public lands adjacent to Lake Powell. We believe that the most important part of this hearing is whether or not a road should be built from Glen Canyon City to Bullfrog Basin.

This is a vast, beautiful and undeveloped region. It is so vast and so beautiful that we feel that every man, woman and child in the United States should have the opportunity and privilege of seeing it. This great area should not and cannot be isolated and kept as a playground for a favored few. It should be developed so that the people, here and now, have the opportunity of viewing its wonders. This land cannot be set aside as a wilderness area. It must remain and be governed under a multiple-use concept if we outlying small communities are to survive. Not one cow should be removed from this area. Grazing should be supervised and controlled, yes; but we want those cattle there. Not only are they a large part of our economy, but they are a symbol of what built this part of Utah. The great days of open range and cattle drives are history, but what a romantic history! Millions of dollars have been spent in this area filming the western stories. We firmly believe that many people still want to see an authentic western cowboy chasing a steer or hazing a head of cattle along the trail. Where else is cowboy history more fitting than southern Utah, and how else could this history be better portrayed to the average traveler than by a good road through this beautiful cattle country?

It has been proposed that a 2-year feasibility study of a road through this region be made. Studies have been made for the past 5 or 10 years by the BLM, the Utah State Road Commission and the National Park Service. The most important and surprising part of these studies is the projections of the number of people that would visit this area if it were made accessible to the average citizen. This is no time for further lengthy studies. It is a time to begin, and the only study to be made should be the starting construction date.

There is a powerful group of some 140.000 paid members who would stop all development and utilization of these isolated regions. We do not know their ultimate purpose unless it is to set these areas aside for their own enjoyment and use; hereby denying the average citizen or the less fortunate, the privilege of traveling this beautiful, inaccessible region. The opponents of this roadway are able to hire personnel to attend these hearings and present professional displays attempting to justify reasons for excluding the American public. Authors and photographers are paid to write and photograph these beautiful scenes, but the articles conclude that the beauty would be marred if the people were allowed there.

You gentlemen have, I am sure, in your records a beautiful book that was prepared by a group that told that anybody that proposed a road in this area was a typical American slob. I hope this does not influence your thinking. Some think we are all slobs here but I do not believe we are.

Gentlemen, we the Kane County Commissioners, profess to be average typical Americans. We believe that this great country is for all Americans, and we further believe that Kane County is for all Americans. We believe that its lands and resources should be put to the best use. These resources, both scenic and economic, should be evaluated and used so that they would serve the most people in the best possible way. Where our county is virtually all Federal or State

owned lands, we must have multiple use of these lands to exist. We sincerely urge you to consider these facts; and we feel that you will reach a conclusion that the interests of the people here, the people of the State of Utah, and the citizens of our country will best be served by a roadway being built to unlock the treasures of this beautiful region.

We hope that you as Congressmen will assume your proper positions as elected officials and so direct those who are under you to do the thing that you would have them do, not the thing that they might propose to you but the things that the people want.

Now, we hear often of the heads of these committees and Department of the Interior-now, this is not in the record, in the paper, and you are looking for that-we hear this so many times and yet you do notwe hope that you give them the direction by saying do it, not saying, let us make a study of it and then find out where we are going. I hope you direct them that they do make this, build this road, that they do set aside lines, that the multiple use purpose is conserved and that we adopt the bill that Mr. Lloyd is proposing and that we build a road and we build it from Glen Canyon City to Bullfrog.

Now, I think maybe this is where there is a little confusion between the County Commissioners and the State Road Commission. The State Road Commission has proposed a corridor and we have had a hearing on this corridor, so a study has been made, but the people of Kane County prefer this road to be started at Glen Canyon City, not at Bullfrog. All studies show that the largest percentage of tourist travel comes from Arizona and California and, therefore, the greatest economic benefit would be to all communities if the road would be opened from Glen Canyon City to Bullfrog and started right

away.

We thank you for the opportunity of testifying here. We hope you enjoy your stay. When you get out and see already you have seen this area is large enough to drop one or two States in it. We have got to make people aware that they can get there without walking or without riding a horse. So we hope, gentlemen, that you favorably present this to your people that you are over and ask them to build a road. If the State Road Commission is one of them, give them the money and let them build it.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

(Applause.)

Mr. LEWIS. I have some letters from some of the local people and I would like to enter them into the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. These letters will be turned over to the counsel and will be placed either in the record or file.

Mr. Lewis, we might have a question or two. You suggest we be men of action but you would also want us to do a good deal of listening before we take action on the controversy.

Mr. LEWIS. Right. The point I am trying to make is that you are out here and we hope you make up your minds rather quickly.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, in your opinion, what percentage of the people in Kane County support the proposed road?

Mr. LEWIS. I would sav 95 percent.

Mr. TAYLOR. Do you have information as to the number of cattle now grazing within the proposed recreation area in Kane County?

Mr. LEWIS. Well, no, I do not. We have not only Kane County but Garfield County also grazes into this area. I am sure we could get the figure from the BLM of the number that would be in the area. They are all checked in and out.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. Chairman

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. McCLURE. Some of the statements that have been made with respect to this recreation area and the road indicate the desirability of attracting and holding tourists here. Is that a feeling that is shared by most of the people in the area, that they want tourism to be built to the numbers that are projected?

Mr. LEWIS. I believe so. I think this does.

Mr. TAYLOR. You do not share the feeling of the Governor of Oregon who has said to the tourists, please come but do not stay.

Mr. LEWIS. No; I do not. We do not share that. We would like them to stay a few days, if that is what you mean.

(Laughter.)

Mr. McCLURE. I thought maybe your statement on the road was a little akin to the way many of us feel in Idaho, as more and more people come to share our beauty with us, that we are going to adopt a new slogan, that, please do not come; send money.

(Laughter.) (Applause.)

Mr. LEWIS. The same purpose.

Mr. TAYLOR. I was just going to say they accuse politicians of dodging issues but you did not do any dodging. You made it clear where you stand.

Mr. LEWIS. I hope so.

Mr. TAYLOR. Representing the San Juan County Commissioners, Calvin Black.

Would the Garfield County Commissioners come up front and be ready next? If there are other seats available, it might be well for the front seats to be reserved for the witnesses coming up. I think that would expedite our hearing somewhat.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. UDALL. Let me say something at this point. My colleague will notice I have been silent.

In the light of the problem we have here today I think maybe I can help some of the witnesses who are going to testify. We have come from long distances to be here, seven Members of Congress, and we all have problems elsewhere. So we can only spend 1 day here and we have about 250 or 300 precious minutes left today. At about 5 o'clock we have to get up and walk out of here. We have 100 witnesses, some of whom have come from distances, some of whom have worked very hard on the testimony they are going to present. So we have a time problem.

If we are going to take all of the time on 10 or 15 witnesses, we will be faced at the end of the day with some angry taxpayers. I would like to suggest a couple of things, one to the county commissioners and the other official witnesses we have. Try to do as some of them, summarize your testimony. Tell us quickly you are for the recreation area with these changes, you are against it, who you represent and very quickly hit the highlights of your testimony.

For those waiting to testify who have worked hard, let me say to you those statements will go in the record, printed in a bound volume that is available and studied and analyzed before we vote. But I am afraid some of our witnesses are going to be limited to just 2 or 3 minutes to testify.

So I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that the witnesses summarize, that they hit the high points very quickly.

(Applause.)

I do not direct this to the present witness. I direct it to everyone who is coming up. We do have a very serious problem and we all ought to recognize it and I do not want to see some hard feelings at the end of the day.

Mr. LLOYD. Would the gentleman yield? I am sure you would not feel your remark was directed to the chairman of the Kane County Commission, who just testified.

Mr. UDALL. No. He was a model of what I would like to hear. Mr. LLOYD. He spoke from his heart the feelings of the people to the seven Congressmen who have come to listen.

Mr. UDALL. Indeed, I am trying to save the time of the witnesses and the committee. This is very valuable, to get out in the field and hear what people say and get a cross section of opinion. I am trying to spend our 4 or 5 hours in the most useful fashion for and us. That is my suggestion.

you

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Black, your statement will be placed in the record and you may summarize as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF CALVIN BLACK, SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER

Mr. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not intend to read mine and I hope Congressman Udall's time did not come out of mine. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. TAYLOR. You will not be charged with his time but we hope maybe you can summarize in about 5 minutes.

Mr. BLACK. Thank you. I first would like to say Congressman Lloyd is the only member of our entire delegation who has spent time in southern Utah talking to the local public officials and the local people on this issue.

The counties in southern Utah a year ago, over a year ago, adopted certain positions that we felt were very important to our State and to the American people concerning the recreation and scenic areas in southern Utah. We were, I might say, very frankly, almost totally ignored by everyone except the Congressman that is with us here today and we appreciate that very much.

I would like to probably just say a few words today about the other 99. Statistically about one person out of every 100 as a hiker and backpacker has both the ability and time and all the other things it takes to really get out and enjoy that type. Everybody walks a little but I am talking about backpacking on an extensive basis.

Now, our counties that are involved in this recreation area total more land area than five of the smallest eastern States. My county alone is geographically the same size as the State of Hawaii. I am just pointing this out to give you people a little idea of the vastness of this area and why one or two or the few roads that we have on the plan

that has been worked out with the State and counties are not going to destroy the backpacking areas. There will be more left with all of these roads and developments than anyone could hike to in a lifetime. So I think we have a responsibility to provide the other 99 and not just the one, and although this one has a great deal of dedication, a lot of money-they do a fantastic job of lobbying-I think we should keep the ratios in mind regardless of the power politics.

I also think one other factor is in this area, and we saw an example of this last Easter. If we do not provide reasonable access and areas for facilities, in my opinion, we will really destroy the area because then everyone who goes in there, and we are getting more of them all the time who go in in four-wheel drives, dune buggies, trail bikes, there are no satisfactory facilities for sanitation, cleanup, even policing because it is so remote, and I think literally that way we would destroy it.

I think a reasonable system of highway access where that 99 can enjoy this area the way they want to and the only way 99 can enjoy this area the way they want to and the only way they perhaps can would be that. I do not believe that area should be able to be seen by only the people that can backpack, that have the special equipment, that are young enough to do it, or have the money to rent a boat or buy a boat or charter an airplane or own an airplane. I think the other 99 ought to be considered.

I would also like to just mention one thing on the proposal of Senator Moss. Actually, we in southern Utah do not really like that big boundary. We wanted it to be smaller. We concurred in effect in going along on it on the condition that two other things that we consider very important not only to us in southern Utah but for the American people to see would be possibly to have some consideration by, you might say, the other side and that is the road and the development areas. But on the statement that was read of Senator Moss, that the BLM would administer grazing, mining, and whatnot, then it makes me wonder, they administer it now. If the Park Service is going to get the land and turn right around and have them administer it, why make the change in the first place?

The other statement, Senator Moss said if it is created by legislation we will be in a better position of funding. I would like to remind the committee and the people here that Canyonland National Park has been in the park system, in line, you might say, for direct funding after promises of immediate development in 1964, and it has yet to have just a fraction of the money that has been spent on development in Glen Canyon. So I would say that that statement is totally incorrect and that in fact, if our good Senator would make the same effort in seeking funds through the Bureau of Reclamation, section 8 funds by which this is funded, we would have a lot better chance than putting it in the Park Service where there is already nearly a billion-dollar backlog, according to the Park Service, in what they need.

I will try to conclude now, Mr. Chairman. There is one other thing that has not been brought up in the bill that was referred to in Mr. Harmston's statement and we would like the committee and the Congress to consider setting aside or making potentially available, not indiscriminately but after study, some areas adjacent or relatively close to the marina developed areas or to be developed areas in Utah