78 



the State. So I would like to correct that. We did share the infor- 

 mation with the State and the appropriate agencies. 



I think, in the essence of time, I will close my remarks now and 

 thank you for the opportunity. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell appears at the conclu- 

 sion of the hearing.] 



Mr. Rose. Mr. Dixon, first district supervisor, Humboldt County 

 Board of Supervisors, Humboldt County, California. 



STATEMENT OF STAN DIXON, SUPERVISOR, FIRST DISTRICT, 

 HUMBOLDT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



Mr. Dexon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I am aware that the subcommittee has a copy of my prepared 

 statement. 



Mr. Rose. All of it will be in the printed record. 



Mr. Dexon. Many of the points that were made in that written 

 testimony have been covered by members of your subcommittee al- 

 ready this morning, so I will briefly touch on a number of points 

 that I think are important. 



The first of which is that in April of this year, I was privileged 

 to attend the President's Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon. 

 And many of us that left that conference, and while the conference 

 was not specifically about this proposal, the premise that we all left 

 with I think is important here. And that is the fact that the Presi- 

 dent, his administration, and Members of Congress, indicated a 

 recognition that there needs to be clearly balance between the envi- 

 ronment and economic situations, at least in the State of Califor- 

 nia. And that is important to resource-related communities such as 

 ours. 



We feel that the proposal before you, taking the 44,000 acres, 

 contrary to testimony that was earlier given, would significantly 

 impact communities, individuals, families, and that there would be 

 a significant loss of employment. There would be a significant im- 

 pact on the ability of county government to provide necessary serv- 

 ices. 



The proposal comes at a time when governments at all level, in- 

 cluding the Federal Government, are facing enormous budget defi- 

 cits. We simply cannot afford the loss of additional tax revenues 

 that would be resultant from this piece of legislation. 



We almost unanimously in Humboldt County, as it relates to 

 elected officials, oppose this legislation at the 44,000-acre level. 

 That opposition does not result from a feeling that we do not need 

 to preserve our natural resources and protect them for generations 

 and protect them not only for the residents of our county but for 

 the people of the United States. However, we do feel that 4,500 

 acres is a significant contribution to the National Forest System. 



As you are aware, there are 255,000 acres of redwood currently 

 in the State of California preserved, between 80,000 and 100,000 

 of those acres are old-growth redwood timber. Timber is the back- 

 bone of the local economy. For anybody to suggest otherwise is a 

 false assumption. There is no question that the importance of it 

 has declined for a number of reasons, but it is and it will remain 

 a significant contributor to our economy. 



