of smoke jumpers than you can probably find in the parachute division of our Army. They have been using aerial tankers to spray these fires, with a good deal of success. So I say they have shown initiative and they have been extremely progressive, almost to the point of being adventurous in the field of fire fighting.

Many people claim the prevention of all fire in the woods and chaparral builds up dangerous accumulations of brush and litter. Periods of long drought accompanied by high winds and low humidity occur so often in this region that they believe fire is inevitable. They believe that frequent small fires would be less dangerous than a few big ones. Almost to a man, they recommend some form of controlled burning to follow the first fall rains.

Many who wrote were equally vigorous in support of the present nonfire program of the Forest Service. They claim any fire ruins the soil's ability to conserve water, and declare that a permanent cover of trees, brush, and grass is necessary to protect against erosion. A large year-round staff to protect against fire and to carry on other necessary work on the national forests is their answer to the problem, and this can best be accomplished with larger regular appropriations to the Forest Service.

All who ask to be heard have been advised of this hearing. Invitations to send representatives have also been extended to the United States Forest Service, the California Department of Natural Resources, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, other State and local agencies, and to interested citizen associations.

Some people might wonder why the Los Angeles County Fire Department is in this picture, but those familiar with the situation know that they have a job of fighting brush fires and fires out in the country areas just as well as in some metropolitan area.

I have called this hearing to learn why southern California is plagued by so many fires and why many of them get to be so large. While coming in we noticed vast areas which have been burned over to the east of Los Angeles. One fire, I understand, took a million dollars to control.

I want to be able to assure the people in this area that every possible means is being used to keep forest and brush fires from starting and destroying so much of your valuable local watersheds. Of course, people have moved right out into these forest areas, and when these forest fires start not only the forest resources but the homes and even communities are menaced.

We have a long list of witnesses, and, in order to get them all heard in the few days, it will be necessary to ask the witnesses to file and to summarize their statements.

The Chair is going to suggest that each of these witnesses be prepared to proceed on the opening statement with a summary of not more than 10 minutes, and then we will try to question some of these witnesses or groups of witnesses en bloc.

The first witnesses will be from the Forest Service, the California Division of Forestry, the California Department of Natural Resources, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

Without objection, we will hear those witnesses, plus Col. H. E. Hedger, Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, if that is agreeable to the committee, on their summary statement. And then we will address questions to the group because they

represent every strata of local and State and Federal Government in this picture. If there is no objection, that will be the order of the committee.

Hearing no objection, we will proceed in that manner.

The first witness is Regional Forester Charles A. Connaughton, California District, United States Forest Service.

Mr. Connaughton, we are glad to have you with us. Would it be possible for you to summarize your statement? We will be glad to have your entire statement appear in the record. Can you summarize it in 10 minutes?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. CONNAUGHTON, REGIONAL FORESTER, CALIFORNIA REGION, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I will be glad to, Mr. Chairman. I left copies of my statement for the record, and this will be a very brief summary of it.

In this general statement is a picture putting the southern California fire problem in perspective nationally, and, inasmuch as we are local and considering this from a local set of circumstances, I will pass that over. However, to get a grasp of the fire picture here in southern California, let's just take a moment to take a look at the situation topographically and geographically as it prevails.

We have here in the valleys a very highly developed urban-rural economy, and the background for it, of course, is the screen of mountains to the east. It is an arid region in which precipitation is exceedingly limited and very seasonal. With the mountains in the back, they serve as a screen to force the clouds high, causing precipitation which, in turn, is discharged to the valleys below, and, using that water, civilization such as we have here has been developed.

This means, of course, that the mountains and valleys are intricately interrelated; one without the other would be rather meaningless. To be sure, water could be imported for long distances, and some of it is. But, still, the local water, the water that comes from the local watersheds, is the most usable and the most valuable water available to this community.

About half of this water comes from the national forests or from watersheds within the national forests. These mountains, although extremely valuable in character and absolutely essential to the maintenance of the civilization which we have here, can also be very treacherous and sinister if not properly used.

As an occasion in point, observations through the years on a series of experimental watersheds have shown that flood peaks are tripled in major storms if a watershed is completely burned over, and they may be increased 10 to 20 times on smaller storms from minor watersheds.

Debris, however, may increase as much as 30 times. In other words, the erosion rate jumps up tremendously if the watershed is burned or otherwise abused, the natural cover is destroyed or diminished improperly.

These watershed relationships-the mountain-valley water relationships were recognized many years ago when the people of southern

California urged the Congress to establish national forest reserves and to protect them for watershed values. The second national forest established in the present-day system was known at that time as San Gabriel Forest Reserve, in 1892, embracing most of the watershed area behind Los Angeles.

So

The Forest Service was created to administer these reserves. we recognize our obligation for watershed protection, which in many respects means fire protection here in southern California.

As the chairman has indicated, this fire problem in southern California watersheds is probably the most difficult, and at the same time the damages sustained can be more exaggerated than anywhere else in the entire country.

Not only is this an extremely important problem locally, but, in view of the dependent population and the industries and their nationwide significance, watershed protection in this locality has, in fact, a national significance.

There has been, as I indicated earlier, full realization of the significance of watershed protection through the years. However, in recent years it has grown more aggravated, far more serious, for several

reasons.

First of all, we are having very severe fire weather. We have had continued drought, relatively speaking, in southern California since 1945. This has resulted in increased inflammability, in rapid spread of the fires once they start.

For example, measurement in 1956 indicates that there was a greater potential that year for more and larger fires than for any year in the last 15.

Furthermore, fires always could and still can occur any month in the season here in this locality.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Connaughton, did you say any month of the season or any month of the year?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I mean any month of the year. Any season or any month of the year.

Another factor which has increased the seriousness and severity of it in recent years is the increased use of the mountain areas for recreational purposes, and, of course, there is the additional complication imposed upon the organization of the increased cost of doing business.

In this locality the Forest Service has responsibility for the protection of about 2810 million acres of land. This is about 47 percent of the total watershed area. The remainder is protected by the State and county, and, to a lesser degree, by the fire districts and the military. Somewhat as an aside but tying directly into that, there is a very intimate and close cooperation between these various protection agencies that in many respects could serve as a model throughout the rest of the country. It is extremely effective and has proven that it can do the job under times of stress.

Insofar as the national forest is concerned, in the period 1951-56 there were 1,505 fires on the national forests of southern California: 98 percent of these were less than 1,000 acres in size; 12 percent were from 1,000 to 10,000 acres; and 10 of these fires, less than 1 percent exceeded 10,000 acres in size.

We feel this is a good record, but we certainly are not satisfied with it. It must be improved, and we know it.

There are several approaches, we think, to that improvement.

One approach that is frequently discussed and has been mentioned briefly in the opening statement of the chairman is the matter of fuel modification or hazard reduction through various means, including the controlled use of fire. This offers a wide range of opinion, and there are many points of view regarding it.

At this point I think I should distinguish between northern California and southern California, because there is quite a different brush problem, and, when you discuss it statewide, complexities arise that are not readily apparent on the surface.

Incidentally, I have a map here that indicates the extent of the brush area, and I will put it up here so you may look at it in case there is further interest.

You will observe the red areas, the common brush hardwood type of the foothills, and the green known as the chaparral type, which is so characteristic to southern California.

There is an overlay on the map which indicates the locations of the national forests in relation to these brush areas.

You will observe the bulk of the brush areas are not in the national forests in northern California, but there is a very significant portion within the national forests in southern California. Statewide, 22 percent of the brushlands of California are within the national forests.

Now in southern California, in relation to these brush types, we well recognize, on the part of the public protection agencies, that watershed values transcend all other values; and the necessity for maintaining a cover which will assure the best possible natural set of circumstances in terms of watershed values is what we are driving at.

Furthermore, these brushlands are permanent brush types. It is not land that once supported trees or grass in the main. History shows the chaparral in southern California was here when the white man came. So we have a natural set of circumstances with which we deal.

We do not feel, of course, that there is any place in the picture for taking the position that you cannot improve upon nature, and it has been done upon occasion. Yet we know that when you face it you are dealing with an extremely complex and difficult situation.

We have, however, considered and tested the opportunities of converting some of the brushlands into other less inflammable types, and studies have shown there are a few promising plants that might be substituted for some of the brushlands which would be less inflammable. We haven't gotten too much information on these plants, but there are some that show promise.

The proposal to stripburn or lightburn in certain areas is often discussed as a possibility of reducing hazards, and it does offer some possiblity in certain cases. However, it requires thorough preparation, it requires considerable cost, it requires a particular set of circumstances under which your burn may or may not be made. And certainly it requires immediate reestablishment of vegetation once the original cover may be removed. This, however, involves a proj

ect, a study which must be continued and intensified, and we are proceeding in that direction.

Northern California poses quite a different problem. There in many cases, just as an aside, the brush types are not permanent. They were once timber or grass, and they have been, for one reason or another, converted to brush.

The brush-covered slopes of northern California are not as steep, the watersheds not as dramatic, and it does offer more opportunity for conversion. In fact, in the national forests there are now some 33 projects in which we are engaged in conversion of brush to other types, involving some 42,000 acres scattered throughout the State. I have a map showing those locations if members of the committee may like to examine it.

However, to brief this down very quickly, I would just like to read the Forest Service policy in respect to brush conversion and brush modification. It is simply stated as follows:

On steep slopes with highly erodible soils, particularly where brush is the climax type, as is the usual case in southern California, broadcast burning should not be used to reduce fire hazard. Fire can be used in a limited way under careful control to prepare fire lanes. The Forest Service believes that improved fire control is the best policy under those conditions. Experience tells us that the danger of floods, accelerated erosion, mud and rock flows, is too great if the protective brush and other cover is removed. This hazard is accentuated in southern California by the concentrations of people and high property values immediately at the base of the mountains. There is no known practical way to establish and maintain a permanent grass cover on such areas.

Even on areas with gentler slopes and more stable soils, which are found mainly in northern California, the Forest Service does not favor indiscriminate burning. We oppose indiscriminate burning because it will not be successful in a great many areas; it will result in waste of money, and it will often be followed by accelerated erosion and runoff.

On areas of gentler slopes and more stable soils, the Forest Service favors alteration or elimination of the brush cover by fire or other means under controlled conditions. The Forest Service is carrying out such a program on selected areas under its administration. Eventually, we feel that with improved knowledge and adequate funds and facilities, about one-half million acres of brushland in the national forests of California may be properly subjected to treatment.

To move along hastily to conclusion, I would like to indicate a few features of the job ahead.

The job ahead, first of all, involves setting up an objective to meet. That we have done; we have had it for sometime. Our objective is simply this:

No fire over 2,000 acres, and the annual burn in this locality not to exceed 5,600 acres total.

That is a high objective and one we have reached in only 1 year out of 31. However, we believe it is attainable.

There are certain things we must do in order to reach that goal. Some of these things, among others, are as follows: