63 



you assure that the scientific panel will allow any residential use 

 within the area? 



Ms. Cloer. I think that we need to look at the wilderness bill. 

 There is private property in the wilderness, and I realize that there 

 is a push, sometimes, to try to acquire it. 



But a lot of the private property that they are talking about are 

 subdivisions which have been around since 1900. They have homes, 

 they have sewer systems, they have water systems. They have an 

 infrastructure in place. And I do not think there is anything in the 

 bill whatsoever that would imply that these communities would 

 suddenly lose their water rights and that sort of thing. 



I believe that the only homeowners that may have some con- 

 cern — and maybe an amendment of the bill should include this — 

 there are 99-year renewable leases which are Federal lands, where 

 people have the right to have their own cabins and things there. 

 And it is possible that if some of those are determined by the sci- 

 entific board to be degrading the area, that the Federal Govern- 

 ment would have the right to terminate the leases. 



Of course, they have that right, right now. I would like to see 

 something in the bill which would affirm their right to continue 

 those leases. 



May I just say a couple of things to Mr. Pombo? Right now, 

 ORVs can not use the entire forest. There are regulations where 

 they can use designated trails. In the 2,000 miles of Sequoia Na- 

 tional Forest, many of those roads are gated. You can't use them 

 now. And most of them lead to clearcuts. I would say that the 

 transportation analysis, which is called for in the bill, would re- 

 quire some of those be put to bed. 



But I firmly believe that if you log off the forest you, de facto, 

 get rid of your recreational opportunity. And so you have to have 

 a beautiful forest, and then you automatically have some place to 

 recreate. If you log it, you are getting rid of your opportunity to 

 have a certain type of recreational value, too. 



Mr. PoMBO. I don't think that there is anybody that has testified 

 yet, or anybody that sits as a member of this committee, who has 

 advocated logging this forest, or has had advocated clearcuts. That 

 was never a subject that has been brought up. So to say that is in- 

 consistent with the testimony that has been given or the questions 

 that have been asked, to this point. 



There are no recreational opportunities in the forest without the 

 forest existing. But there is no recreational opportunities in the for- 

 est if you don't let people go in. Just knowing that there is a forest 

 out there might make you feel good, but it doesn't do you any good 

 if you can't go in and see it and enjoy it. 



Ms. Cloer. I don't think there is anything that kept people from 

 going into it. I think that some of my comments about logging as 

 an alternative are based on my reading the testimony that has 

 been already submitted for the record by the people who have not 

 spoken yet. So you are correct that no one, yet today, has testified 

 that they want to log the forest. 



Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Wolf 



Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir. 



Mr. CONDIT. You stated that the Presidential proclamation is not 

 adequate protection, because it can be rescinded by another Presi- 



