Resolved, by the House of the 36th Legislature of the State of Wyoming, the Senate of such Legislature concurring, That the President and Congress of the United States of America be and they are hereby memorialized to consider fairly and diligently the welfare and interest of the people of the State of Wyoming, who oppose the creation or extension of wilderness areas in Wyoming; that, furthermore, if such wilderness areas are necessary and desired in other States, that areas adjacent to centers of population be purchased and returned to the wilderness state, believing that such a program would make wilderness areas available to more people of the country than the creation of such areas in the West.

Senator HICKEY. Mr. Secretary, I notice in the President's statement given on February 23, 1961, on the public lands, which is of some concern to the people of the State of Wyoming, that he directs you

to

develop a program of balanced usage designed to reconcile conflicting uses— grazing, forestry, recreation, wildlife, urban development, and minerals.

Have you had an opportunity yet to develop such a program or are you working on that?

Secretary UDALL. We are just commencing our work, Senator, and we intend to work very carefully on this and to confer with the Senators and other interested people as we go along. We are hoping we can lay down some guidelines and lay out a program which will be desirable.

Senator HICKEY. In the interest of this particular bill would it not be well to have the benefit of some of your thinking along that line after you have more or less formalized the program, in addition to the information that will ultimately come from the Commission that has heretofore been mentioned by Senator Dworshak and of which the chairman is also a member?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, as I conceive it, the public lands problem as such is a problem separate and apart from the problems of these primitive, rugged wilderness areas that are high country, very rugged country, and necessarily require different treatment.

This wilderness problem has been studied very intensively by the Congress and by the Executive the last 2 or 3 years. I think we are at the point where we can make rational decisions. I think reasonable men can compromise on this if they are of a mind to, and I see no reason for further studies of this particular aspect of the problem.

Senator HICKEY. There are some wilderness areas in Wyoming that are principally used for wilderness. I have enjoyed them a great deal myself during my lifetime. Are you prepared to tell me how much these areas would be expanded, or if they will be expanded, or under this bill if there is any information which we could obtain that would give us an opportunity to let our people know?

Secretary UDALL. Yes.

Senator, this would not be the right time to do it. My people would be very happy to sit down with you and I think we could tell you exactly what the status of the various areas in your State would be because the legislation spells it out rather clearly so that you and the people in your State would know exactly what areas are involved and what uses will be permitted and what uses and activities will not be permitted. I think this is one of the purposes of the legislation, to define it very clearly.

Senator HICKEY. This joint memorial which I have introduced indicates the concern of the legislature with regard to the multiple

use concept which you have heretofore discussed and also with the appropriation for the projection of the use of water.

I notice in the President's statement that he says:

Accelerate the installation of soil-conserving and water-saving works and practices to reduce erosion and improve forage capacity; and to proceed with the revegetation of rangelands on which the forage capacity has been badly depleted or destroyed.

You probably know that in Wyoming some of this high mountain country, which is the basic recreation area for my own town, is the situs of a great deal of the water resources area in the State. By that I mean some of the high mountain country that serves the upper Colorado currently comprises a great wilderness area for our State.

Also in the Big Horn area there is a great deal. It is basically the top of the watershed, where water is begun and flows into, I think, four distinct basins in the State.

Will this condition be considered in the operation of this bill?

Secretary UDALL. I regard this as a water conserving measure. I think the thing we need to do on the high watershed country is leave the areas alone in the main. The type of activity of denuding areas in one way or another would, I think, hasten erosion. It might be counter to sound conservation all the way along the line, so I don't conceive this legislation as doing anything except aiding water conservation as far as that aspect is concerned.

Senator HICKEY. Here is the one final question, to return to the initial statement. I understand that you and your Department will be able to give me, at least to some degree, a defined area where the State of Wyoming will be affected by this wilderness legislation. Will this be in accordance also with what the Department of Agriculture conceives to be, or will we have one set of pictures from you and another set of pictures from the Department of Agriculture, and the Park Service, and maybe another picture from another source?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, of course part of this depends on the manner in which this committee works its will on the legislation. The legislation as it is before you would be very clearly defined and either our people or the Forest Service people could spell out very clearly and we would be happy to provide you with data or have people sit down with your aides and let you know very clearly just what areas in your State would be affected and how they would be affected. I think this is an essential part of the determining of the merits of the legislation and we welcome this opportunity.

Senator HICKEY. Then that is in line with section (c) on page 8 which is a direction to the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to formulate a comprehensive Federal recreation lands program? Do you conceive that to be part of this bill?

Secretary UDALL. This is part of the procedure that is to be set up and of course we not only do certain things initially in the legislation; we set up on-going precedures under which future changes both of taking lands out and putting lands in could be accomplished.

Senator HICKEY. Have you had an opportunity yet to confer, for example, with the Wyoming State natural resources group? I read here that you are directed to confer with State and local officials with regard to this. Have they had any opportunity to know your views

66737-61--3

or to give you their views with regard to the wilderness question at the present time?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, this would concern the future changes that are to be made and not the present areas which have already been designated, and this is to set up a consultation which I would regard as a very wise one, that on any future modifications one way or the other we would have consultation with the States affected, but that does not concern the present main thrust of the legislation, however. Senator HICKEY. Is it not true that under the bill as now prepared the final determination will be with the Secretary of Agriculture and with your office as to what the program will constitute and the Congress will not have an opportunity to pass upon or to describe what may be the program?

Secretary UDALL. That is not correct at all, Senator, and I think there is still after all these years a great deal of misapprehension in the country, and I think this is reflected in some of the resolutions passed by some of the legislatures. People haven't attempted to understand what the legislation does and some of them are still thinking with their emotions, I am afraid. The proposal here before the committee at the present time will give the committees of Congress the say as to what areas initially go in the system. Then with regard to any future changes, both of taking areas out and adding areas to the system, Congress would have a right to have the final say, and there would be this consultation and I think the present legislation is much stronger in that respect.

Some of the earlier legislation didn't provide that protection and review that this does and I think we have now arrived at something which does give protection to State and local interests with regard to the future.

The CHAIRMAN. If I may just break in, I am glad that the Secretary has made that quite plain. At the present time these primitive and wilderness areas can be created by Executive order and nobody has a word to say about it.

Under this bill you have three cracks at it after you have a hearing in the home area to find out about it. Then the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture, whichever area is involved, has a chance to pass upon it. Then the Congress has a chance to pass upon it and the President has a chance. Heretofore just a Secretary made the determination.

Senator HICKEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I do want to just say, Mr. Secretary, that what I hold in my hand are the hearings that have been held by this committee in the last two Congresses on the wilderness bill. It runs more than 2,000 pages. If you run out of work we will be happy to send you this bound volume and you can spend the winter reading it.

Senator KUCHEL. I apologize for being late, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say that I am very grateful for this. As a coauthor of this legislation I have been interested in the subject matter for a good many years. Mr. Secretary, did you prior to my late arrival indicate the differences between this legislation and that which was before our committee in the last session?

Secretary UDALL. Senator, our position is stated in the report, naturally, and I would say, if anything, the current bill of which

you

are a cosponsor is better conceived and protects the broad public interest as well as local interests more thoroughly, and I think this is the best bill that has ever been before this committee.

Senator KUCHEL. What I mean is I think if I recall some of the objections that were lodged against the legislation which we had in the last session were met and presumably overcome in the draft which we have before us now and I thought it might be helpful to this committee to have in some type of memo form the differences that have been achieved in the present bill.

Secretary UDALL. We would be very happy to indicate the changes. Senator KUCHEL. I think that would be very helpful.

Secretary UDALL. Yes. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a fine suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Goldwater.

Senator GOLDWATER. Stu, I have just one question.
How does this affect Indian reservations?

Secretary UDALL. It doesn't.

Senator GOLDWATER. There is no way then that the Department could take a part of an Indian reservation and include it in a wilderness area?

Secretary UDALL. There is no authority for that in the proposed

bill.

Senator GOLDWATER. As I recall, that was one of the objections of the last one. That has been eliminated?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it has. I will say to Senator Goldwater that he and I found out that the Navajo were strongly opposed to language which was put in the first bill which we did not think involved the Navajo reservation, but it was causing them a great deal of concern and we reviewed the subject carefully and that matter is completely left out of this bill.

There were those people who thought it would be desirable to allow the Government to do the same thing to the Indian reservations that they might do with other areas of public domain, make some sort of a trade and put them in recreation areas, but that is not necessary or desirable, I think, in this sort of a bill. It is a matter of completely separated negotiations with the Indian tribes themselves. If they want to initiate something, then the Secretary of the Interior might take it up.

Secretary UDALL. I am sure my colleague from Arizona would agree this would be most highhanded for us to move in arbitrarily and tell the Indian people what is going to be done with their lands. I have never favored doing that in any of our dealings with the Indian people.

Senator GOLDWATER. Just one other question. I notice that you have an interest in enlarging the national monument at Rainbow Bridge to a park. Would that require the approval of the Navajo tribe?

Secretary UDALL. Yes, indeed, it would and it involves essentially negotiation with them of the same sort as the one the Government engaged in to secure the townsite for Page. It is a big land exchange where we say we would like these lands. If they can find other public lands whereby we can make a swap we do so. We negotiate with them as a sovereign group, and a lot of people don't understand yet,

I am afraid, what the real status of our Indian tribes is. We are trustee for their lands, but if we really believe that we are trying to teach them how to deal with their own lands and make decisions we don't arbitrarily move in on them and say this is the way things are going to be done.

Senator GOLDWATER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Church.

Senator CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately did not have a chance to hear the Secretary's initial statement. I wanted to read it. Therefore, I cannot direct questions toward it. I do not want to keep the Secretary for my purpose because I am interested in some specific provisions that have to do with the drafting of the present bill and I am wondering if we will have before the committee today some experts on the detail of the drafting of the bill to whom I can direct my questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. You just have to sit and ask those of us who sat in the office hour by hour and crossed out word by word and decided what we would put in and what we would not.

Senator CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that relate to the detail of the legislation that I am interested in because I have some amendments in mind and I need to ask questions of that character. I don't think to keep the Secretary for that purpose would be proper, but I am hopeful that we will have some experts that can deal with that kind of inquiry today.

The CHAIRMAN. I had thought, Senator Church, that after we finished the open hearings and sat down and tried the redrafting then there might be questions why certain language was used. If it is language that the Secretary testified on particularly we will be glad to have him stay here or we would be glad to send him the question, but most of the work was done without either the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture participating as such.

Senator CHURCH. Let me test one matter with the Secretary here, one matter that has concerned me in my review of the bill. It has been my understanding that this legislation gives to the Congress the opportunity to review and to either approve through inaction within the specified time period or to reject recommendations sent by the President concerning the inclusion of primitive areas in the national wilderness system, and the bill provides for a period of 15 years within which the President is to make the recommendations to the Congress.

First of all, am I correct in assuming that when these recommendations are submitted to Congress, the Congress can do one of two things: Either by failing to pass a concurrent resolution to reject the recommendation, the recommendation then at the end of the session is approved and that primitive area becomes a permanent part of the wilderness system, or the Congress can reject the recommendation.

My first question is, "Are these the only two alternatives under the language of the bill, that is, either approve by inaction, or reject?” Can the Congress, for example, modify a recommendation of the President and approve a modified version of the recommendation?

Secretary UDALL. I will let Mr. Edwards answer.

Mr. EDWARDS. Senator, gentlemen, the answer to your question is that there are only two alternatives that they would have. Senator CHURCH. Those two alternatives?