and improvement of their land, fair rents and compensation for improvements made or deterioration permitted.

Unfortunately on most of the valuable croplands of the nation share rents are the rule. To protect these rents the landlord must retain much control over the tenant. They have discovered that the most effective control is the short term lease. Generally the term is for one year or year-to-year. When the landlord believes that the tenant has done a poor job of farming or has failed to pay a fair rent the tenant is asked to move.

Cash rents either fixed or flexible-give the landlord much freedom from worry about the tenant's farming and division of the crops. Therefore the cash landlord is less likely to ask the tenant to move. This being the case the tenant has more control over his farming.

Our federal "landlords" use various methods of leasing land but on most of the federal grazing lands of the West the ranchers are not given a lease but only a license or permit for a fee. The object is to give the federal agencies administering these lands the maximum control over ranchers. Why? The stated object is to conserve the land and its forage. More fundamental is the unstated fear that given freedom ranchers cannot be trusted to act responsibly to conserve and improve the land. This is largely a hangover from the days of the open range which caused the "range wars". These stemmed from lack of the three F's. Ranchers had to fight or fence the open range to hold possession. There was no assurance they would benefit from good range management or improvements in part because they were not paying a fair rent or fee which entitled them to more secure possession.

What can be done in the United States to give tenants of both private and public landlords more of the three F's? One possibility is to adopt tenure laws similar to those in England. These laws now provide (1) that leases shall be continuous or permanent but that either party may terminate by one year's notice which is effective for the landlord only if he can establish adequate cause for termination, (2) that upon termination the tenant is entitled to compensation for his improvements and the landlord for any deterioration, and (3) that rents may be arbitrated upon request of either party but not more frequently than every three years. Adequate causes for lease termination are (1) the land is required for an approved nonagricultural purpose, (2) there is proof of tenant's bad husbandry, (3) the tenant has failed to pay rent or amend a breach of terms, (4) there is a breach of terms that cannot be remedied, (5) the tenant is bankrupt and, (6) the tenant has died. English landlords can sell their farms but the sale is subject to the tenant's lease.

Private landlords in the United States can be expected to object to continuous leases because they (1) would make it difficult to sell the farm to an owner operator and (2) would make it impractical to use share rent leases. But neither of these objections are valid for federal public lands since they are rarely sold and share rent leases are not used.

But if we give ranchers the three F's can they be depended upon to conserve and improve the land? For reasons already given it seems certain that they would do much better than hired employees on federal farms. It is an impossible dream to believe that the 271 million acres of federal grazing lands will ever be managed like the federal parks. Likewise the incentive to improve will be much stronger under leases than under permits. In England on the larger better-managed estates the tenants who pay their cash rents have enjoyed as a customary right a high degree of the three F's for at least 300 years. Leases often remained in the family for generations (Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, Ch. X, "Land Tenure"). Starting about 1875 laws were gradually enacted that made the custom of the better estates uniform for all landlords and tenants.

Owner operators, of course, have the highest degree of the three F's. They have the highest degree of fixity or security of possession, they are compensated for the market value of their improvements when they sell the farm and their interest and tax charges are not arbitrarily changed-thereby destroying their equity in the land. Yet some owner-operators do not do a good job of conservation and improvement of their land because (1) they lack adequate information about benefits and costs, (2) they lack sufficient capital for the needed conservation and improvement measures and, (3) they lack control beyond their fence-lines. However the great majority of farm owners have done an excellent job of improving and conserving the private farmlands in the

United States, Europe and other areas of the world. If ranchers are given the three F's by lease they can be expected to conserve and improve the land much like owner operators. Without these positive incentives to improve they will have much less interest in seeking information, credit and community cooperation in protecting our valuable forage resources of the western states.

What specific changes need to be made in this bill to give ranchers more freedom and responsibility? Section 2 would have Congress declare that the national resource are "vital", have a "wide variety" of valuable uses and hence "that the uses of such lands shall be balanced" to "protect the environmental quality for future generations." To do this the Secretary is to be empowered to use "all practical means and measures" except disposal which is to be permitted only under unusual circumstances.

The emphasis here is on "protecting environmental quality." From whom? Obviously the users. For whom? Again the users-now and in the future. All this is a declaration of distrust of users of public property. Unfortunately it is well grounded. One has only to observe park and roadside litter, trash in public streets, defacing of public property and destruction of public housing to realize that users of public property cannot be trusted to protect it for the present generation let alone the next.

In the early days of the West the federal "open range" was abused by the ranchers themselves-not because they did not want to do better but simply because neither they nor the federal government had any control over the situation. Ranchers tried to control overgrazing by dividing and fencing the public range but this produced "range wars", was declared illegal by the courts and the fences were removed. It was not until sometime after 1934 when the Taylor Grazing Act was passed that these abuses could be stopped by use of grazing permits.

What then is the answer? What should Congress declare as its policy concerning the federal lands?

Dr. Maurice M. Kelso, distinguished long-time agricultural economist and administrator at Montana State University and Arizona State University, has pointed out that

"The unquestioned public policy in this nation is for private property in agricultural land. This is true even though much of that private land is subject to varying degrees of variously serious kinds of deterioration under private ownership. But is the institution of private property in farm land under any serious attack for that reason?

"Much of western federal grazing land is subject to no more serious, to no more long-run damaging abuse under private ownership than are vast areas of privately-owned farm lands. It is no wonder, then, that federal grazing lands of such kind should be urged as amenable to private ownership. Of course, the whole institution of private property in agricultural land can be questioned; a good case can be built for public ownership of all farm land; but that is an issue for the public to decide and so long as it is overwhelmingly accepted that farm lands be privately owned, then the burden of proof is upon those who urge otherwise relative to a significant portion of western federal grazing lands. A large part of the federal grazing lands in the Great Plains and in the inter-mountain semi-deserts have no alternative or joint use to grazing, and are not subject to self-accelerating erosion from overuse; such lands are amenable to private ownership as soundly, as unquestionably, as the farm land of the corn belt." (Kelso, "Current Issues in Federal Land Management. . . Jou. Farm Econ., Nov. 1947, p. 1309–10.)

Kelso then asked what he considered to be the most crucial, the most fundamental question about federal public lands, "should these federal lands in the West be in federal-or public-ownership at all? Shouldn't they be converted into private lands like practically all lands exploited for private profit elsewhere in America?" His answer is "no" with an important exception:

"We see, then, three reasons why private ownership of all western federal land is a hopeless goal-the reasons are (1) the importance of multiple-use management, (2) the economic reluctance of private enterprisers to invest in much of it and to be subjected to taxes on it, and (3) the impossibility of some of it being used in independent private allotments. We conclude that private ownership of all western federal land is a will-o'-the wisp; that not all of it can with any practicability whatever be privately owned and managed. Much of it will remain public, federal, even if it were offered gratis to any taker.

"But on the other hand, it is equally unrealistic to argue that the federal land of the west must all remain federal or even public. For just as it can be pointed out that these federal lands cannot, realistically, be all passed into private ownership, it can be pointed out with equal cogency that not all these federal lands need be retained in federal or even in public ownership." (Kelso, p. 1309.)

What is needed, Kelso concludes, is an agency to separate federal lands (particularly grazing lands), into two groups-those amenable and those not amenable to private ownership. For those that remain in public ownership he has argued that they should be granted the essence of the three F's discussed above. If users are to be given more of the three F's what changes need to be made in our laws? I recommend that H.R. 5441 be revised as follows:

SECTION 2. DECLARATION OF CONGRESS

Congress hereby declares: (a) that the national resource lands contain a wide variety of vital assets, (b) that these lands must be wisely used, conserved and improved in a manner which will, using all practical means and measures, protect the environmental quality of such lands for future generations and (b) that it is in the national interest and consistent with good management that the users of these lands be given maximum freedom and responsibility to conserve and improve these lands and maintain environmental quality by granting them (1) maximum security of possession consistent with the nature of the resource, (2) fair compensation for the market value of any improvements made, and (3) fair charges or rents that do not destroy their interest in conservation and improvement investments.

Under Title I "General Management Authority" I recommend that a new section be added just before present Section 104 "Disposal Criteria." I suggest that this section read as follows:

(a) That the Secretary may issue a lease to any user of national resource land when in his judgement this will serve the public interest.

(b) That upon demand by any present or future user of these lands the Secretary shall issue a lease to the user unless it is shown that such a lease is not in the public interest.

(c) All agricultural or grazing leases shall be for year-to-year terms and all shall contain the following minimum conditions-(1) either party may give one-year's notice of termination at the end of any lease year, however such termination shall be effective for the Secretary only if he can establish adequate cause for termination. Adequate cause may be one or more of the following

(a) the land is required for another superior purpose

(b) there is proof of the tenant's bad management

(c) the tenant has failed to pay the rent or amend a breach of terms

(d) there is a breach of terms that cannot be remedied

(e) the tenant is bankrupt and

(f) the tenant is dead.

(2) Upon termination the tenant is entitled to compensation for the full market value of improvements made during the term of the lease and the government is entitled to compensation for any waste or deterioration committed or permitted.

(3) Either party may request an arbitration of rents but not more frequently than every three years.

(d) With the approval of the Secretary the tenant may sublease the land to one or more sub-tenants provided that the terms of the sub-lease shall conform to the requirements specified in (a), (b) and (c).

(e) The superior tenant may be an individual, a partnership, a cooperative, a corporation or a governmental unit such as a town, city, county or state. (f) That there shall be established appeal boards for the purpose of determining all disputes between the Secretary and users regarding all provisions of permits, licenses, leases and deeds of land but decisions may be appealed to any court having jurisdiction.

I further recommend that Title II "Sale Authority" be changed to "Leasing and Sale Authority" and the text be amended to read "lease or sell" etc.

wherever needed to make this portion of the act apply to both leasing and selling of the land,

Under Title III, lines 17 and 20 should both be amended to read "sale or lease." Other minor word changes may be needed because of the substantive changes proposed.

Will giving users more of the three F's help achieve the public interest? I believe that they will. This conviction is based upon the conclusions of philosophers, psychologists, sociologists and economists and is confirmed by my thirty years of study and research on land ownership and tenancy problems. Mr. MELCHER. Proceed, Dr. Berry.

Dr. BERRY. I favor this bill. I think, as the previous speaker said, it is a very good beginning. It is much needed, and I am generally in favor of it. I do think that we do need to take this opportunity, however, to consider an addition to it that would be a great benefit to the people of the West. It would also achieve the objectives that are set by many of the conservation groups. They are all concerned about the conservation of these valuable resource lands.

The question comes down to this: How do you go about getting the conservation done on these public lands?

Well, you have several ways that you can go. One, you could hire government employees to run State ranches. Another one is to operate pretty much as we have in the past, with the Bureau of Land Management in control of the land, selling the resource to the ranchers to harvest. The third method would be to lease this land to the ranchers, or at least large portions of it to the ranchers, for their management. In other words, turn the management problem over to them, to a large extent. And, of course, the last one, which the bill more or less rules out, a complete disposal of the land into private ownership.

Now, I think without question the first one, except possibly in park areas or something of this sort—that is, State-run ranches-is something that is unthinkable in our system. The last one may be unthinkable for political reasons, and I think that we should not fail to recognize, however, that many of the grazing lands of the West are as amenable to private ownership as are the lands in the Midwest. These grazing lands, by the way, just to get some perspective here on it, amount to the total same land area as Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington, so it is quite an area that we are talking about and involves a great deal of people. If you are concerned about the public interest-and I am sure that this is the name of the gamewhat is the public interest on this land? How do we achieve this conservation?

You must pay, I think, attention to the people out there who are in the position, the only people in the position, to do very much about it. You have just heard testimony as to the problems of supervising this land by police or by public servants with authority to arrest. I would suggest to you that there are other people out there who can perform a valuable service, and that is the ranchers, particularly on the grazing lands. This is the point that I am speaking to.

If they are there, if they are looking after the land, if they see wrongdoing, they can call it to the attention of the officers. They are the most present people, the people who have the greatest control, regardless of the laws that are enacted, that we could possibly have

out there. So with the thought that if we are really concerned with conservation here, we ought to do our best to make it possible for these people to take the maximum long-run view of their control of these resources, the things they hope to achieve, so that they can go ahead and plan.

What I end up suggesting here in this paper is that we do this by giving them what I call "the three F's." The three F's were used in England and Ireland in the struggles over similar land problems with the large landed estates. It is interesting to think about it, that the Federal bureaucracy that we have is kind of a large landed estate in which we have to work out some solutions between the landlord and tenant for the best interest in the national interest.

The three F's then, if we cannot give them ownership, we do not have to go to the other extreme and give them nothing but a fishing permit, a fishing license, as it were, to go out here with a few head of cattle and to harvest this forage. There is a lot of this land that, it seems to me, could be handled under lease, which gives them expectancy that improvements made will be to their benefit, as well as to the national benefit. It is when you get the pulling together of private interests, personal interests, with the public interest that we make the greatest progress.

The second F concerns the right to have a fair return for their improvements. If they do make these improvements, if they make them at their own personal expense, obviously, they are going to have to be compensated for that, or they cannot afford to do it. So this is a very important point, the second F, fair compensation for their improvements. And this, I might add, would include permit values that have been captured through neglect and through past historical circumstances into the value of the private holdings of these ranchers. The third F has to do with fair rents or fees. Obviously, these people out here, these citizens, who are concerned about preserving this land, will not be able to do it if they are threatened constantly with the changing of rates and fees or rents which destroy their equity in the property and their equity in the improvements that they have made.

So these three F's are fundamental to any improvement of range management, it seems to me. We cannot just do it by bureaucratic control with the public employees. It might be a desirable thing. It is a thing that appeals to a lot of us to think that we know how it is done. We have got the experts; let us put somebody out there and let them do it. Let us have it done right. Let us not let the ranchers run away with this.

Well, it just cannot be done. If we cannot police the wrongdoers out there, neither can we police ranchers who are being coerced or pressured to do things that they do not see as their own personal, private interest. So this is the essence of my message here.

I think with that I will throw it open to your questions, if there are questions about this.

Mr. MELCHER. Dr. Berry, do you think that the grazing fees on both BLM and Forest Service are justified?

I should rephrase it. Do you think we are justified in allowing the BLM and the Forest Service to have such extremely low grazing fees?