« PreviousContinue »
study. Not only does it have to have the recommendation in the Interior Department, or the Agriculture Department, but that goes to the Secretary. He has to approve it. Then it has to go to the President, and he has to approve it. Then it has to go to the Congress, and they have to approve it.
I am just curious, if all those have approved it: What has the Federal Power Commission got to do with it?
Mr. Mason. Mr. Chairman, either I am misconstruing the bill or we have some misunderstanding, because I read the bill, on page 3,
The wilderness system shall include all areas within the national forests classified on the effective date of this act by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe.
The CHAIRMAN. Then it says "Provided."
Mr. Mason. As for the proviso—I may be wrong, but I just want to tell you how we read it and how we reached the conclusion we didwe read that language to mean that on enactment of this bill all of these areas that are now designated as primitive would go into the wilderness system subject to being taken out under the review provisions.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that is right.
Mr. Mason. So that day after tomorrow if you passed this bill, the day following that we would be under the same restrictions with respect to primitive areas as we are with respect to wilderness areas. And that is the reason we take the position we do.
The CHAIRMAN. But then when it comes up for review, you would not be.
Mr. Mason. If it were taken out, it would be different, certainly. But it will stay in there for 15 years or 10 years or 5 years or whatever time it takes the Secretary to review it. And then at that time, unless Congress rejects it, it would continue to stay as part of the wilderness system. But you would have a chance then to take it out or leave it in, whichever way the Congress wanted to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think I would agree with that interpretation. Mr. Mason. Sir
The CHAIRMAN. I think I would agree with that interpretation. That is true for this review period. It is naturally the hope of a great many of us that this would sort of act as a catalyst and bring about a final reclassification of these areas.
The only point of my questioning was to find out exactly where we stood on it.
Mr. MASON. May I make one more statement? The whole history of the Power Act and its provisions was an attempt on the part of Congress to license projects that had formerly been done by special acts of Congress. That policy has been in effect now since 1920. And at times when Congress did not want the Commission to license in particular areas, as with respect to the Colorado River and with respect to national parks and national monuments, Congress has certainly said so, and that has certainly helped in the administration of the act.
My whole point is, today, from a personal standpoint, based on many years of experience in the administration of the act, that we think you ought to make it clear by a savings clause in this bill that the Commission's authority is to continue, or, in the alternative, if it is the policy of Congress that these are going to be real wilderness areas within the definition put in the act, maybe the thing to do is to make it clear that the Commission lacks any jurisdiction even to consider an application from these areas. Certainly that would improve our administration.
I am not arguing for one position or the other, but just telling you what our problem would be if this bill is passed. We will have lots of headaches in trying to adjust these ambiguities that have been brought out today.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is fine that you have given us the benefit of your experience, because I can see there may be many questions.
Why do you not do this: Why do you not suggest to us additional language that you may think is necessary? You have sent up an amendment that is a very broad, sweeping one. That maybe is required; but it might be possible for you to draft a provision that leaves these primitive areas where the Federal Power Commission can move, if it desires to do so; so that it can consider an application, at least. I think it ought to be considered, at least.
Mr. Mason. Certainly. We will be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman,
The CHAIRMAN. If you would.
The CHAIRMAN. The Federal Power Commission had some amendments to the helium bill that in the opinion of the Secretary of Interior would have almost transferred the jurisdiction from his hands to the Federal Power Commission's hands. I did not think the Federal Power Commission's stand was particularly unreasonable, myself. But I am just trying to say to you: Do you think it is necessary to go as far as this proposal you have made, that nothing in this act shall be construed as superseding, modifying, repealing, or otherwise affecting the provisions of the Federal Power Act?
Mr. Mason. I would be very glad, Mr. Chairman, to take that up with the Commission. And I personally will work on it and see what we can do to give you some alternatives.
I am familiar with the helium bill and worked on the language. I did not happen to be the one who came up here to testify.
The CHAIRMAN. You probably read the testimony and you know I was not hostile to the Federal Power Commission's attitude. I felt it was a fairly sensible one.
In this particular instance, then, if you will, see if you cannot narrow the language in a way to protect the point you are trying to protect, so that we will have it available in case members of the committee desire to present language of that nature when we get to writing up the bill.
Thank you very much for coming.
If you can stay awhile, I would appreciate it, because we may have another question.
(The Federal Power Commission subsequently sent the committee the following communication :)
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
Washington, March 3, 1961. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : On Monday last, during the testimony given by John C. Mason, General Counsel of this Commission, regarding S. 174, the wilderness bill, you requested additional comments as to how the bill would affect waterpower projects presently administered under the Federal Power Act. More specifically you suggested that we might submit a new saving clause which would not be as broad as the one presented in our report.
The role of the Federal Power Commission with respect to water-resources development is defined and limited by congressional enactments. Its licensing function originated in the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, which antedated any wilderness-type areas, and is now encompassed in part I of the Federal Power Act. Pursuant to that authority the Commission issues licenses to nonFederal interests, including citizens, corporations, States, and municipalities authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of water-power proje on U.S. lands (except national parks and national monuments) and on streams over which Congress has jurisdiction, as well as licenses to non-Federal interests for the purpose of utilizing surplus water or water power from a Government dam. These licenses are issued for a term of years not exceeding 50 and contain certain conditions which protect both the public and the licensee.
A license for project works on reserved lands of the United States may be issued by the Commission under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act "only after a finding * * * that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with: the purpose for which such reservation was created or required.” In addition, such licenses contain conditions deemed necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of any reservation involved. We interpret section 4(e) to provide this Commission with authority to issue licenses for construction of power facilities in presently designated primitive, wilderness, wild, or canoe areas, except in the boundary waters canoe area of Minnesota, and we believe that S. 174 would not preclude the continued exercise of that jurisdiction within the wilderness system established by the bill. However, in light of the conclusion expressed at the hearing by the Chief of the Forest Service that the bill precludes any licensing under the Federal Power Act in the wilderness system that would be created by the bill, we can foresee serious administrative difficulties in attempting to license hydroelectric facilities in those areas, if S. 174 is. enacted.
At the hearing you inquired as to the location of 748,000 kilowatts of existing licensed capacity mentioned on page two of the Commission's report on the bill. Our information reveals that the Commission has presently under license three power facilities now in operation (748,000 kilowatts) and one under construction pursuant to a license (257,000 kilowatts), all of which are affected by licensed reservoirs located in primitive areas, as those areas are presently classified by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of Forest Service.
In view of the very limited hydroelectric potential in existing wild, wilderness, or canoe areas, we believe that the public interest in the development of water-power resources through licenses issued under the Federal Power Act will be adequately protected if the saving clause we previously recommended is made applicable only to primitive areas. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the bill be amended by adding a new subsection 6(c) (8) to read as follows:
"To the contrary notwithstanding, no provisions of this act shall be construed as superseding, modifying, repealing, or otherwise affecting the provisions of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792–825r) with respect to primitive areas as referred to in section 3(b) (1) of this act."
We hope this information will be of value to you and your committee, and if this Commission can be of further service, please do not hesitate to call on us. Sincerely yours,
JEROME K. KUYKENDALL, Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John Taylor.
Mr. Taylor, you are speaking for the American Farm Bureau Federation ?
STATEMENT OF JOHN I. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct, Senator.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this is the statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with regard to wilderness legislation, S. 174.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, legislation with regard to wilderness areas has long been before the Congress of the United States. Various alternative approaches have been offered, supported, and opposed most vigorously. Many of the versions of “wilderness” legislation have involved the setting aside of large areas permanently for limited uses to preserve esthetic and recreational values. On the other hand, many of us have been-and are concerned about locking up wealth and income producing resources.
We believe that both of these values have merit--that both are essential to the growth and development of our country—and that they can be reconciled on a practical basis.
Much of the land involved has already been designated as "wilderness," "wild," "roadless," et cetera. These have been classified and set aside. They are off the tax rolls of any State or any countythey are public lands. We would point out that some of the land so classified is now administered by the agencies involved so as to preserve its wilderness character on the one hand and much more of it, on the other hand, is being operated on a multiple-use basis.
What, therefore, is to be accomplished by this legislation? Primarily, it is to give permanent status to these designations. It would appear wise to start with present designations, which are only and solely of wilderness character and to proceed to such reclassification as may be determined to be desirable, with appropriate caution so that the conflicting purposes may both be given adequate consideration.
The American Farm Bureau Federation has received recommendations on this issue from virtually all of our Western State farm bureaus and from many State farm bureaus in other areas, resulting in the development and adoption of the following policy at our most recent annual meeting:
Public land should be administered to provide for maximum multipurpose use. Therefore, further designation of extensive portions of public lands as "wilders ness areas,” in which normal development for other purposes is precluded, is not in the best public interest.
However, we will support legislation establishing, by act of Congress, areas now designated as “wilderness," "wild," and “roadless” areas, not to exceed 6 million acres. This legislation should provide that other areas may be added only by specific act of Congress.
We welcome the opportunity to present to you, in light of the abovequoted resolution, our recommendations with respect to S. 174 and to propose three amendments thereto.
We note that, by designation, on September 7, 1960, nearly half a million acres were added to the category generally referred to as “wilderness." We do not believe it to be in the public interest to add by action of the executive agencies of Government additional areas to the classification of land on which economic development is to be restricted.
The CHAIRMAN. As I read that resolution, it says you will support legislation establishing 6 million acres of wild and wilderness area, and that this legislation should provide that other areas may be added only by specific act of Congress.
Mr. TAYLOR. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. There is only about 3,969,000 acres of wilderness area now, plus the wild, and if you add those two, you are still under the 6 million acres.
Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The other areas that might be added are primitive areas that might be moved over into wilderness category. And there is provision for it to come to Congress.
Mr. TAYLOR. We suggest that later in my statement, Senator.
Mr. TAYLOR. The major categories of land on which economic development is now restricted by administrative action are the following:
And there it quotes the figures you have just quoted. U.S. Forest Service:
Total acreage Wilderness areas.
3, 969, 000 Primitive areas...
8, 196, 000 Game refuges---
1, 377,000 Wild areas-
942, 000 Roadless areas.
814, 000 National Park Service: National parks---
12, 943, 000 Monuments
8, 975,000 Other areas.
2, 298, 000 U.S. wildlife and game refuges--
17, 180,000 We therefore respectfully offer the following suggestions for amendment of S. 174. If these amendments are acceptable to the committee, the bill as amended would then come within the scope of farm bureau policy, and we could support the legislation. They are:
1. We suggest the removal of “primitive areas” from the original designation. This is suggested for two reasons:
(a) Much of the land now classified as "primitive areas" is not wilderness in character and is actually being studied by the Forest Service at the present time for more accurate delineation of the area in which it should properly be classified. Much of this land is used for a variety of purposes-much of it should continue to be so used.
(6) This would leave the present "wilderness," "wild," and "roadless” areas of 5,724,909 acres designated as "wilderness" areas at this time as a result of the enactment of this bill. Other areas may be added later.
2. We believe that paragraph (f) on page 8 of the bill should provide for "positive action” by the Congress. Paragraph (f) now reads as follows:
(f) Any recommendation of the President made in accordance with the provisions of this section shall take effect upon the day following the adjournment sine die of the first complete session of the Congress following the date or dates on which such recommendation was received by the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives; but only if prior to such adjournment the Congress did not approve a concurrent resolution declaring that the Congress is opposed to such recommendation. Any such concurrent resolution shall be subject to the procedures provided under the provisions of sections 203 through 206 of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. secs. 1332–12–1332–15) for a resolution of either House of Congress.