« PreviousContinue »
real wilderness, not areas already exploited and populated with beer cans and Kodak containers.
The important object is: if action is not taken, and soon, there will be no wilderness left for following generations.
Good luck and may our grandchildren and great-grandchildren have the privilege of just a slice of primitive America. Sincerely,
ILA BROMBERG. BINGAMAN & SNYDER,
Silver City, N. Mex., February 21, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.
DEAR SENATOR: I wish to congratulate you on the fine statement made when you presented the wilderness preservation bill, s. 174, on the Senate floor.
There are many reasons for the United States to have a permanent policy governing the wilderness areas of this country, such as scientific, recreational, protection of watersheds, etc., but I feel the greatest of all reasons is surely this country is wealthy enough to set aside certain lands to keep for all posterities as they have always been and will remain for all times to come as wilderness type country. Respectfully yours,
CHANCIE L. SNYDER.
RAVENA, N.Y., March 1, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O.
DEAR SENATOR:Although we just got off a freighter from Puerto Rico, and could not make ourselves heard at the hearings we want to register our unalterable vote to save and protect the wilderness of America and to back you up in any way we can. Right now our own Adirondack forest preserve is in critical danger. They are trying to cut it to one-third its size and bringing out all the big guns for a 2-year campaign against the people and their heritage. Nobody seems to realize that in face of the population explosion we need not less, but more life-giving wilderness to which we can retreat to get away from congestion and strain.
We cannot spare a square mile of what we have left.
Our blessings on you and your work. If only the people can be informedif only the forces for public good had one-third the money to spend on propaganda as do the interests who want to cut away our wilderness, there would be no doubt of the outcome; our wilderness would be protected. Godspeed.
Mrs. ROBERT RIENOW.
THE CAMP FIRE CLUB OF AMERICA,
New York, N.Y., March 1, 1961. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ANDERSON : For several years, this committee has been interested in the wilderness bill, but has felt the bills introduced in the past were unworkable. We now feel that the present bill, introduced by yourself, is a workable one and wish to add our support in having it passed. Sincerely yours,
JOHN E. HAMMETT, M.D.
NORTH WEST PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION,
Vancouver, Wash., March 1, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: As recently as November 18, 1960, the board of trustees of the Northwest Public Power Association adopted a resolution favoring:
“Amendment of the wilderness bill to insure that the construction of multiplepurpose water resources projects is not prohibited in wilderness areas.
We would appreciate having this comment on the wilderness legislation included in the hearing record.
The legislative conflict between scenic, wildlife, and recreation values on the one hand and the multiple-purpose benefits of hydro projects on the other hand has historically been both real and unfortunate, but is basically not necessary.
This conflict stems from the carelessness of pioneer developers and absence of Government standards. Early dams were built for economy and “to hell” wit the appearance. Government agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation left many ugly construction scars.
The turning point came with TVA's careful plahning, excellent dam architecture, and landscaping. This pattern can be a national pattern.
Public Law 369, 66th Congress, approved June 10, 1920, prohibits FPC licensing of dams within national parks and monuments.
We fear that this same policy will be applied to the so-called wilderness areas if this point is not clarified.
In my observation, the National Park Service is not keeping up the appearance of our national parks and monuments at as high a standard as TVA achieves at many of its power dams.
With good planning, we can achieve both beauty and utility. We can improve on nature also.
One of the basic purposes of the act of June 4, 1897, relative to national forests, was securing favorable conditions of waterflows.
Recently the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources reported its findings that the Nation requires a large increase in water storage for control and better use of our rivers for all uses. Such storage generally must be in the national forests at the headwaters of our rivers.
It is the purpose of our resolution to urge that the opportunity not be foreclosed of achieving upstream water storage, and the recreation, scenic, and wildlife benefits from such storage. Sincerely,
Executive Secretary. ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC.,
New York, March 3, 1961, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON : I write to applaud your sponsorship of the wilderness bill and hope the Congress will pass it with as little delay as possible. And I hope that this letter will be included in the record of the hearing if it doesn't reach you too late. Yours faithfully,
ALFRED A. KNOPF.
DENVER, COLO., March ", 1961. Hon. CLINTON ANDERSON, Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
Restrictive provisions on mining activity contained in S. 174 place our mineral policy in jeopardy in comparison with the report of your committee memorandum on Russian exploration, research, self-sufficiency and other activities in the minerals field. Recommend careful consideration of amendments permitting mining industry access to and activity in proposed wilderness areas. Cordially,
COLORADO MINING ASSOCIATION,
BELLINGHAM, WASH. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:
Respectfully request the following telegram sent to you February 27 be made part of the hearing record on S. 174: I understand you are again sponsoring wilderness legislation, presently S. 174, now in committee hearing. Such reservation of the recreational and economic resources of our State and the entire West would be an injustice to the large majority of our citizens. S. 174 favors a very small minority of our outdoor recreationists, mainly the extremist wilderness enthusiasts. The vast majority of our country's outdoor recreationists—the ordinary family—will be deprived of enjoying the millions of acres proposed in this wilderness legislation because roads are not allowed, and the ordinary citizen does not have the time nor oney to think or hire pack horses and guides.
CARL V. SAHLIN.
GOLDEN, COLO., February 24, 1960. The Honorable Senator CARROLL, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CARROLL: We have repeatedly written expressing our fervent endorsement of the wilderness bill. The new wilderness bill certainly meets many of the previous objections of vested interest groups. To further change the bill would seriously hamper its basic purpose. We hope that you will do everything to get this bill out of committee for a vote this session.
We shall herein request that this letter be part of the February 27-28 wilderness hearings. Thank you. Very truly yours,
Mr. and Mrs. CHARLES WORTH.
BOULDER, COLO., February 22, 1961, Senator JOHN CARROLL, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CARROLL: Have been informed that a new wilderness bill is up before Congress and that the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee will have a hearing February 27–28 and would like this letter to be part of the record for the passing of this bill.
Also, Senator Carroll, would like to state my opposition to this bill for Federal spending, such as public housing (cards Nos. 7 and 17) compulsory social security medical aid for the aging (card No. 15) or any Federal aid to education bills (cards Nos. 1 and 11).
Let's give private enterprise a chance again. Get the unions and taxes off of their backs instead of turning us into a socialistic state and bankrupting the country. Sincerely,
Mrs. ELIZABETH B. DOHERTY.
DENVER, COLO., February 22, 1961. Senator JOHN A. CARROLL, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CARROLL: It is my understanding that some of the previously objectionable features have been eliminated from the new wilderness bill now in Congress. I strongly urge favorable action at the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee hearing February 27 and 28 and request this letter be made a part of the record.
I have personally visited, with great pleasure, several of the proposed wilderness areas. It would be a tremendous and everlasting mistake not to set aside this small portion of the country for the scientific, educational, and recreational benefit of the people and of future generations. Sincerely,
ARTHUR W. KIDDER.
EVERETT, WASH., February 23, 1961. Hon. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR : I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your cosponsorship of S. 174. While many parts of it fall far short of what I feel is needed, your efforts in face of the stubborn opposition of certain mercenary groups is deeply appreciated.
I have a copy of the bill and feel this is essential for any intelligent commentary on it. However, being a millworker (plywood) and not a Philadelphia lawyer find some difficulty in trying to visualize how the different parts will be interpreted.
At this point, Senator, I'd like to call your attention to a paragraph from the Everett Herald for February 6, 1961.
It states the President would have the power to allow logging, mining, etc., in these areas. If this is true I feel it is essential that this be dropped from the bill so as to prohibit these activities in our wilderness areas. Would appreciate further information and comment on this.
Frankly, I'm worried about several sections of this bill. For instance on page 4, lines 20 to 25 inclusive. Isn't there a possibility of this being a loophole for logging, mining, etc.
Then on page 5, couldn't we delete the following line 3, "subject to the provisions of and at the time provided in this section”.
Then starting on page 5, in line 7 with the beginning of the sentence "Within ten years after the" to and including page 6, line 16, "or monument in its natural condition.” I believe all the wording in between and including these quotes should be excluded.
I believe we have enough roads and too much lodging within our national parks, monuments, etc. This field should be left to private enterprise, just outside the parks, monuments, wilderness areas. If we continue to lodge and entertain by development and commercialism, ski lifts, etc., within the boundaries of these areas we shall within the foreseeable future overrun these beautiful areas to the point where natural conditions no longer exist.
Also page 12, lines 8 through 19, would like to see these dropped.
I know it's impossible to satisfy everyone but have great confidence you will do everything humanly possible to do the best with this bill and above all to get it passed in this session.
Please excuse the longhand as I'm writing this in my hospital bed.
HENRY J. KRAL.
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS,
W. A. WILLIAMS, JR., NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT The National Association of Soil Conservation Districts has a continuing, active interest in the Nation's public lands. The conservation programs of hundreds of districts, particularly in the West, are affected in some degree by the management, use, and disposition of these public lands.
As a general principle, we support the multiple-use policy of public land management.
We favor the treatment of public lands, acre by acre, in accordance with their needs for conservation and development. We favor the use of these lands, within their capabilities, for the greatest good of the greatest number of people for the longest time.
With water supplies prevailingly scarce over large portions of the West, we regard with great concern any proposed change in the land management system which would accentuate the existing water shortage, or which would serve as a barrier to the potential development and enlarged use of available water supplies.
We fear and believe the progressive inclusion of very substantial tracts of public lands into the wilderness system, without adequate safeguards against excessive inclusions and against excessively limited use, would have these damaging effects.
We are concerned lest provision of new wilderness benefits for some of the people may be authorized to the disadvantage of western communities and even larger numbers of our citizens.
In our opinion, S. 174 represents a major improvement over the wilderness bills introduced in recent years. The possibilities for open-end expansion of the wilderness system, which were implicit in the earlier proposals, have now been reduced.
The present bill recognizes although still inadequately, in our judgmentthe potential need for "establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, waterconservation works, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and
use thereof * * *"
It is encouraging to note, also, that in S. 174 there is an acknowledgment of the probable need for measures to control fire, insects, and disease in the proposed wilderness areas.
The National Association of Soil Conservation Districts urgently recommends that the committee make four revisions in S. 174–all of which in our judgment would remove grave deficiencies in the bill and make the proposed legislation more practical and constructive, not only for wilderness enthusiasts but for the economy of the West and the public at large.
1. It is of the utmost importance that section 3(f) be amended to provide that additions to the wilderness system be authorized only as a result of affirmative action by the Congress.
We strongly oppose the procedure set forth in the present section 3(f) for adding to wilderness areas. We do not believe it assures the certain review and deliberate consideration of all the essential factors and viewpoints that should precede wilderness decisions.
2. In order to assure the careful and thorough appraisal of all the values involved in the assignment of lands to the wilderness system, we urgently recommend that the second sentence of section 3(b) (1) be amended to read as follows:
"Following enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, within fifteen years, (A) make a complete inventory of all the resources within each primitive area in the national forests, (B) list the essential uses of these resources, (C) evaluate the importance of such uses in serving present and potential interests of the United States and the people thereof, and (D) proceed with such additional review, in accordance with paragraph C, section 251.20, of the Code of Federal Regulations, title 36, effective January 1, 1959, as will indicate the suitability or lack of suitability of each primitive area in the national forests for preservation as wilderness. He shall publish his findings and report them to the President."
It is our considered judgment that the inventory of resources within possible wilderness areas, and the uses of these resources, are the very substance on which wilderness decisions should be made. They should be specifically and deliberately required and the findings should be available to the public and to the Congress for a period of at least 6 months prior to the beginning of hearings by the appropriate committees of Congress on proposals to include additional areas in the wilderness system.
3. We strongly recommend that the last sentence of section 6(c)(1) be changed from a permissive to an affirmative authorization. We urge that this sentence be revised to read: "In addition, such measures shall be taken as are necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable.”
In our opinion such control measures are not only prudent and necessary for the preservation of the wilderness areas themselves, but for the protection of adjoining and related lands affected by the condition of wilderness areas.
4. We recommend the addition of a sentence to section 6(c) (1) as follows: “Further, upon the determination by the Secretary that manipulation of the high watershed forest cover in a specific wilderness area would contribute substantially to water production and better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof, he shall direct such manipulation and provide for the establishment and maintenance of such reservoirs, and such waterconservation and water-production measures, as he deems beneficial.”
Experience has demonstrated the value of high altitude water storage in preserving the quality of water and minimizing evaporation losses. Storage high on the watershed can make water available for a greater diversity of uses than downstream storage. Manipulated forest cover, in contrast with stagnated forest cover, can add appreciably to water production and to the reduction of water waste.
The National Association of Soil Conservation Districts is not opposed to the designation of carefully selected areas of public land as wilderness. For several years we have addressed ourselves to the thorough consideration of this matter. Our position on wilderness and other land-withdrawal legislation was restated at the annual meeting of the association, February 5-9, 1961, in Memphis, Tenn. It reads as follows:
“The NASCD, in view of the rapidly expanding population of the Nation, recognizes the need for allocating areas of public lands to parks, defense, reco