continue doing in the future the same outstanding job it has performed in the past, without any wilderness bills or other admonitions.

I therefore submit that the real objectives of the more militant groups among the wilderness bill proponents are large sections of the national forests, in which the aim is to prevent multiple use. Here again the already established wild and wilderness areas and those portions of the old primitive areas predominantly valuable as wilderness are not being contested. Everyone seems to agree on the desirability of their continued preservation as such, and I, for one, have the utmost confidence in the integrity of the U.S. Forest Service in continuing to do so. After all, it originated the idea of wilderness preservation, and its record in this field speaks for itself.

There are, however, vast sections of the national forests that are being contested. First should be mentioned the old primitive areas. These lands, which were quite remote at the time, were designated "primitive" under an old regulation without ever having received the intensive study of today's rules and criteria for wilderness, which as might be logically expected will result in some boundary adjustments and elimination of portions found not to be primarily of wilderness character. I think this is entirely reasonable, and that the Forest Service should go ahead with its program of reclassification which provides adequate safeguards in the form of public hearings and review of testimony.

Under S. 174, however, these boundary adjustments are no longer to be under the administrative determination of the responsible land managing agency, but instead transferred to the President with a virtual guarantee that he will be bombarded with a national campaign of emotional hysteria in which any reduc tion of a primitive area will be almost like coming out against motherhood. And you may be sure this game will be played to the hilt, since it is relatively easy to stir up public support among those who have no background in resource management with a picture of a few trees, a wildflower or two, a moss-covered rock, a dancing brook, with perhaps a mountain off in the distance, packaged into a campaign that all will be destroyed under those nasty multiple use people. And under terms of this bill Congress, only by passing a concurrent resolution in both Houses which, too, will be worse than defiling motherhood, can prevent automatic enactment into law. If Congress thinks we have trouble enough now, it should know there are some 40 of these reclassifications yet to

come.

The second category to be considered is the nondedicated portions of the national forests, the ordinary forest land, the typical tree-farming terrain, those parts that may have some scenic value but don't measure up to the high standards warranting special dedication, those areas more suitable for mass recreation of a citizenry traveling on wheels, where commercial value predominates or several values in combination predominate. As our national forests pass from the custodial to the developed stage, those portions which fall short of fulfilling the criteria for wilderness establishment and deemed best suited for multiple use management, but as yet without access roads, are the real bone of contention. This is the crux of the issue. Here is the Trojan horse behind the wilderness bill.

What started out being an innocent effort to insure perpetuation of the Nation's existing wilderness system, by congressional recognition, is being subverted into a ruthless scheme to prevent the multiple use development of a long list of national forest areas. For a partial list of these areas, nearly all of which are national forest lands (and I emphasize the word partial), I invite congressional scrutiny of resolution No. 8 passed by the 1959 convention of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs and reiterated in 1960. This resolution appears on page 4 of the November 1959 issue of the Sierra Club bulletin, a copy of which is submitted herewith, and was sponsored by the only conservation organization in the Nation which opposed the multiple use bill passed by Congress last year.

With passage of the wilderness bill in the form of S. 174, the Nation can expect a never-ending series of campaigns to balloon every administrative decision of the Forest Service, involving multiple use development of this list of areas, into a national political issue. Full development of the national forests can thus be prevented for years to come by these high-pressure campaigns for Presidential intervention, and by such gimmicks as special bills calling for a so-called impartial study to see whether such and such an area should be added to the wilderness system. A better tool could hardly be fash

ioned for throwing a monkey wrench into sound land management and balanced planning.

In conclusion, I feel that passage of S. 174 at this time would be both premature and unwise. The wilderness will not "vanish" while awaiting the ORRR report, and the splendid record of the Forest Service in administration of both the national forests and their great wilderness resource hardly justifies the political meddling of a hostile group notorious for its rabid opposition to the concept of multiple use management. On the other hand, did not the Congress provide all the authorization needed for national forest wilderness areas in the multiple use bill of last year? It seems to me that urgency to save wilderness which even now is in safe hands is not the pressing need. The real need, I submit, is for all of us to unite in supporting a sound program for the wise use of the Nation's natural resources.

STATEMENT OF WARWICK M. DOWNING, DENVER, COLO.

I am the representative of the Governor of Colorado on the Interstate Oil Compact Commission; chairman of the public lands committee of that organization; chairman of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission of the State of Colorado; a member of the National Petroleum Council; and a director of the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute. Incidentally, I have been largely responsible for the recreation facilities of the city of Denver; I was named by Mayor Speer as the "father" of the mountain park system, "father" of the playgrounds, and the "father" of the boulevard system of Denver; I think I have a splendid record of bringing recreational enjoyment to the maximun number of our citizens. I am making this statement in behalf of the Interstate Oil Compact Commission. See report of the public lands committee of that organization, published in the oil and Gas Compact Bulletin of December 1956, at page 39.

The statement here expresses the viewpoint, not of any of the 32 compact member States, but the viewpoint of the compact commission as a whole, composed as it is of the Governors, or their representatives, of the 32 States. The recommendations are not those of partisans or sections of our people, but the deliberate viewpoint of public officials, whose only aim and purpose is the public good.

The compact commission strongly opposes S. 174 in its present form. However, I do not think there is a single member of the compact commission who opposes a proper conception of wilderness areas. Everybody believes in that idea. But we are not "expansionists," and have other objections as herein to be stated. We believe wilderness areas should not include more lands than needed now or in the future. As drawn, S. 174 permits the wilderness areas to be enjoyed only by the strong, hardy, enthusiast, who is compelled, if he wishes to enjoy the wilderness area, to carry his pack, including, of course, sleeping equipment and food. A proper use ratio between wilderness areas and recreation areas should be, perhaps, 1 to 10,000. The wilderness area should be defined and described, and of course should include more than one distinctive area. Millions of people every year enjoy our recreation facilities, and manifestly, they should not be denied the use of their recreation facilities because of the very, very, very few who might enjoy the wilderness areas.

Furthermore, there is ample public domain for both industry and wilderness. After all, our growth as a Nation, our power in the world, has not been created in the slightest degree by wilderness advocates, but by industry. Any wilderness bill should recognize this, and certainly should not make use of tremendous wilderness areas (far more than ever will be needed) to harm and prevent other uses of the public lands, which are of great importance.

WHAT THE BILL MEANS

The bill would enact a statement of policy and a definition of wilderness about as far reaching and as broad as they could be made. It omits any reference to policies which have been of long standing and highly important. I will mention now only the omission of the policy of multiple ownership of public lands, confirmed by long practice and embodied in several statutes.

Under S. 174, as I understand it, the national wilderness preservation system would be definitely created now, and its area would be definitely created in part

now.

All areas within the national forest classified on the effective date of S. 174 as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe, and all portions of each national park which on the effective date of S. 174 embraces a continuous area of 5,000 acres or more, are definitely created wilderness. There are provisions empowering the Secretary of Agriculture (within 15 years) and the Secretary of the Interior (within 10 years) to review the suitability of every primitive area in the national forests and national parks for preservation of wilderness, and to report his findings to the President. This apparently includes, not only the areas now established, but such further areas as either Secretary shall recommend, and gives them power to add adjacent areas of forest lands and national parks. If the President approves, each such additional area shall take effect upon the day following the adjournment sine die of the first complete session of Congress following the date upon which such recommendation was received by Congress; but only if prior to such adjournment the Congress did not approve a concurrent resolution declaring that Congress is opposed to such recommendation.

There is also the provision that there is incorporated in the wilderness system now, such portions of wildlife refuges and game range reserves as the President may recommend. Plainly, all the provisions relating to additions and subtractions will become statutory law unless Congress in speedy time repudiates. I doubt if anyone ever had the temerity before to suggest that any recommendation by the President shall take effect and become the law of the land, without affirmative action of Congress.

It is further provided that subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise within the wilderness system, no permanent road, nor shall there be any use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, or landing of aircraft nor any other mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies or property, nor any temporary road, nor any structure or installation in excess of the minimum required for administration.

It is further provided that the President may within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting, exploration, and mining of oil and gas, and a somewhat similar provision concerning water conservation works, etc.; with like permission, the grazing of livestock is permitted when well established prior to the effective date of S. 174; but only if such prospecting, etc., for oil and gas, and such irrigation works shall be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as are deemed necessary by the Secretary.

THE POWER OF CONGRESS

Congress is deprived of its constitutional powers. It has always been very clear that under our Constitution, Congress and Congress alone has the power to enact laws. Legislative authority is not delegated to anyone else. The provisions of this bill, giving the Secretary the power to change boundaries and make additions, would seem clearly a legislative power. It is in part, at least, a repeal of the statute. The provision delegating legislative powers to the Secretary, and that his decisions shall become statutory unless Congress within a short time repudiates, does not by any means override the duty of Congress to pass legislative laws. And as a practical matter, there is probably no group in America, whether against wilderness ideas or against almost any other type of legislation, that would ever feel strong enough in the matter to ask such repudiation.

No one knows how many acres will now become wilderness areas if this legislation should pass in its present form. Should Congress ever pass a law which is entirely uncertain as to what property and how much property will be affected? Will the inclusion of 5,000 continuous acres damage or ruin our national parks? How many acres in the national forests, now classified as wilderness or wild may prove areas valuable for oil and gas, and which may possibly overlie the largest oil and gas fields ever discovered in the United States? There is no provision that the U.S. Geological Survey should inspect such areas now created, to determine their mineral value. There is certainly enough public domain in the United States, including Alaska, to provide ample areas for wilderness, and to leave for probable public use and benefit, a vast amount of public lands available for industrial use. What will happen to the growth and prosperity of Alaska if this bill passes?

We bitterly oppose any such principle in legislation. Any group of our citizens which wishes legislation along their ideas should obtain it. It is un-American

and tremendously unfair that those who oppose additions to wilderness areas should be required to obtain an act of Congress in order to prevent unlimited additions to such areas. This is another example of why legislative proposals by enthusiasts should always be viewed with suspicion by Congress.

They want

it all their own way, and frequently ask for provisions that make it almost impossible to do justice as between all interested persons.

POLICY OF CONGRESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT

The policy of Congress for a great many years has been to encourage the development of oil and gas on the public domain. Congress has on many occasions made use of the public domain for development purposes of our undeveloped regions, such as grants to railroads, homestead, irrigation, desert land laws, the gift of precious metals to those who find them, etc. Recreational use is a more recent development. Nevertheless, I think the people of the compact States strongly favor recreational use of the public lands. But I don't think any reasonable man wants recreation to displace development of natural resources nor industrial use. Practically all of our Nation except the public land areas have had the benefit of this policy. They have grown and prospered under it. Ought not the public land States to have the benefit of this policy for their growth and prosperity, rather than that the States who have enjoyed this policy and grown fat under it, sould seek to take away in toto a like benefit to the public land States?

Perhaps the latest act of Congress on this general subject is the recreation bill passed by the last Congress, an act for the establishment of a National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to study the outdoor recreation resources of the public lands and other land and water areas of the United States, and for other purposes. It will be remembered that the said act, S. 846, provides, referring to the Recreation Review Commission, that "The Commission shall recognize that lands, waters, forest, rangelands, wetlands, wildlife, and such other natural resources that serve economic purposes also serve to varying degrees and for varying uses outdoor recreation purposes, and that sound planning of resource utilization for the full future welfare of the Nation must include coordination and integration of all such multiple uses."

My purpose is simply to analyze the so-called wilderness bill, and advise you exactly what it means. I think the best argument against the bill is to show what enthusiasts under a deceptive banner are trying to put over on Congress. Inasmuch as the bill affects primarily the public land States, it seems to me that Congress should take the viewpoint of the Governors and other persons interested in public welfare in the public land States. I am confident that what the public officials, the industries, and the people of the public land States want and must have, is legislation that primarily permits the development of the natural resources of their States, and fully believe that recreation, wildlife, and wilderness regulations should be considered a multiple use, and subordinate to the necessity of the industrial development of the public lands. We must also remember the tremendous interests of the United States as a whole. The greatness of our Nation has been caused very largely by the development of our natural resources. Today there is nothing more important to our national safety than the discovery of more oil within our continental United States. We must not only have ample oil for shooting purposes, but we must have an adequate, ample supply of oil within continental United States, which is and will be the greatest deterrent to attack by a foreign power. In other words, our safety depends upon the strength of our oil reserves. A new oil field on the public doman is far more important than that geese and bear should be unmolested in their daily life.

STATEMENT OF T. P. CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLO.

This statement regarding the Wilderness Act is made on behalf of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver, Colo. The board is a nonpolitical board having charge and control of the municipally owned waterworks system and plant which furnish a water supply for all purposes to most of the Denver metropolitan area, one of the fastest growing areas in the United States.

66737-61- -20

Denver is also an important defense center. The Martin Co., manufacturer of the Titan missile, the Rocky Flats atomic energy plant, and many important Federal agencies and military installations, such as the Denver Federal Center, Lowry Air Force Base, Fitzsimons Army Hospital, and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, are all located in the Denver metropolitan area and are dependent upon the Denver Water Department for a water supply.

Measured against this background, we must remember that Denver is located in the semiarid West. Water commands a value unknown in moister climates. Denver's water gathering system extends over hundreds of square miles and from the Mississippi Basin across the Continental Divide into the Pacific Ocean's watershed. Practically all of its water supply, as it presently exists and as it must be augmented, arises on the national forests of the United States. Upon these national forests, wild areas have already been established upon an administrative basis. In our opinion the Forest Service is to be commended for its judicious approach to the problems of administering the national forests so as to provide for various coordinate uses. Consequently, we can see no need for the legislation now proposed and known as the Wilderness Act. Yet we have before us S. 174 which would make wilderness a single end in itself. In the areas affected, the earth would remain untrammeled by man and the paramount needs of man, such as for a water supply, would for all practical purposes be ruled out all together.

The wilderness bill would put affected areas of the national forests and national parks in a straitjacket. Once a boundary becomes established, Presidential action becomes necessary to change the boundary. Also the bill provides that reservoirs and water conservation works within national forests and public domain areas included in the wilderness system may be established only after Presidential determination that such use in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States than will its denial.

We suppose that an attempt might be made to run the whole U.S. Government by providing that nothing can be done without Presidential act. A President, already overburdened with responsibilities, is put in an impossible position. It would appear that the wildlife interests promoting this legislation want to make sure that these wilderness areas remain untrammeled by man no matter how great the need of man may be for their use.

In effect, the wilderness bill puts the essential needs of man in a subordinate position and puts desirable but nonessential objectives in first place. The bill would give wildlife interests dominant control of these areas such that their position would be practically unassailable.

It is important to consider the effect of giving the wildlife interest a commanding position of authority over those charged with responsibility for furnishing mankind with the basic necessity of water. To the Denver Water Department this is no theoretical problem. We should like to give you a case in point learned by Denver in the hard school of practical experience.

In Colorado, we have years of good rainfall and years of drought. Drought has occurred repeatedly in the past. It will occur in the future. One such drought began in the year 1953. By 1954, it was necessary for Denver to impose severe restrictions on the use of water. By the time Denver hit the bottom of the drought, the situation bordered on the desperate. Growing out of this experience, Denver launched a capital construction program costing $140 million to improve and augment its water supply. This program included the construction of reservoirs, collection facilities, and tunnels located on or across national forests and public domain, some of which have now been completely constructed and some of which are still under construction. Approximately $40 million worth of this entire program is yet to be completed.

In connection with this program it was necessary for Denver to secure rightsof-way for reservoirs, collection facilities, and tunnels on and across the national forests and public domain. Notwithstanding the fact that Denver has now spent $100 million upon such facilities, Denver has not been able to secure a firm title across any of the federally owned lands involved.

When Denver makes application to the Bureau of Land Management for a right-of-way, the Bureau of Land Management clears with various governmental agencies before granting the right-of-way. Clearance has been obtained readily from all Government agencies excepting one. The holdout agency has been the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To date, on account of the impossible demands of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver has not been able to firm up one single right-of-way for its vast expansion program, made necessary in order to supply people with that essential commodity-water.