The second most important thing about the bill in our opinion is that Congress would accept as of now the policies which have developed over the years by the Forest Service on the national forests, by the Park Service on the national parks, and on the wildlife refuges as developed by the Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. WOOD. That would confirm that the Congress agrees with what has been done along that line? Mr. PENFOLD. That is right, that they are working in the right direction, and that they are approved up to now. Mr. WOOD. Thank you. Mr. STONG. Thank you very much. The next witness will be Mr. William Welsh of the National Reclamation Association. Mr. Welsh has been very patient and very kind to wait this long. We will hear from you now. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WELSH, SECRETARY-MANAGER, NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION Mr. WELSH. My name is William E. Welsh, and I am secretarymanager of the National Reclamation Association. First, I would like to hand to you the telegram which was received just this morning from the Klamath Basin Water Users Protective Association, Klamath Falls, Oreg., with a request that it be made a part of the record. Mr. STONG. It will be included in the record. KLAMATH BASIN WATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, WILLIAM E. WELSH, Secretary-Manager, National Reclamation Association Building, Washington, D. C.: We This association urgently requests that you strongly oppose S. 4028. firmly believe that no hearings or action should be taken on this or any other proposed wilderness legislation until a complete study and report is made by the Recreation Resources Review Commission. E. M. MITCHELL, President, Klamath Basin Water Users. Mr. WESLH. Mr. Stong, if I may, I would appreciate it if my statement could appear in the record and I could make just a few comments on it, touching on some points that may not be sufficiently emphasized in the statement. Mr. STONG. That may be done. Mr. WELSH. In my blunt way of approaching the question in my statement, I may not have set forth our position, perhaps, as it should have been. We of the National Reclamation Association recognize the growing interest in recreation all over the country. We think it is something that is worthwhile and something that must be recognized. It is a problem that must be met and it must be considered along with our resource development throughout the country. There are several points that I would like to mention. First, I would like to endorse the position that has been taken by several witnesses preceding me. We believe that the enactment of such legislation as this should be postponed until after the Review Commission has completed its study and made its report. Second, our association has taken the position that such legislation as this should not be enacted or wilderness areas proposed in this legislation should not be created except after hearings in and approval of the local States. Neither should additions to the areas be made except after similar local hearings and approval. Early in the session we mailed a copy of our complete set of resolutions to each member of this committee. In that printed pamphlet, the resolution pertaining to the wilderness areas, there was a very serious omission and error. I have emphasized that on page 2 of my statement, and have included there the paragraph that was omitted and left out of the printed copy of the resolutions that were earlier mailed to the committee. The resolution in full appears at the end of my statement, and I presume that will be included along with the statement. Mr. STONG. It will be a part of the record. Mr. WELSH. The next point that I want to emphasize is the fact that in my opinion, after reading the bill a number of times, that the underlying and fundamental purpose of the legislation is to the effect that the preservation of wilderness shall be paramount, that all other uses of the areas are incidental. I have a specific reason for emphasizing it, and that is the reason that I quoted from the number of places in the bill as I did on page 3. Then on page 4, at the top of the page, the wilderness areas, once they are created, would without doubt be regarded by the general public as being similar to and in the same category as national parks and national monuments, the resources within the boundaries of the same never to be utilized or in any way molested. All other uses of the resources within the wilderness area not directly related to the main purpose are obviously incidental. There is a reference in the bill to sustained yield and multiple use, and there is a provision in the bill which would, under certain conditions, give the President authority to authorize certain uses within the area. But the point that I want to make is this: Once these areas are created as a wilderness area, there would be tremendous psychological effect on the minds of the people all over the country, with the publicity that would go out with the creation by law and by statute of a national wilderness preservation system. The public would immediately think of those areas as areas that should never be utilized in any way whatsoever. If there was any consideration being given to any use of any of the areas, there would immediately be pressure brought to bear upon the responsible official, the President in those cases, not to desecrate those areas that have been set aside as playgrounds and to be kept forever intact and inviolate. Pressure would be terrific. In that connection, just Monday of this week I received a book, a brief history of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in the Colorado-Big Thompson project in Colorado. This book was written by Mr. J. M. Dilly, one of the oldtimers of that area, a very highly respected citizen. In fact, just last year at Phoenix we made him an honorary life member of the National Reclamation Association. In that book, he calls attention to the fact that in the legislation which created the Rocky Mountain National Park in 1915 there was a specific provision which was to permit authorizing work with respect to reclamation within the Rocky Mountain National Park. I would like to read just the quote from that legislation. It would give to the Bureau of Reclamation, or permit them, to enter upon and utilize for flowage and other purposes any area within said park which may be necessary for the development and maintenance of a Government reclamation project. Then he calls attention a little bit later to the opposition that they met with from the National Park Service and the National Parks Association, composed of many organizations concerned with preserving primitive natural conditions wherever possible, and that their efforts were apparently supported by the Secretary of the Interior at that time. All of this carried on over a period of several years' time, in spite of the legislation that was enacted in 1915 specifically giving to the Bureau of Reclamation the right to go into that area and make those surveys. All of this took place in spite of the fact that the intake and the outlet of the tunnel both were outside of the boundaries of the Rocky Mountain National Park. That is just typical of what we would be up against if a wilderness area is created and established any place where later we might want to utilize those areas for the development of irrigation and reclamation projects. It would create a psychological effect and a feeling among the people that would make it almost impossible to get into those areas and ever utilize any of the resources, particularly the development of any irrigation and reclamation projects. That is one of the reasons why we very strongly urge, First, that hearings be held over the West where the people that are directly concerned will have an opportunity to be heard on this question, and, second, we think it very serious and very important that there must be approval of the local States before such areas are created. We think that is fundamental. We think it is essential in a democracy. I happen to be one of those oldtimer Jeffersonian Democrats who believes that the closer you can keep the government to the people directly concerned, the better government we will have. I think in this case before we set up these wilderness areas, we should give the people directly concerned and affected an opportunity to speak their mind on it. I think there is one other point I would like to make. Those of us who have lived in the West all our lives and know the West know that there are millions of acres all over the West that are bound to remain a wilderness area in spite of all that man can do. There are just simply millions of acres. It isn't necessary to create a wilderness area and lock up the resources of that area and cripple the State, because an impact upon the economy of the State, in order to have wilderness areas available or playground areas available for the general public. I think that is probably all I would have to say now, Mr. Chairman, except that we do think there has been an awful lot of emphasis in this particular bill on the paramount use of the areas being for wilderness purposes, and we think there should very definitely be provisions which would permit utilization where it is necessary with resources. (The prepared statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY WILLIAM E. WELSH, SECRETARY-MANAGER, NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION My name is William E. Welsh. I am secretary-manager of the National Reclamation Association. Our interest in this legislation is the effect which it might have upon present irrigation and future reclamation development in the western half of the United States. I realize that S. 4028 is a revised version of the original bill, S. 1176, and that it was intended to overcome the principal objections which were raised against the original bill. I am not sure, however, that those desir able objectives have been accomplished. In the consideration of this legislation, it appears to me that there are several basic facts and fundamental policies that should be taken into consideration. 1. No legislation dealing with the recreational resources of the Nation should be considered until after the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has had time to complete its study and report. The legislation authorizing the appointment of this Commission which was just recently signed by the President was passed by the Congress almost without opposition. It has been enthusiastically received. The Review Commission, the members of which have not all yet been appointed, is due to complete its report by 1961. The Review Commission bill provides, among other things, as follows: "SEC. 6. (a) The Commission shall proceed as soon as practicable to set in motion a nationwide inventory and evaluation of outdoor recreation resources and opportunities, directly and through the Federal agencies, the States, and private organizations and groups, utilizing to the fullest extent possible such studies, data, and reports previously prepared or concurrently in process by Federal agencies, States, private organizations, groups, and others. "(b) The Commission shall compile such data and in the light of the data so compiled and of information available concerning trends in population, leisure, transportation, and other factors shall determine the amount, kind, quality, and location of such outdoor recreation resources and opportunities as will be required by the year 1976 and the year 2000, and shall recommend what policies should best be adopted and what programs be initiated, at each level of government and by private organizations and other citizen groups and interests, to meet such future requirements." In view of the thorough and exhaustive research and study which the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission is authorized to make, it would seem logical that no such legislation as S. 4028 dealing with the Nation's recreational resources should be considered at this time. 2. Such wilderness areas as proposed in this legislation should not be established except "after hearings in and approval of the local States." (See NRA Resolution No. 2, 1957.) Neither should additions to areas be made except after similar local hearings and approval. At the beginning of the present session of Congress, copies of the resolution adopted by the National Reclamation Association at its last annual meeting held in Phoenix, Ariz., in November 1957, were mailed to each member of this committee. There was a very critical error and omission in this resolution. The most important paragraph of Resolution No. 2, pertaining to wilderness areas was omitted and I am reproducing it herewith: "Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the National Reclamation Association opposes the creation of such areas and withdrawals unless after hearings in and approval of the local States; and ***" The resolution in full will be found at the conclusion of this statement. This principle, requiring local approval, is fundamental in a democracy and should be strictly adhered to. The bill, S. 4028, would provide that within national forests any areas designated on June 1, 1958, as wilderness, wild, primitive, or roadless would, at the end of 10 years, automatically become a part of the wilderness system unless determined otherwise by the Secretary of Agriculture. Furthermore, addition to wilderness areas could be made under the proposed bill, S. 4028, without the approval of local States, although hearings would be held if required. 3. The fundamental and underlying purpose of the legislation is that "the preservation of wilderness shall be paramount." All other uses are incidental. The purpose is clearly set forth in the following quotes from the bill: Page 1, line 11 to page 2, line 4: “* * * which areas shall serve the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use and enjoyment by the people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness." Pages 2, lines 17-21: "It is accordingly declared to be the policy of Congress (1) to secure the dedication of an adequate system of areas of wilderness to serve the recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical needs of the people ***." Page 3, lines 8-9: "*** the preservation of wilderness shall be paramount.” Page 3, line 25 to page 4, line 4: "(e) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Page 11, lines 14-18: "* * * any agency administering any area within the wilderness system shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes as also to preserve its wilderness character." Thus it is noted that the real purpose of the legislation is not only set forth in the declaration of policy, but it is interwoven throughout the bill, and often in the strongest of language. In view of this fact, can anyone doubt the fundamental and underlying purpose? In fact, it becomes increasingly evident that all other uses of any of the resources within the wilderness areas must be incidental to the main purpose as set forth above. 4. The wilderness areas, once they are created, would without doubt be regarded by the general public as being similar to and in the same category as national parks and national monuments, the resources within the boundaries of the same never to be utilized or in any way molested. This would be a natural conclusion on the part of the public, especially in view of the emphasis which is placed upon the main purpose of the legislation, and the publicity which would undoubtedly be given to such purpose. The Council created by this legislation would, under the terms of the bill, become a public information agency which would give widespread publicity to the wilderness areas, telling of the advantages of the recreational and other opportunities in the wilderness system and the necessity of maintaining the wilderness system inviolate. Witness the language in the bill (p. 15, line 23, to p. 16, line 4): "The Council shall make, sponsor, and coordinate surveys of wilderness needs and conditions and gather and disseminate information, including maps, for the information of the public regarding use and preservation of the areas of wilderness within the wilderness system. ***" And also note the following (p. 2, lines 21-23): "to provide for the protection of these areas and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness." The psychological effect upon the minds of the general public regarding these wilderness areas which are to remain "untrammeled by man" would be tremendous if the Council should take advantage of the publicity opportunities made available to it. Futhermore, it would seem reasonable to expect that there would be additional publicity by those who are sponsoring this type of legislation. 5. All other uses of resources within the wilderness areas not directly related to the main purpose are obviously incidental. True, reference is made to multiple use and sustained yield and the bill provides that the "President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting, mining, the establishment or maintenance of reservoirs and water conservation works, * * *” However, in view of the buildup which we can expect for the purpose of this legislation, it is easy to imagine the tremendous pressure that would be brought to bear upon the President if any movement were contemplated authorizing any other use of the wilderness area. As an illustration, if a storage reservoir should be proposed within one of these areas, the pressure that would be brought to bear upon the President would undoubtedly be tremendous. Witness Echo Park. 6. Congress should retain jurisdiction to the extent practicable. The members of our association look to the Members of the Congress as the direct representatives of the people. They want Congress to retain jurisdiction |