(15) The Act of July 31, 1939, §§ 1-2, 53 Stat. 1144, ch. 401, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior in administering the revised Oregon and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, to exchange such lands for lands of equal value, in State, county, or private ownership, which are within or contiguous to former limits of the grants. Section 306 of the bill would provide more comprehensive exchange authority which would be applicable to these lands.

SEC. 505. Repeals right-of-way laws which are obsolete or superseded by the bill. Unless otherwise stated, the following Acts summarized would be repealed only insofar as they apply to national resource land and would be superseded by enactment of the bill.

Roads and Highways

1. Section 1 of the Act of March 3, 1899, 43 U.S.C. § 665 repeated at 43 U.S.C. § 958, grants the Secretary authority to file and approve surveys and plats of rights-of-way for wagon roads, railroads, and other highways across forest reservations and reservoir sites if public interests would not be injuriously affected thereby.

2. Section 2477 of the Revised Statutes, 43 U.S.C. § 932, makes an in praesenti grant to unspecified grantees of a right-of-way for construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses. R.S. 2477 is repealed in its entirety.

Railroads

1. Sections 1, 2 and 4-6 of the Act of March 3, 1875, 43 U.S.C. §§ 934, 935, 937-939, grant rights-of-way through public lands to railroad companies and provide procedures for obtaining such rights-of-way.

2. Sections 2-9 of the Act of May 14, 1898, 43 U.S.C. §§ 942-1 through 942-9, grant a right-of-way through lands in Alaska to railroad companies and provide procedures for obtaining such rights-of-way. In addition, they authorize the Secretary to grant rights-of-way through such lands for construction of wagon roads and tramways.

3. The Act of February 27, 1901, 43 U.S.C. § 943, declares that water reserve lands in Minnesota are subject to railroad rights-of-way under the Act of March 3, 1875, 43 Stat. §§ 934-939.

4. The Act of June 26, 1906, 43 U.S.C. § 944 recognizes rights-of-way granted for railroads in former Territories of Oklahoma and Arizona and provides for disposition of lands subject to such rights-of-way.

Ditches, Canals, and Reservoirs

1. R.S. 2339 and R.S. 2340, 43 U.S.C. § 661. Only those portions are repealed which grant a right-of-way for construction of ditches and canals for "mining, agricultural, manufacturing or other purposes" where water rights have vested and are duly recognized and which provide that all patents and entries shall be subject to such rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights. The water rights provisions are preserved.

2. Sections 18-21 of the Act of March 3, 1891 as amended, 43 U.S.C. §§)946– 949, make an in praesenti general rights-of-way through public lands and reservations to canal ditch companies, or irrigation or drainage districts for irrigation and drainage, and sets forth conditions and restrictions thereon. 3. The Act of February 26, 1897, 43 U.S.C. § 664 opens reservoir sites to use and occupancy under Sections 18-21 of the Act of March 3, 1891, 43 U.S.C. §§ 946-949.

4. The Act of March 1, 1921, 43 U.S.C. § 950, extends rights granted under the Sections 18-21 of the Act of March 3, 1891, as amended, 43 U.S.C. §§ 946– 949, by authorizing the Secretary to grant permits or easements for dwellings or other buildings or corrals to be used in connection with facilities provided for by the 1891 Act.

5. Section 2 of the Act of May 11, 1898 as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 951, permits use of ditches, canals, or reservoirs constructed under the Act of March 3. 1891 as amended, 43 U.S.C. §§ 946-949, for purposes of a public nature and permits use of such rights-of-way for water transportation, domestic purposes and development of power.

6. The Act of January 13, 1897 as amended, 43 U.S.C. §§ 952-955, permits persons and companies who are in the livestock business to construct reser

voirs on unoccupied public lands, grants such persons control of such reservoirs subject to the regulations of the Secretary, and provides procedures by which persons may obtain these benefits.

7. The Act of January 21, 1895 as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 956, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way through public lands (not within national forests, national parks, military reservations, or Indian reservations) for tramroads, canals, or reservoirs to persons engaged in mining, quarrying, timber cutting, or for furnishing water.

Power and Communications Facilities

1. Section 2 of the Act of January 21, 1895, as added by the Act of May 14, 1896, 29 Stat. 120, 43 U.S.C. § 957, authorizes the Secretary to grant rights-ofway on the public lands and national forests for purposes of generation, manufacture, and distribution of electric power.

2. The Act of February 15, 1901, 43 U.S.C. § 959, 16 U.S.C. 79, § 522, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to permit use of rights-of-way through public lands, forests and other reservations for electrical plants, poles and lines for the generation and distribution of electrical power, and for telephone and telegraph purposes, and for canals, ditches, pipes, pipelines, flumes tunnels, or other water conduits and for water plants, dams, and reservoirs used to promote irrigation, mining or quarrying or the manufacturing or cutting of timber or lumber, or the supplying of water for domestic, public, or other beneficial uses.

3. The Act of March 4, 1911 as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 961, authorizes respective department heads to grant easements for rights-of-way, not exceeding 50 years, upon the public lands and reservations for electrical poles and lines for the transmission and distribution of electrical power, and for poles and lines for communication purposes, and for radio, television, and other forms of communication transmitting, relay and recessing structures and facilities.

Oil and Gas Pipelines

1. The Act of May 21, 1896, 43 U.S.C. §§ 962-965, authorized rights-of-way through public lands in Colorado and Wyoming (except Yellowstone National Park) to any pipeline company formed to transport crude or refined oil, prescribes limitations thereon, and provides procedures for obtaining the benefits of the Act. This was impliedly repealed by Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 185.

2. The Act of April 12, 1910, 43 U.S.C. §§ 966-970, granted rights-of-way through the public lands in Arkansas for transport of oil or natural gas, prescribed limitations thereon, and provided procedures for obtaining the benefits of the Act. This act was also impliedly repealed by Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. § 185.

3. Section 28 of the Act of February 25, 1920 as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 185, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way through the public lands, including the forest reserves of the United States for oil and gas pipelines, subject to certain conditions; requires that such pipelines be maintained as common carriers; requires acceptance and conveyance of Government oil and oil produced from lands leased under the Mineral Leasing Act; provides for forfeiture through court proceedings of the right-of-way for failure to comply with this section or regulations or conditions prescribed by the Secretary. This statute is repealed in its entirety by the proposal and is substantially reenacted by Section 402.

Mr. MELCHER. This morning we are continuing our hearings on H.R. 5441, and this bill has had extensive hearings in the field. We held public hearings at Billings, Mont.; also in Colorado; Glen Brook, Nev.: Albuquerque, N. Mex.; Las Vegas, Nev.; Riverside, Calif.; Medford, Oreg.; Salt Lake City, Utah. And all in all, we feel that the committee has gathered a broad and substantial public input into what we should do about managing the public lands. The bill that we are holding hearings on has little sympathy in this subcommittee. It is a bill that was introduced on behalf of the

administration, and I presume, written by the Department of the Interior. It is a very broad and sweeping bill to give discretion to the Secretary of the Interior on how management of those lands under the supervision of the BLM would be carried out in the future.

The subcommittee has heard scores, and I guess I should say hundreds of public witnesses to the broad powers that are delegated in H.R. 5441 to the Secretary without concise and specific direction of Congress.

We as members of the subcommittee have made it clear to public witnesses in hearings in the West that we do not intend to pass out this type legislation. We made it clear that the subcommittee will draft its own legislation to be specific and give specific directions to the Secretary, and that we are also interested in a broader sense than is this bill in how we apply direction to the Secretary of the Interior, or for that matter, to the Secretary of Agriculture or the Defense Department on specific points on managing public lands.

I just mentioned two or three for the record; for instance, that if we have a grazing formula that makes sense on BLM lands, we think it would make sense on forest lands and Bureau of Reclamation lands. If we have a right of way or access definition and direction in the proposed legislation that makes sense on BLM land it would probably make eminent sense on the other public lands, including the forest lands.

And if we are consistent in bringing forth in our new legislation better management principles, and give that direction to the Secretary of the Interior, I think we would also have to give that same type of direction to the Forest Service and other Federal agencies that manage public lands.

So I merely bring that to your attention to let you know what the committee has said. I think they said this in every case, in every city that we held the public hearings in the field. And we say this here and invite the comments of witnesses on that basis, and I said that because I hardly think it is necessary to dissect this bill in your testimony, because we have already rejected the language.

What we are really interested in is testimony that gives constructive suggestions as we draft a new bill.

Now, we have at every point had a recommendation that in the new bill that the Bureau of Land Management be given the authority, be given the direction to follow the same procedures as does the Forest Service in recommending for inclusion of some of the lands under their jurisdiction in the National Wilderness System. The subcommittee is very sympathetic to that, and I suppose we do not need argument telling us how justified that is in the bill. What we really would like and look for is the direction and if there is anything else we should do other than following the procedures the Forest Service designating part of their BLM lands as wilderness. We, I am sure, are going to be hearing from the Wilderness Society. We do not need to belabor the point about doing this.

As I say, what we need is some concise advice, I guess, if there is anything different that should be done. I might also say that in this regard at a number of points, we have been advised by public witnesses, they would like to see some instant wilderness designations for some BLM lands. We find that a little bit difficult, I suppose, because this subcommittee has always insisted on public hearings of the proposals; and that, first of all, that the agency have public hearings in the field and plenty of input from people that are involved; and that second, we have taken up each consideration after a moderate time, and since I have been here, have gotten Presidential recommendation of wilderness designation.

I am well aware that when the act was passed in 1964, there were some instant wilderness areas created, but I think we are in a little different circumstances here, because we are not familiar with the primitive areas that the BLM has designated. We are not familiar even with the procedures the BLM went through in designating these primitive areas.

So I bring this out now, and I hope other groups that are interested will head this colloquy on my part, actually this monolog, I guess, would be a better term, on my part to sort of limit our discussion of what we are talking about in wilderness designation. The committee has a statement of Mr. Regula, a member of the subcommittee, who could not be with us this morning. Without objection, we will make that a part of the hearing record at this point.

Hearing no objection, so ordered.

[Statement of Ralph S. Regula in full follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH S. REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this statement in support of the National Resource Lands Management Act. I am from Ohio so only a minute portion of the lands affected by this Act are located within my State but they are very important to the people of Ohio since they will play a significant role in the future development of this country. While we could once look at these lands as mere surplus, the current worldwide scarcity of natural resources serves as a warning that we must take a close look at what we have and decide how to best use our natural resources to achieve the maximum benefit for this country and the world.

We must develop comprehensive plans to manage these lands to meet current and future recreation, living, and mineral needs. This Act calls for the development of land use plans for the public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Since the Land Use Planning Act now appears unlikely to be enacted during this Congress this Act offers the federal government an opportunity to set an early example for the states by developing land use plans for the public lands.

As a step toward this comprehensive approach to managing and developing these federal lands I will soon introduce a bill calling for the creation of a single Natural Resources Trust Fund. Income collected from the use and sale of federal lands would all flow to the Fund and then be used to develop the lands that produced the income. This approach will aid in implementing unified planning and will prevent the dissipation of federal land revenues to the general fund. Congress could of course use these monies to fund other programs. Having the monies flow through the Trust Fund will make everyone aware of the uses to which the public land income is being put.

I would also suggest that we take steps to see that the public is given a voice in making decisions affecting their public lands. During hearings held

by the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands last year Assistant Secretary Horton stated that the Department of the Interior had no objection to making the Administrative Procedure Act applicable to BLM land use and disposal decisions. I support this change since it would assure a more open decision making process and would bring BLM procedures into conformity with those of other agencies.

Mr. MELCHER. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Karl Landstrom, attorney at law from Arlington, Va.

Karl?

STATEMENT OF KARL LANDSTROM, ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
ARLINGTON, VA.

Mr. LANDSTROM. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I will find it very easy to conform to the wishes that the chairman has indicated regarding the testimony because I did not plan this morning to repeat in any way the specific suggestions that I have made over in the Senate Committee regarding the particular language of the companion Senate bill to H.R. 5441. That material is all available in the Senate hearing record dated July 23, 1973. So I will not repeat the specific suggestions that I made at that time.

Mr. MELCHER. Karl, might I inquire, because I have not read the Senate hearings, might I inquire if you made specific recommendations-not so much a critique of this bill but specific recommendations of points which should be given consideration in the new bill?

Mr. LANDSTROM. Mr. Chairman, I do have a list of five or six specific matters or points.

Mr. MELCHER. In vour testimony today?

Mr. LANDSTROM. They do not appear in my prepared testimony but I could list for you those in which I am very interested.

Mr. MELCHER. Well, I think that would be very, very helpful. Your background lends you to giving this committee excellent advice.

Mr. LANDSTROM. My prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, is entirely devoted to only section 308 of H.R. 5441, which I am offering on behalf of clients of mine, and I could either proceed with that, which is a specific item, or I could talk more about the legislation generally, as you prefer; whichever you prefer.

Mr. MELCHER. Well, could you summarize your prepared statement this morning, and then permit us to go on?

Mr. LANDSTROM. Yes, sir. If my entire prepared statement could appear in the record. I would only read a portion of it.

Mr. MELCHER. Without objection. Karl's entire prepared statement will be made a part of the record at this point, and we will proceed.

[The statement of Karl Landstrom in full follows:]

STATEMENT OF KARL S. LANDSTROM, ON BEHALF OF THE SPORTSMAN'S PARADISE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, my name is Karl S. Landstrom. I submit this statement as attorney for the Sportsman's Paradise Homeowners Association, a nonprofit organization, whose mailing address is 10612 Dalerose Avenue, Inglewood,