FOREST RESERVES IX IDAHO. 43 



the waters of Emma Matilda and the Twin Ocean lakes. Reservoirs 

 also will be built around the Henrvs Lake countr}^, and the storage 

 capacity of these various reservoirs will suffice to reclaim from 

 1.500.000 to 2.0.00.000 acres of new land, none of which can be culti- 

 vated with the existing water supplv. In addition to this, the build- 

 ing of these great reservoirs and the conservation of the flood waters 

 will make sure the adequate supply of Avater for the lands in the 

 Snake River Valley Avhich are already under cultivation. The pro- 

 tection of forests is one of the ver}^ great factors in this great devel- 

 opment. 



I quote now Senator Heyburn's protest against Henrys Lake 

 Reserve. In all my quotations from Senator Heyburn's protest I 

 use his exact language. 



The Senator protests — 



Against all that part of the Henrys Lake Reservation covering Beaver and 

 Spencer stations and tlie adjacent conntry, and to all that part lying south of 

 the standard parallel and extending eastward into the Yellowstone National 

 Park. 



The reason for my objection to this is that the growing towns along the rail- 

 roads should not be included within a reservation. That the reservation south 

 of the standard i)arallel and extending to the national park amounts simply to 

 an onlargeuient of the Yellowstone Park, in Idaho, without carrying with it the 

 ])rivileges of the park, and practically shuts off entry from Idaho into the 

 national park over its own border. Much of the lands included within this 

 proposed reserve are not timber lands at all and never will be. An examination 

 that would result in reporting them as fit for timber reserves must have been 

 made either at a great distance or very superficially. They are largely grazing 

 lands. 



In his protest against this reserve Senator Hey burn has absolutely 

 ignored facts. He assumes something which does not exist at all and 

 then objects to his own supi^osition. I am surprised that in all the 

 protests Avhich my colleague has made he has been so utterly oblivious 

 to or careless of facts. 



Beaver is on the Utah Xorthern Railroad, a few miles above Spen- 

 cer. Beaver never was much of a town and never could be, but what 

 there was of it moved to Spencer some years ago, imtil noAv there are 

 but two or three families li\dng there and about one-half dozen 

 empty houses. It is abandoned and abandoned for all times to come. 



Spencer is a bright little place. It has a hotel, a good-sized store, 

 a saloon, and a few houses. I doubt if Spencer will ever grow much, 

 })ecause there is no good agricultural country near it. However, 

 Spencer is not in the proposed reserve at all. 



How the part south of the standard parallel (presumably the third, 

 although not sjDecified) will ** shut off entry from Idaho into the 

 national park *' is not easy to see, for not a road or trail crosses this 

 mountainous strip, which contributes largely to the water supply of 

 the Henrys Fork of Snake River. In addition, while it is not to be 

 expected that there will be any road building over this mountainous 

 strip, the existence of a reserve would not in any wa}^ affect such road 

 building. Senator Heyburn should have known that every privilege 

 of a national park is allowed in a forest reserve, besides very many 

 more privileges. 



As I have stated above, this reserve, as proposed, protects Beaver 

 Creek, Camas Creek, and Henrys I'ork of Snake River, and any 

 restriction of its area will endanger the irrigation from these streams. 



