25 



Almost all of the environmental groups are continuing to partici- 

 pate in the process. Only some have attempted to rush to a conclu- 

 sion before the process is ended. My question to you is: Why can't 

 we continue the current process that a majority of people believe 

 is working? 



Mr. Farr. And what happens after the 1995 deadline? 



Mr. Thomas of California. No, there is no 1995 deadline. This 

 agreement continues into effect until, from that activity, research, 

 and understanding, a new plan is offered. There is no closed win- 

 dow. The 1995 date is a phony deadline. 



Mr. Peterson. Mr. Pombo. 



Mr. Pombo. I just had a quick question of Mr. Brown. 



In this legislation, private property rights are treated very 

 vaguely. One of the statements is that all of the property would re- 

 turn to its natural state. How would that treat the private property 

 that exists within the boundaries of this legislation, in specific the 

 recreational opportunities that currently exist up there? How could 

 they continue to exist if they were required by legislation to return 

 to their natural state? 



Mr. Brown. I will not try to give you a definitive answer. The 

 bill, I think, leans over backwards to protect the private property 

 rights of all of those who have an interest, and that includes those 

 who have the logging contracts and grazing contracts. 



Recreational uses are intended to be enhanced, not reduced, 

 here, and there is provision for the development of trails and other 

 kinds of facilities which will enhance the recreational activities in 

 the area. 



Mr. Pombo. But there is a provision in the bill which requires 

 that the property return to its natural state, and it is my under- 

 standing that there are about 27,000 acres of private property that 

 is included in this. 



Mr. Brown. There is no taking of private property involved in 

 this bill, to the best of my knowledge. 



Mr. Pombo. It is not an outright taking, but it is a regulatory 

 taking, because you are taking it by surrounding it with rules £uid 

 regulations which destroy roads and the current ability to access 

 private property. It is not an outright taking. You will not actually 

 pay them for it, but you will be taking it through regulation. 



Mr. Brown. We can discuss that later. I think you misinterpret 

 the purpose of the regulatory structure that is to be placed here. 

 It is not intended to deprive anyone of their rights. 



Most of the people who went into that forest and settled, ac- 

 quired private property holdings for recreational purposes, summer 

 homes, or homes of that sort, will find the value for that purpose 

 enhanced as a result of this bill. 



Mr. Peterson. We want to thank everybody. We will dismiss 

 this panel. 



I would like to call Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the Forest 

 Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Welcome to the sub- 

 committee. Your fuU statement will be made part of the record. 



