should be done and where does this organization have a role?

I feel the major problem is at the highest level of the various governmental organizations. What is needed is a clear program for the regions and districts to follow. The Chief of the Forest Service should give his approval to the exchange program originally, and sufficient approval of funds so the Region will have better assurance the exchange will be accepted if the properties to be exchanged and acquired are of equal value.

A disposal criteria should be established, setting the proper priorities defining the lands the government should acquire and those which can be released to private owners. This criteria should work toward the direction of and be based on government ownership of the scenic and wilderness lands and private ownership of the commercial lands.

Many of the exchange proposals are so clearly beneficial that it is unnecessarily time-consuming and costly to perpetually study them in such detail. This nonproductive red tape should be eliminated, and the Chief should direct those in the decision-making position to only call for the data necessary to make his professional recommendation.

For example, the 3,000 acres of Southern Pacific Land Company property in Blackwood Creek Canyon within the Lake Tahoe Basin has been studied many times over the years by the Forest Service. Placer County has passed a resolution calling for the Forest Service's acquiring the property by exchange; the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency recommends Forest Service ownership of this property; all the Forest Service studies recommend its acquiring this property; the conservation groups support the Forest Service ownership; and our company is willing to exchange the property to the Forest Service. The point is that everyone is in favor of the exchange, yet it is not being made.

Much of the appraisal data, such as timber volumes, can be contracted to a third party and the cost shared by the private owner and the government, which has the benefit of speeding up the process and is half as costly for each, instead of the present situation calling for duplicate appraisals.

The total State of California has much to be gained through an exchange program between private landowners and the government. This program is not making meaningful progress. The Chamber should use its influence to encourage the private and governmental persons involved to get on with it.

I suggest that the Chamber be the catalyst and pursue for the establishing of realistic priorities and timetables by those involved to actively conclude exchanges that are in the public's interest.

REGIONAL FORESTER,

U.S. Forest Service, 630 Sansome Street,
San Francisco, Calif.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND CO.,

San Francisco, Calif., December 9, 1972.

DEAR SIR: This is in reference to the Forest Service proposal for the Trinity Alps Wilderness in which you have invited my views.

My remarks will be confined to the segment of the Forest Service proposal for the Trinity Alps Wilderness that directly affects the Southern Pacific Land Company property lying within the study area.

Southern Pacific Land Company owns 53,644 acres in the most easterly portion of the study area. This portion is not now included for wilderness and is identified as Exclusion 2 in the Forest Service proposal. The intent stated by the Forest Service is to keep its property roadless with a dispersed, trail access recreation area. The public, especially the private landowners within the area, would be invited to assist in completing this Forest Service management direction. Before presenting the Southern Pacific Land Company's position on this most recent proposal, I think it worthwhile to briefly review what has taken place in the past.

The Southern Pacific Land Company property in this Exclusion 2 area was inIcluded in the original Salmon-Trinity Primitive Area established by the Chief of the Forest Service April 18, 1932.

The exchange of property between the Forest Service and Southern Pacific Land Company formally started in 1950 at a Planning Commission hearing held in Weaverville. The subject was, "Protection of the Salmon-Trinity Primitive Area", with the county favoring an exchange of equal value of land within the

county in order to not upset the tax base. We accepted this program, and until this year, have refrained from using our lands in the Primitive Area. We have not derived income from them, even though we have continued to pay the county taxes in anticipation of the Forest Service's acquiring them.

The Forest Service and Southern Pacific Land Company did attempt to work out various exchange proposals for the total Southern Pacific Land Company property lying within the Primitive Area from 1950 to September 3, 1964 when Congress passed the Wilderness Act 88-577. This act allows Congress ten years to reclassify certain primitive areas into Wilderness. We were advised that the act restricted the previous authority the Forest Service had to conclude the total primitive area exchange on which we had been working, and it now is only able to conclude small exchanges.

Our program since being advised of this in 1964 has been to encourage the Forest Service to acquire the Southern Pacific Land Company property lying within the Primitive Area in units within the Forest's authority in exchange for Forest Service land of an equal value. The Forest Service land we desire to ac quire should preferably be in the same county in nonsensitive areas suitable for timber harvest or located in the path where urban type uses or other developments should logically take place.

Our position is that unique pristine areas which should be preserved should be owned by the Government as they are for the public's enjoyment. The commercial and developable lands should be in private ownership as private industry is more qualified and in its area of responsibility, supplying venture capital and taking the risk of success.

The present Wilderness Area proposal does not directly meet the problem or solve it by placing the Forest Service lands in a roadless category and expecting the private land owners to give up their rights on the adjacent properties. The Forest Service proposal brings out that access to private inholdings must be assured and the Forest Service has no control over developments on private lands.

The issue is: Does this land have the uniqueness to justify the wilderness or primitive type classification for the public's benefit? If so, the property in this classification should be owned by the public because of the highly restrictive uses that are made on the property. It is unreasonable to expect private land owners to continue to pay the taxes and not receive an adequate return on the value of their land.

The continual studies, moratoriums and hearings are unnecessarily delaying positive action, and I can not understand why progress has to be so slow. The Forest Service proposal mentions that Southern Pacific Land Company officials have indicated a willingness to dispose of their lands to the United States by exchange or purchase. We still have the same position, but it is necessary we see action on this program. If the Forest Service desires to acquire the Southern Pacific Land Company property in the Primitive Area and will say which of its lands are available for exchange, we can conclude this matter very quickly. As we have mentioned before, we have counted on this timber volume we have withheld from using for our timber program. We are being faced with very high county taxes on the land we are not using, and we can not indefinitely wait for an action program by the Forest Service. The time is rapidly approaching when we must consider alternative uses of this property and the present possibility of its remaining pristine in public ownership may be lost forever. Very truly yours,

W. F. HERBERT.