« PreviousContinue »
* * *
We suggest it be revised to read 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 House of Representatives; but only if prior to such adjournment the Congress approves a concurrent resolution declaring that the Congress is in favor of such recommendation.
We think this will do more than any other one thing to strengthen the bill. We strongly believe in protecting congressional authority and prerogatives. We know it will add more to your burdens, but we also believe this is the right way to make policy determinations on questions as important as these.
3. We believe the language on page 12, in (2) (B), line 25 should be changed as follows: "shall continue subject to such regulations as
We note that this bill does not provide for the creation of a new agency to administer or to otherwise have authority with respect to the lands designated as "wilderness" areas. We believe they can be handled by the agencies now in the field. We heartily concur in this and trust that the bill as reported will not be changed in this respect.
With these suggestions adopted, we urge passage of S. 174.
Senator CHURCH. I do not believe I do at this point. I was just trying to follow the last recommendation.
Mr. TAYLOR. The bottom of page 12, Senator; (2) (B), line 25.
Senator CHURCH. I see. In the main, what you are recommending is that what is now designated as wilderness or wild areas immediately become a part of the wilderness system upon the enactment of the bill, but what are now designated as primitive areas should be placed into the wilderness system only by positive action of the Congress, as recommended by the President.
Mr. TAYLOR. As they are so designated. Yes, Senator.
Senator CHURCH. That would be different from the present bill, in that positive action by the Congress would require the concurrence of both houses in order to place the primitive areas in the wilderness system, whereas under the present bíll it would require action on the part of both houses in order to veto a Presidential approval.
Mr. TAYLOR. That is right.
Senator CHURCH. I am clear on the recommendation, now. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. William E. Welsh, secretary-manager, National Reclamation Association.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. WELSH, SECRETARY-MANAGER,
NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. WELSH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is William E. Welsh, and I am secretary-manager of the National Reclamation Association.
In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if I could submit my statement to be inserted in the record. I guarantee that it will take me considerably less time to summarize it than it would to read it.
The CHAIRMAN. You may go right ahead on that basis.
Mr. WELSH. Our association has been very much interested and concerned with wilderness legislation over the past several years. We have adopted resolutions outlining our policy with respect to wilderness legislation. And I would refer you to the resolution which is attached to the back of my statement, rather than to my comments concerning the resolution and concerning our attitude, because I believe the resolution outlines the position of the
National Reclamation Association, I know it does—much better than I could.
We have noted, Mr. Chairman, that there is considerable change, and we believe improvement, in the present bill that is now before the committee, over the bills which were first offered to the committee several years ago, and we appreciate that fact.
There is just one point that I would really like to emphasize, and that is more important, we think, than any other amendments that might be made to the bill. And that would be to amend section 3(f) of the bill so as to require that the wilderness system would be created by an affirmative action of the Congress, rather than merely failure to act upon the recommendation of the President.
Our people feel that that would do more than anything else to meet with their approval and recommendations.
We have confidence in the Members of the Congress. The Members of the Congress are constantly in touch with the area that they represent. They know the problems. They know the wants and the desires of the people. And, if it is to be added by approval of the Congress, there would surely be an opportunity to be heard, and people would have an opportunity to express themselves, and we feel much more satisfied with that procedure, rather than the procedure outlined in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. That is somewhat similar to the suggestion made by Mr. Taylor of the Farm Bureau a moment ago.
Mr. WELSH. I think it is quite similar; yes.
(The prepared statement of William E. Welsh, secretary-manager, National Reclamation Association, follows:)
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. WELSH, SECRETARY-MANAGER, NATIONAL RECLAMATION
My name is William E. Welsh. I am secretary-manager of the National Reclamation Association.
The primary purpose of our association, since the time we were first organized in 1902, has been and still is to foster and perpetuate the development of sound reclamation projects throughout the West. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate immensely the splendid support and leadership which you have given to the reclamation movement throughout the years which you have served in the Congress. We appreciate, too, the splendid support and cooperation which we have always received from the members of this important committee.
Inasmuch as approximately two-thirds of the members of the National Reclamation Association are directors or officers or representatives of irrigation districts, canal companies, and other types of water users' organizations, it is only natural that we are vitally interested in any legislation affecting or relating to the watersheds of the West. There is probably no other group of citizens in America who have a greater reason to be interested in watershed protection than the irrigation farmers of the West who are dependent upon a well-sustained flow of water for their very existence. We, of the National Reclamation Association, are therefore vitally interested in any form of wilderness legislation,
The policies of the association, relating to various wilderness proposals and wilderness bills over the past several years have been given very careful consideration. These policies are set forth in resolution No. 3, which was adopted at the last annual meeting of the association at Bakersfield, Calif., in November of last year. A copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Briefly, the principles which we believe should be inherent in any wilderness legislation are as follows:
1. Lands capable of a variety of beneficial uses should be available for all such uses;
2. Wbere potential uses are inconsistent, those most essential should have preference;
3. Where a variety of beneficial uses are to be given consideration the following order of preference, we believe, should prevail :
(a) National defense;
(0) Production of necessities of life including water, food, fiber, timber, minerals, power, and the means of transportation and communication;
(c) Recreation for all;
(d) Specialized recreation for the few.
5. Wilderness areas should be created or added to only by positive action by the Congress.
6. That before any wilderness system is created or before any area is added to a wilderness system, it should be established beyond all reasonable doubt that the lands to be included in the wilderness system or area are more valuable for wilderness than any other use.
7. That any land or area which has had a historic character or long-time use in forestry. grazing, mining or any other beneficial use, should be continued in the same category and any wilderness legislation should definitely
so provide. The NRA Legislative Committee and the board of directors, at the recent meetings held in Washington, D.C. (February 10–15), again endorsed on two separate occasions, and by unanimous vote, resolution No. 3 and further stipulated that the association should support only legislation that contained the provisions recommended in Resolution No. 3.
In accordance with the endorsements given to me by our legislative committee, our board of directors, and our entire membership present at the Bakersfield convention, I would like to discuss section 2(f) of the bill S. 174. This is quite similar to, if not the same as, provisions in the old Humphrey bill. We have consistently opposed the creation of wilderness areas by this method. We believe it is fundamentally wrong. We believe that the Congress should retain jurisdiction. The Members of the Congress are constantly in touch with their constituents and, accordingly, are in a better position to understand the problems of a wilderness area where other higher uses should prevail. We believe that this section 2(f) of the bill should be amended so as to provide that no wilderness system shall be created except by affirmative action by both Houses of the Congress. This, in our judgment, is by far the most important amendment which we would urge to the pending bill S. 174. There are one or two other points that should be given some consideration :
1. Those of us who are familiar with the West know that there are literally millions of acres throughout this great, vast mountainous area that must forever remain a natural and undeveloped area because of its very inaccessibility. It will remain a natural wilderness in spite of all that man can do.
2. If there is a real need for wilderness, then it would seem that need would be in the mountainous areas of the eastern part of the Nation adjacent to the heavily populated areas of the East rather than the sparsely settled areas of the West.
Another point which should be considered is that only a very small percentage of our population would really be able to enjoy the wilderness areas. They would be limited largely to those of strong physique and adequate finances to afford a trip into the wilderness areas. The average man, who loads his family into the jalopy and starts out for a weekend vacation, would find that when he reaches the boundaries of a wilderness area, that would be as far as he could go.
Last year our association endorsed the proposed O'Mahoney-Allott amendments to the wilderness bill. I believe those amendments were identical to the bill which Senator Allott has introduced this year, as a proposed amendment to S. 174.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT AND GIFFORD PINCHOT
Without doubt, these men were real conservationists. Their philosophy and their definition of conservation has stood the test of time. They were thinking in terms of all mankind—“The use of the natural resources for the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time." It seems to me that we should hesitate before abandoning the philosophy of conservation given to us by Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt.
I would be less than frank with you, Mr. Chairman, if I did not tell you that a very large number of the members of our association would prefer no wilderness legislation at all.
If, however, there is to be wilderness legislation, then we urgently request that consideration be given to the recommendation to be found in Resolution No. 3. Especially do we urge that section 2(f) be amended to provide that no wilderness area should be created except by afirmative action by the Congress.
Again I wish to express my appreciation to the members of the committee for the splendid cooperation which we in reclamation have enjoyed.
RESOLUTION No. 3—WILDERNESS AREAS Whereas there is widespread desire for the creation, within the federally owned lands of wilderness areas; and
Whereas some proponents of wilderness legislation advocate an immediate wholesale legislative commitment of vast areas to a state of backwardness, devoid of protection against disease, fire, vandalism, or criminal activity because of an enforced inaccessibility which would render such areas unavailable and unsuitable for recreational uses by the average American family and useful only for that restricted minority whose gratification requires vast areas of untended primeval domain; and
Whereas unwise creation of wilderness areas is contrary to principles of true conservation which are dedicated to the goal of administering the federally owned lands so as to create conditions which will produce a sustained yield of products and services (including recreation) for the greatest good of the greatest number: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That
(1) In every case where the federally owned lands are capable of a variety of consistent, beneficial uses, it should be made available for all such uses.
(2) Where potential uses are inconsistent, those most essential should have preference over those less essential. (3) The following order of preference should prevail :
(a) National defense and uses in support thereof.
(6) Production of the necessities of life, especially water, food, fiber, timber, minerals, power, and the means of transportation and communication.
(c) Recreation for all.
(d) Specialized recreation for the few. Constant recognition should be given to the fact that protection, preservation, and development of the available water supply is essential to every use of the public domain and is, therefore, primary and of first importance.
(4) Protection of the wise principle of multiple use of the public domain from the pressure of those who seek only the limited wilderness use requires the adoption of legislation establishing the principle that wilderness areas may be created only by act of Congress after adequate investigation and affirmative recommendation by appropriate Federal agencies together with
an adequate opportunity for comment by affected States and local agencies. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Louis Clapper.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF CONSERVA
TION EDUCATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mr. CLAPPER. Mr. Chairman, I would express the regret of Mr. Thomas Kimball, our executive director, at being unable to be here today. He had conflicting meetings.
Mr. Chairman, the National Wildlife Federation is a private, nonprofit conservation organization composed of 50 affiliates in 49 Śtates and the District of Columbia. These affiliates are made up of more than 2 million individual sportsmen-conservationists.
The National Wildlife Federation long has endorsed the principle of wilderness preservation and we hope this committee and the Congress will see fit to approve of S. 174. Proposals to create a national wilderness preservation system have undergone considerable refinement, largely through extensive work on the part of this committee over a period of several years, and we believe it now is time to act.
The National Wildlife Federation has endorsed in principle both the multiple-use concept of management for national forests and the proposed establishment of a wilderness preservation system. As pointed out in the multiple-use bill enacted into law last year, the concept of multiple use is not inconsistent with wilderness preservation.
It is readily apparent that some individual areas, or portions of them, are not suited for all types of purposes. It also follows, then, that decisions must be made to determine the optimum, or best, use of some particular areas. It is the belief of the National Wildlife Federation that the optimum use of appropriate areas of unique scenic, esthetic, scientific, and educational value is as wilderness preserved and protected by procedures approved by the Congress. This would be accomplished by provisions of S. 174.
Wilderness areas serve many purposes in addition to recreation or esthetic enjoyment. Primarily, of course, lands preserved as wilderness admirably protect watersheds and the important production of water.
We, Mr. Chairman, are particularly gratified that a number of the areas to be designated for inclusion in the system have special significance because they provide natural living areas for endangered and depleted wildlife populations. The grizzly bear, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and whooping crane are among the larger forms of wildlife which' benefit from wilderness environments. The grizzly bear, as one example of an endangered species that is restricted to wild and undeveloped areas, today may be found in the United States only within wilderness portions of national forests and parks. These and other wilderness lands, to be given protection under the bill, would serve as refuges or havens for depleted populations of wildlife, especially types which cannot coexist with humans.
Hunting, fishing, and other important recreational uses of designated areas of wilderness within national forests are consistent with multiple-use provisions of S. 174. This is accomplished in such a way, we believe, as not to interfere or impair in any way the present jurisdictional pattern for management of fish and game resources by State wildlife agencies which historically have been charged with these responsibilities on national forests. As in the past, State agencies