Page images

need for a different type of recreation than that proposed by the bill should not prejudice the bill. This being the case it becomes apparent that this argument, as many others, is used for its harrassing and confusing tendencies and not for any particular application to the merits of the basic dispute. This also applies to the arguments on ambiguity, and those alluding to constitutional problems. As to the former, it should be noted that a bill purporting to be largely declaratory of a congressional intention toward a basic policy question need not be phrased in the exacting language of the Internal Revenue Code. The many failings in that work should be indicative of the futility of attempting to thread the needle in those situations where exigencies do not require painstaking articulation.04 As to arguments alluding to the unconstitutionality of that portion of the bill which allows agencies 15 years to select those areas which they determine should be included, it is interesting to note that the original bill had an extended listing which was later dropped in favor of the general delegatory powers presently included.” It is further interesting to note that Senator O'Mahoney's amendment, which specifically lists the areas, would set aside approximately 14 million acres, compared to the estimated 55 million under the unamended version of the bill.97 The underlying rationale of any constitutional argument must be that the power given the agency heads would constitute the making of laws binding future Congresses. The rationale of such a position is rather difficult to accept. Any bill at all passed by a present Congress binds future Congresses to some degree. Moreover, it would appear that greater restrictions upon a future Congress would result from naming specific areas which the present Congress feels should constitute the system. In such an instance future Congresses would be forced, in the event of widespread or concentrated disagreement as to prior policies, to repeal or amend the existing law. The bill as presently proposed recognizes the difficulty of instantaneous determination of the specific areas to be included and provides a time period within which those closer to the scene may carefully investigate the advisability of each inclusion. It provides the safeguard that Congress, meaning to some degree future Congresses, can prevent any specific inclusion by passing a joint resolution. To say that the latter procedure is lawmaking for future Congresses to a greater extent than an outright withdrawal would seem to be unfounded. One aspect of Senator O'Mahoney's proposal which may be advisable is that which provides for approval by the State Governors of areas to be included. Any major determination dealing with the disposal or treatment of lands within a given State should be influenced by the wishes of the State citizens for whom the Governor speaks. However, in dealing with Federal lands it should be recognized that this is a matter of comity, not of right, and that it is more likely that a Governor would be swayed by a group with narrow interests than Congress would. Therefore, although it is certainly to be expected that ultimate determinations would consider local interests, it is like wise desirable that these will be balanced against the broad national policy. Such an end could easily be achieved by the joint efforts of the local land managers and State officials, aided by national goals as reflected and reinforced in the proposed legislation. The second argument hinting at the unconstitutionality of the bill hinges quite naturally upon the overworked separation of powers concept. However, it would appear that an otherwise sustainable dele

93 See note 89, supra.

84 As an example of the thinking in this area, there was much discussion in the committee hearings as to the effect of the antimotorized provision on rescue operations. Although the age-old example of the “letting of blood" statute should answer such forebodings, Senator Allott felt an explicit need to provide for such a contingency. As an incident to such careful revision it should be noted that the entire purpose of the bill is defeated, see, e.g., sec. 2(b) appearing in 106 Congressional Record 2654 (daily edition, Feb. 18, 1960).

95 Senator O'Mahoney made much of the different time periods allowed in the bill. 106 Congressional Record 2653 (daily edition, Feb. 18, 1960). Perhaps had he taken more time considering the purposes attempted to be achieved, the best means of so achieving them and less time flyspecking the language, the puzzle would have cleared up. Certainly there is nothing unconstitutional in such a differentiation.

06 See, supra, notes 28 and 89. But see 106 Congressional Record 2656 (daily edition, Feb. 18, 1960) (proposed amendments by Senator Allott).

97 See 106 Congressional Record 7716°(daily edition, Apr. 20, 1960) (remarks of Senator O'Mahoney).

98 See 106 Congressional Record 2653 (daily edition, Feb. 18, 1960). 99 In this respect the amended version is said to resemble the Flood Control Act of 1944, 106 Congressional Record 7716 (daily edition, Apr. 20, 1960).


gation of power is in this case placed beyond reproach by the controls reserved in the legislature.

A final and emphatic point of disagreement between the disputants perhaps the ones upon which the entire issue turns—is the actual effect of the bill upon the multiple use policies. Opponents assert that since the bill defeats long established multiple use policies it should automatically be rejected. The proponents assert with equal vigor that since the bill itself is a further recognition and promotion of the venerated multiple use doctrine it is per se acceptable. Admittedly multiple use has played an increasingly important role in the management of public lands. 101 It was recognized at an early date that tying up land for one purpose when it was capable of simultaneously serving others was not in the best interests of the land nor the Nation. Such a recognition has been incorporated into many statutes, notably Public Law 585, passed in 1954." Yet, a consideration of the myriad number and types of possible uses indicates the futility of hinging an argument upon the existence or absence of multiple use, since any definition other than a completely arbitrary one would illustrate that it is next to impossible to have other than a multiple use on any extended area of land." Likewise, even though a proposed disposition of land technically results in a "multiple,” since not a “single” use, yet this does not entitle it to an "untouchable" status. The true purpose of the multiple use philosophy is not one which is achieved quantitatively but rather qualitatively. This means that the best management of land should not be determined by the number of uses to which it can be put under a given plan, but rather what combination of proposed uses offers the greatest good to the greatest number in the long




106 run.

In the final analysis the problem reduces itself to two basic propositions. The conservationists wish to stop what they term further encroachment by commercial interests upon the public domain. On the other hand, these same commercial interests wish to preserve every opportunity for further and rapid development of the natural resources of the country. They assert that the conservationists are promoting a colossal land grab to serve their own selfish interests. Yet, it is submitted that the basic problem should center not upon whether the conservationists and any other individuals should be let in, but rather upon whether commercial interests should be kept out. Even though selfishness may be the motivating factor behind much of the effort expended on behalf of the bill, this should in no way detract from the wisdom of its stated purpose.

While it is unlikely that the proposed bill will pass in the present Congress, it will undoubtedly be reintroduced and further efforts made to effect its passage without the type of crippling amendment which would defeat its purpose. It is fortunate that an organized group has seen fit, regardless of motive or source of incentive, to challenge a long-standing and continuous course of conduct on the part of another organized group with diametrically opposed ideas. Such a situation stimulates wide publication of the issues, provoking some reaction from the citizenry involved. Thus, if the wilderness is not preserved it will be because of an "adjudicated suit” and not by public default, which, if not justice in the minds of all, at least must be termed due process.


100 Cf., Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1910) ; United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1910).

101 For á discussion on the topic see Patton, “Current Aspects of Multiple Use of Public Lands," 4 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 521 (1958).

102 30 U.S.C., secs. 521-531 (1958).

103 See Clawson & Held, "The Federal Lands: Their Use and Management,” 46-47 (1958), for a classification of the various uses of land.

104. “Actually 'single' and 'multiple uses represent the extremes of a continuum of methods of use and administration. There is virtually no land with only a single use ; all land upon which rain or snow falls is watershed, all land except the most extreme desert has some wildlife, nearly all land has some recreation and scenic value, and most land has foliage or tree growth which can be harvested.” Clawson and Held, op. cit., supra, note 103, at 51.

105 See id. at 51-52. “The essence of multiple-use management is the conscious management of the land to the end that it will provide several uses at the same time. The process is not h: phazard ; it is deliberate. But no matter how assiduously ‘multiple' purpose use is sought in Federal land administration, there must be some scale of preferences for choice among uses in these situations where full use for one purpose interferes with full use for another * Then the question arises : Which use, or which degree of one use, should be sacrificed to another use, or to some degree of another use ?" (Italic added.]


Mr. NADEL. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Finally, we come to David R. Brower, executive director, Sierra Club, Mills Tower, San Francisco. STATEMENT OF DAVID R. BROWER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SIERRA

CLUB, MILLS TOWER, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Mr. BROWER. My name is David Brower. I come from Berkeley, Calif., representing the Sierra Club. I left San Francisco at 3:30 your time and if I had pushed the jet a little faster, I would have been here when my name was first up.

As of now I would like to present my statement as if it were read.

Also, because I was overweight on the airplane coming in this morning, I should like to make sure I submit to the committee for the committee files these publications which I think are relevant to the legislation.

Our publication, "Wild Lands in Our Civilization," the book, "The Meaning of Wilderness to Science,” about our Sierra Club wilderness conference in 1959; "This Is the American Earth," of which Justice Douglas wrote one of the great statements in the history of conservation and which has received extraordinary editorial accolades throughout the country.

The CHAIRMÀN. We have to protect those a little bit because some members of the staff might steal them. If a member does not, the chairman will. This is a beautiful book. This is a fine example of what can be done by people who are enthusiastically in favor of a project or principle and who lend their talents and their money to it. It is a beautiful job.

Mr. BROWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One more is “Words of the Earth,” by Cedric Wright who is a sort of Thoreau with a camera and talks about the wilderness in the Sierra Nevada, his first country.

Coming up shortly is our seventh conference. We will try to send the proceedings to the committee for its consideration later.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak in favor of the wilderness bill.

I am here in behalf of the 17,000 members of the Sierra Club, an organization founded in San Francisco in 1892 by John Muir and now having membership in all parts of the United States. We are one of the oldest organizations in the United States primarily concerned with the preservation of the Nation's scenic resources; we hope our age provides us a good perspective for judgment on the need for preservation. I should like also to insert here a cross-reference to earlier statements made for the Sierra Club before this committee on earlier versions of the wilderness bill. We were for it then-and

still are.


In spite of the club's age of 68 years, 8,500 members—half our present total-have joined since 1957, when we first testified here for the wilderness bill. It is fairly clear that our outspoken support for wilderness has brought this extraordinary increase. We conduct no membership drives; we merely explain from time to time why we exist and that we appreciate the support of people who share our purpose. We are but one of many organizations similarly inclined. An important part of our program is the wilderness outing division of the club which every summer takes nearly 2,000 people of all ages and financial ability back into wilderness on nonprofit club-arranged trips costing from $3 to $9 per man per day. We have been running such trips since 1901. We have also been teaching people how to run their own trips for even less. Our growth rate itself—12 percent per year lately-proves to us that the public is in a mood to protect wilderness vigilantly and to learn about it firsthand. People as a whole want to see man get into balance with his environment and to save, while there is time, a fraction of that environment, to save it unspoiled, as. wilderness.

We are hopeful that if the conservationist growth rate can continue to exceed the overall economic growth rate, then our growing economy can go around, and not over, our last islands of wilderness.


We appreciate the support the wilderness idea receives from members of this committee. We especially appreciate the chairman's own understanding of what wilderness is about, and are glad of Aldo Loepold's role in clarifying the need for wilderness. Every generation needs to have a man who can write about this as Aldo Leopold did.

If there are any here who really do not understand the drive behind the wilderness preservation movement—who have misunderstood it as a “single-interest lobby” that is trying to "lock things up” for “the rugged, selfish few" (to quote the current clichés),

I would urge them to read those two great books of Leopold's "Sand County Almanac” and “Round River” (published by Oxford University Press). There is no need to try to read them straight through at one sitting. They do better if they're just dipped into, a chapter at a time. I don't think anyone can take many dips in them and come out quite the same person. He will have improved his vision a little. He will begin to understand the wilderness idea instead of confounding it. I will


further and claim that no man who reads Leopold with an open mind will ever again, with clear conscience, be able to step up

and testify against the wilderness bill. He may want to shift a word here and there to make sure that it will provide hoped-for protection, but he won't be against it. The Sierra Club has published some books about wilderness, too, and I submit them for the committee file:

“Wildlands in Our Civilization” contains some of the important papers and fully summarizes the fifth biennial wilderness conference we held in San Francisco in 1957.

“The Meaning of Wilderness to Science” is the illustrated proceedings of our sixth wilderness conference held in San Francisco in 1959, with assistance from Resources for the Future and the Conservation Foundation.

“This Is the American Earth” is a book which Justice William 0. Douglas has described as “one of the great statements in the history

of conservation." It has won several awards and has received unprecedented editorial accolades from all over. It was also given gratifying recognition a few weeks ago on the Dave Garroway show as one of the finest presentations of the importance of wilderness. Garroway summed it up as "intangibles between covers.” We wish it were not so expensive, but it costs a great deal to produce a beautiful book. We knew that beauty would be indispensable to it and guessed that people, seeing its grandeur and preceiving its message, would somehow be willing to cover the cost. (We guessed right, happily; for, although our publishing effort is nonprofit, we don't want to be too nonprofit.)

“Words of the Earth” is by the late Cedric Wright, a Thoreau with a camera, and is mostly about some of the extraordinary wilderness that has been preserved in California in what John Muir liked to call the range of light, the Sierra Nevada.

I hope that all members of the committee and the committee staff will somehow find time to peruse these books, even to the point of reading all the text in the two big ones. Three hours should do itand should be rewarding. They are all relevant to the legislation you are discussing here Also relevant, I believe, is my own foreword to “The Meaning of Wilderness to Science," and I should like to submit that as part of my statement here today.

(The article referred to follows:)



Six biennial wilderness conferences have been held in the San Francisco Bay region since 1949 under the sponsorship of the Sierra Club. They began with the idea of hearing out the views of various users and administrators of wilderness in the Sierra Nevada on the question of how to enjoy wilderness without wearing it out, or, stated another way, how not to love it to death. It all could be summarized as the threat from the inside, a threat not to be minimized.

But the first conference had hardly got underway before people realized that the inside threat, important though it was, paled before the outside threat, the threat to exploit wilderness to extinction. The vanguard of wilderness preservers saw that it would do little good to argue about whether to bury litter in wilderness or to carry it out if, meanwhile, mopup crews of exploiters were busy rolling up the boundaries of wilderness and getting rid of it.

It was noted that each exploitative group was fond of wilderness, and wanted only its own special kind of concession in it-just roads to take out the bug trees and improve the forest so that it would not be a biological desert, or to enable sportsmen to harvest the surplus game because it was a biological Eden, or to make it accessible to the lame and the halt, or to harvest the tree crop to avoid waste; just water development to maintain streamflow or improve forage for deer or to render it more accessible for outboard motors or to enhance the scenery ; just a chance to try out man's new experiment, wildlands management. Each concession was admirable in itself. Each necessary in its place. But was wilderness the place? Or was wilderness something that needed guarding more than managing, careful respect for the forces that had built it and kept it, that were still building it and could still keep it, without benefit of man's technology? Was it possible that the chief managerial task in wilderness was to manage management lest wilderness, by definition, be managed to death?

There was growing conviction that wilderness could enhance the American standard of living—if the American standard of having did not extinguish wilderness first. It was postulated that if America were to ignore, for utilitarian purposes, that small part of its land area which is still wilderness, if America were to consider it there just to be enjoyed for what it is and not for what it could be remodeled into, then the Nation would still survive handsomelyperhaps even more so. Just pretend it isn't there, the theory runs, and carry on business as usual around it; you won't regret it. There isn't too much heresy

« PreviousContinue »