Let me emphasize that this is a theoretical potential use of Dinosaur's recreation possibilities as a natural national park. It may never get that high.

Senator WATKINS. It has not up to date. That is true, is it not? Mr. BROWER. That is true.

I myself feel that there are other values to national parks than those measured by counting the crowds who pass by. The head count puts the emphasis on quantity, and is too likely to overlook the qualitative experience national parks can and should provide. It is not getting to the bottom of the issue to say that one area is good because 2 million people pass by each year and another area is useless because only 20,000 people see it. I think that it is the recreative, inspirational values that we must consider here, and that have been considered well by those who have set up and protected the national park system.

If, however, the Echo Park Reservoir replaces the wild canyon rivers, Dinosaur could not be expected to be the mecca for reservoir recreation predicted by those who would flood its canyons. Its national park qualities would have vanished. It would be one more reservoir in an upper basin project calling for 700 miles of new reservoirs to add to the Nation's existing hundreds of miles of reservoirs. In summer it would be a hot and glaring lake with no attractive woods growing at its fluctuating water lines. Vast areas of denuded landscape would be exposed year after year.

The reservoir might fill once or twice in 40 years, and all its active storage might be drawn down as often. The intermittently drowned and desiccated vegetation would be no attraction. The rapid encroachment of silt, exposed in varying amounts according to drawdown, would repel travel in the upper reaches and in the embayments. If history of other reservoirs is a fair criterion, there would be a momentary improvement of fishing, then a steady decline. Its summer upland temperatures would be hot, its glare unrelieved; its winter climate would be too severe. It is not in the climatic zone that can bring large numbers of travelers past Lake Mead the year around. Not in our time, of course, but in due time and depending upon whose sedimentation scale we rely upon, this reservoir, and all the beauty inundated, would completely silt up. The top 200 feet of Steamboat Rock's crown would be the tombstone for a park that neeď not have died.

These estimates have solid basis in three examples which we ought to head.

Lake Mead. Prior to construction of Hoover Dam and formation of Lake Mead, this region was not a public attraction. The scenery is spectacular and tremendous in expanse but no single natural feature or group of natural features was given national attention. Total travel to Lake Mead national recreation area for 1953 was 2,220,940 persons.

Approximately 300 people a year take the all-day scenic boat trip. Approximately 4,500 people a year take the 1-hour boat trip on the lake. Approximately 500 people a year take a 3-hour scenic boat trip.

The fluctuation hampers recreation use of the lake to a very marked degree and adds tremendously to the cost of maintaining boat docks, boat launching facilities, sanitation along the shore, swimming facili

ties, and many other public-use facilities, including safety and navigation aids.

Siltation has made it necessary to abandon all lake shore facilities at Pierce Ferry, once a popular harbor. Extreme low water at Overton and Las Vegas Wash this season will either close these harbors or require over a mile of new roads construction each to keep them usable. Silt at Overton may close the harbor until high water again occurs, perhaps 2 years from now. Obviously, reservoir recreation provides for a real if different need. There is great opportunity for it now and the opportunity will increase. It need not and should not increase at the expense of parks.

Hetch Hetchy. In Yosemite National Park we learned a costly lesson, and once is too often. Back in 1911-there was no National Park Service to protect an irreplaceable scenic valley. And proponents of Hetch Hetchy Dam were claiming:

San Francisco will wither without this water.
We must have this cheap power.
There are no good alternatives.
The scenery will be enhanced.
Greater accessibility will result.

Nature lovers are obstructing progress.

California's land must be used for California's benefit.

In 1954-we know better, too late. Not one of these claims proved valid. Yet we are now hearing parallel claims for Echo Park. We are still not faced with a choice between the water and scenery; sound planning will conserve both.

We know that our superb and enviable National Park Service is not an accident. Men of vision have been building it for 90 years. Ninety years from now the need for parks will be greater. And posterity deserves the best, not the dregs, of the things that make America beautiful. They and we can have them if we keep our vision clear and remember, with former Interior Secretary John Briton Payne: There is a heap more in this world than three meals a day.

Hetch Hetchy was not quite so beautiful as its neighbor, Yosemite Valley, but it had much of Yosemite's charm and living space-great oaks, verdant meadows, tree-framed waterfalls, and one of the finest streams in all the Sierra Nevada. Kolano Rock was one of the handsome landmarks under which hundreds of thousands might have camped in these days of overcrowding in our parks.

But Hetch Hetchy had a good dam site. True, others existed downstream-and still exist today-and the water would flow down to them, for diversion to a distant, growing city. Hetch Hetchy, though, was at a higher elevation, and the greater height could produce a little more power. A great battle wages, but there was not yet a National Park Service, and conservation organizations were few. As James D. Phelan wrote in 1911, espousing the dam in this valley:

its beauty will be enhanced *** making the valley more sightly and accessible * *. There can be no question but that the beauty of the scene, with a dam easily concealed by grasses and vines, will be enhanced by the effect of the lake reflecting all above it and about it and will be in itself a great and attractive natural object.

At that point I would like to refer you to the picture just ahead of the center spread of what Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is now. I took that picture. I will point out that that is not at extreme low water nor does that follow an abnormally dry year. This is just 2 years, interspersed by a mild year, a normal year, after the greatest rainfall on record. And that is the lake.

The valley was made more accessible, but now for every million who come to Yosemite Valley to stay, a mere thousand come to Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to turn around and leave.

Just as in Dinosaur, it was not necessary in Hetch Hetchy to choose between water or scenery. Water flows downhill, and there were and there still are sites for storage reservoirs from which waters of the Tuolumne could be diverted to San Francisco. A lower diversion point meant a lower power head, but this was not at issue, and there is indication that San Francisco would have been better off financially had it not gone to the added expense of going high for power. Certainly there were alternate sources of power then, and thermal-generated steam is the predominant power source in California now, even with many streams still undeveloped.

Former San Francisco Mayor Phelan, writing in Out West magazine in 1911, went so far as to imply that the Hetch Hetchy invasion would supply water not only for San Francisco, but East Bay cities as well, east of San Francisco Bay.

His crystal ball was clouded. Starting years after San Francisco, the East Bay Municipal Utility District kept out of the National Park system, developed its water two streams north-on the Mokelumne River-and completed its project and was exporting water to San Francisco before Hetch Hetchy water could reach San Francisco

mains.

One cannot say for certain what the full recreational potential of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir may be. In spite of provisions of the Raker Act, the area is operated somewhat as a private lake. Even so, the setting is obliterated, the fishing is not good, and there is no place to camp. Seventeen years after the addition of 85 feet to the dam, there is still construction clutter around the dam, which is not concealed by grasses and vines. There is no possibility of enjoying the type of human experience national parks were set aside to perpetuate.

Today, were it unimpaired, Hetch Hetchy Valley would be carrying part of Yosemite Valley's overload, and be enjoyed for itself, too, while those who preferred the real values of reservoir recreation were dispersing themselves upon the many available reservoirs. Instead, San Francisco's gain, probably at an inordinate financial burden, became the Nation's loss-a loss that is constantly increasing as the progress of our culture brings more population, more leisure, and more of the strains that national-park recreation helps so wonderfully

to ease.

Mr. Phelan, troubled by the application of the word "vandalism" to those who would invade Hetch Hetchy, commented that "people who have a bad case use harsh words." In the cold light of hindsight, we can now see whose was the bad case-and remember that the kindest term the "vandals" had for the opposition was "nature lover." The term, now being called forth again for its overtones of derision, served then, as now, more to becloud than to clarify. Those who felt

a reverence toward their natural heritage also seem to have been in closer touch with logic, their insight free of myopia. Their crystal ball, we now know, was clear.

If we heed the lesson learned from the tragedy of the misplaced dam in Hetch Hetchy, we can prevent a far more disastrous stumble in Dinosaur National Monument.

Yellowstone, for a third example. A threat like that to Hetch Hetchy and Dinosaur was staved off in 1921 in Yellowstone National Park. Dam proponents were then urging a project to raise Yellowstone Lake 6 feet. It would help the park, they said, increasing the size and beauty of Yellowstone Falls. Arguments that it would create a dangerous precedent they tried to dismiss as visionary and sentimental.

Defenders of the new national park system, however, prevailed. They revealed the project's incompetency to accomplish the results claimed for it. Former Secretary of the Interior John Barton Payne pointed out:

The water does not stay in the park. Use it outside.

To the Senate Committee on Irrigation Mr. Payne said:

Once you establish the principle that you can encroach on a national park for irrigation or water power, you commence a process which will end only in the commercialization of them all.

When asked if he realized that this bill called for a dam only 6 feet high, he predicted that it would soon be followed by a bill asking permission to raise the dam to 25 feet. "And the fight to get that, he stated, "will be just as insistent as the fight now to get 6 feet."

It was for this committee that he summed up the case of park protection with the remark, "There's a heap more in this world than three meals a day."

The threat to Yellowstone resulted in passage of the Jones-Esch bill rescuing national parks and monuments from the application of the Water Power Act-a protection broadened by a 1936 amendment and cited in the proclamation enlarging Dinosaur National Monument to its present magnificent scope.

In summary, in Hetch Hetchy there was no National Park Service and the national park system lost.

In Yellowstone the Department of the Interior stood behind the Park Service and the parks gained protection.

In Dinosaur the issues are in essence the same. But the National Park Service cannot speak. Protection of the park system is thus up to the people, who own it, and their Congress. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty-and of national parks.

We are told, "To be safe, resist the beginning."

Even if we expended all the few resources we must forego to keep an unimpaired national park and wilderness system, we should gain but a few years' respite from the search for substitutes which a resourceful people will find. Parks are too much to lose for so little gain. It makes sense, therefore, to develop substitutes in time.

To give this view perspective, let's use a statistic. There are reported to be the Bureau of Reclamation uses this figure-400 billion - tons of bituminous coal in the upper basin coal reserve. All the power that Echo Park Dam will generate from start to silted-up finish can be replaced by utilizing only 10 ounces of coal out of every

ton of coal in the upper basin reserve, assuming no upstream sediment control.

Or state it another way. For all its importance there legitimately developed, hydroelectric power provides but 5 percent of our present energy requirements. Coal, oil, and gas supply the rest. If we developed every usable bit of stream in this country, we could add but 2 percent more of our present requirements. The undeveloped part of the Colorado is but a fraction of that 2 percent, and Echo Park Dam is but a fraction in turn of the undeveloped part of the Colorado River. Multiplying these factors together, we come up with a ratio that can be expressed this way: If you were to consider that our total rate of using energy today would light our national house for an evening, Echo Park's total share would come on and go off while you blink your eye. It is 1 part in 10,000.

Echo Park Dam would solve no power shortage, and it would lose a park forever.

Statistics are tiring, but to the foregoing, which I have derived from Harrison Brown's revealing book, the Challenge of Man's Future, I add one more by courtesy of Mr. Robert Le Baron, who was interviewed in the June 25 U. S. News & World Report on the subject billed on the front page as "Atom Power for Homes in 5 Years." The statistic: Our uranium reserves are roughly 25 times the United States coal reserves and 100 times the oil and gas reserves. Echo Park, therefore, could supply only the most infinitesimal part of our energy requirements before it silted up. Left as a natural wonder, it can fulfill a park need until our culture dies, several millennia, let us hope, into the future.

I hope these remarks have made two points.

1. Even if we had to choose between this park and this resource, we should choose the park, for it adds too little to our resources, and it depletes too much from parks we shall need far more urgently.

2. But we don't even have to choose. The upper basin States can eat their cake and have it too, and the Nation will gain from both-provided that we use alternative solutions, and require that they be objectively presented.

If everyone agreed with this statement, you would have before you a bill which didn't contemplate an Echo Park Dam―if, indeed, such a bill hadn't already passed the Congress 4 years ago.

But apparently everyone doesn't agree, and I would like to discuss a few more facts for whatever this may accomplish toward bringing agreement closer.

All along, the Sierra Club's chief concern has been national park and national wilderness preservation. The principle of park preservation should be able to stand alone. But we have been persuaded by practical men that one way to prevent park invasion to offer alternatives to that invasion. This has led us to study more thoroughly than we wished the details of the upper Colorado storage project, to make our own observations about it, to check them with experts, to dig out facts that were missing in the basic 1950 report on the project by the Bureau of Reclamation, to discover important errors, and to see the Bureau correct some of them.

From this study we come up with this tentative conclusion, which we can amplify in such detail and with such documentation as you