Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, BERKELEY, CALIF., July 21, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: As an individual and president, Sierra Club, representing 12,000 members, I earnestly bespeak your careful consideration of the revised wilderness bill, S. 4028. If we are to retain in our culture the unique values of wilderness for aesthetic, scientific, and recreational purposes it will require recognition and legal protection. I respectfully urge that this be given at this time. Subject: The Wilderness Bill. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. HAROLD C. BRADLEY, SIERRA CLUB, San Francisco, Calif., July 18, 1958. DEAR MR. MURRAY: Acting in behalf of our 12,000 members throughout the country, our board of directors unanimously voted 2 weeks ago to commend the sponsors of the wilderness bill for their achievement in clarifying and revising the proposal as now represented in S. 4028 and to urge its early enactment. Action in this session will constitute a milestone in conservation for which we have been working for nearly 10 years in cooperation with the Nation's leading conservation organizations. Our testimony in the Senate hearings explains the depth of our interest and its purpose. This letter is to bring your record of our views up to date. We realize that it is already late in this session and that the demands on this Congress are exceptionally heavy, but time is also running out in which we may preserve wilderness adequately. Much painstaking study and cooperation has gone into the revision of the proposal that is now in committee and, with your help, can pass the Senate. We share, with respect to wilderness, some opinions about open space expressed recently by Mr. William H. Whyte, Jr., an editor of Fortune and author of The Organization Man. He entered "a plea that we get the open space now, and then at our leisure rationalize with studies how right we were to do it all along." He points out that "the developers aren't waiting for more study; the highway engineers already have their bulldozers going." He cautions that "not to take action now is to make a choice," and he makes it clear that it is a bad choice, a choice by us that will deprive our sons of their rightful opportunities to choose. Not all Members of the Senate will need wilderness. But maybe their sons will; and wilderness needs the additional protection Congress can provide, and successive Congresses as they see fit, under the terms of the wilderness bill. Wilderness lives but once. We want you to have a hand in saying how long it shall live in those few places in which it is dedicated. We urge your help. Sincerely, (Duplicate letter to Senator Jackson.) H. C. BRADLEY, President. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The National Parks Association wishes to express its wholehearted approval of the revised wilderness bill, S. 4028, which will be considered by your committee on July 23. As you know, we have participated in the preparation of this legislation for many years and have been closely associated with its progress. The provisions of the present bill are the result of consultations with every interested organization and, in our opinion, are responsive to the objections which have been made in a way which should lead toward prompt enactment. The care that has been taken in preparing this revision makes it one of the most beneficial legislative proposals that has appeared in a national conservation program. It should also be noted that the enactment of the legislation to establish the Outdoor Resources Review Commission makes it even more essential the wilderness bill be approved during this session of Congress. These two programs are partners in the efforts to insure the wisest use and protection for our vital scenic and recreational resources. In order to derive full benefit from the one, the other must also be implemented. We urge your committee to act quickly to approve the wilderness bill, so it can receive final attention before Congress adjourns. Yours sincerely, FRED M. PACKARD, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, AMERICAN PLANNING AND CIVIC ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: We wish to place the American Planning and Civic Asscociation on record as favoring the preservation of wilderness areas in the United States under the appropriate Federal agencies. It is our belief that the reviced wilderness bill (S. 4028 and H. R. 13013) has met most of the objections which were raised to earlier drafts. It would seem that the suggestions for change to recognize the long-established policy of the National Park Service in preserving wilderness areas have been accepted and embodied in the present draft of the bill. We are convinced that the National Park Service has shown in its publications on wilderness that the Service is carrying on an effective program for wilderness protection of areas within the national park system. Sincerely yours, U. S. GRANT 3d, Major General, United States Army (Retired), President. HORACE M. ALBRIGHT, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, Audubon House, New York, N. Y., July 11, 1958. Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: We have received notice kindly sent us as to hearing on this revised wilderness bill to be held Wednesday, July 23, at 10 a. m. in room 224. : Unfortunately, the undersigned will be on the west coast at that time, but we write to state that our society fully supports the purpose of this revision, just as it has supported the purpose of wilderness legislation since inception. We trust that your committee may see fit, shortly after the hearing, to report the bill favorably to the Senate for action. Sincerely yours, JOHN H. BAKER, President. STATEMENT BY FRIENDS OF THE WILDERNESS The wilderness bill S. 4028, now awaiting action in the United States Senate by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, is the most important piece of new legislation before the 85th Congress. There is a companion measure in the House, H. R. 13013, identical with the Senate bill. This new bill is the result of many hearings, meetings between the Congress and friends and critics of the old measure, S. 1176 introduced 2 years ago. Great progress has been made and this new and revised form is the result of these criticisims, suggestions, and executive agency reports. In our opinion and the opinion of many others, it represents the outstanding conservation opportunity for the 85th Congress. By new legislation is meant a new subject of vital national importance that the Congress has not dealt with before. The wilderness bill is of the first importance for the long-range national welfare. Friends of the Wilderness asks you to ask your Senators and Congressmen to consider well these vital longrange aspects and bring this essential bill to a favorable vote in this session of Congress. The great majority of the American people are emphatic supporters of the wilderness preservation principle. They believe, both instinctively and from hard, inductive reasoning-as a matter of fact, few national domestic subjects are closer to their hearts-that our Nation has a pressing need for our few remaining pieces of outstanding wilderness. They know we need them now; they know we will need them much more in the future. They know it will be a sadly impoverished America-physically, morally, and spiritually-when these last remnants of our national physical origins are gone. They know that when our last bit of primeval America is dissipated a vital part of us will go with it. Our older generation has seen the reckless, heedless, conscienceless dissipation of our sumptuous resources from the pristine natural state almost in its lifetime. Not many of us realize that only two average lifespans have gone by since Lewis and Clark started up the Missouri River on the first journey across the continent-when our whole country beyond the Mississippi was still virgin and undiscovered land. That is something to think about and ponder well-the short years that have been needed to transform, and all too often plunder, a major part of the continent. Our middle generation has seen the completion, the virtual completion, of this process-almost the last forests laid bare and fire swept, the rich ores exhausted, the fat farmlands that were the richest in the world prodigally stripped of their topsoil. It has watched more and more unhappily the Nation's natural resources ravaged to build great fortunes for a very few. Our younger generation has seen only the results-a great Nation, but one covered with sores and scars. And what does it do? It flocks to what remains of its inheritance that has not been despoiled-the national and State parks and monuments and the national and State forests-particularly those that are still relatively in their original condition-in numbers that are scarcely believable. If there is any doubt that America needs to preserve these places, the answer surely is there. They have what we, today, restless and disoriented in a new environment, seek instinctively. Others have answered ably the question of what these places can give to us, and we will not go into it. But that their values are of great importance to us today and tomorrow-particularly to our younger citizens-there can be no question whatsoever. To be sure, we have learned enough by now to arrest, to minimize, to begin to repair some of these wastages and ravages. Forests are beginning to be managed for constant yield. Agricultural land is beginning to be treated with some thought for the future. Industry is just beginning to realize it has a social responsibility. In these fields we have begun to legislate under the necessity for the common good. It is time now, also, to promulgate a national policy for the preservation of our last few remaining wildernesses, to hand them down to our posterity as a heritage of our origins, a priceless physical and spiritual legacy that only we can give. For, when these areas are gone, they are gone forever. No one can bring them back again. The time to preserve them must be now. For many of them-and for all of them, to some extent-tomorrow will be too late. There is no reason to delay. There is every reason to act now. It has been said that one of our country's finest claims to greatness is the manner in which we have preserved some of our grandest natural areas for all the people in our national parks. But even most of these are not protected by the law of the land. They are provided for by Interior Department regulation. It is said that our fine wilderness areas are now fully protected by this departmental regulation-existing both in the National Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture and the Park Service of the Interior Department. But this is not true. The areas are currently ably defended, on the whole, by the Government departments which administer them. But a stroke of the pen of a Cabinet Secretary-always politically appointed-could wipe them off the face of the continent tomorrow. There is no reason at all why this should be so. There is every reason why it should not be. These wilderness areas are entitled to, and need, the protection of national law. They need it right now. The wilderness, or roadless, areas of Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota-which Friends of the Wilderness came into being to protectare the Nation's outstanding laboratory for the study of how well mere department regulation, though administered by the highest type of devoted and able public servants, and backed by an overwhelming public opinion, can withstand heavy political pressures for exploitation. To save the unique Superior Forest roadless areas, the heart of the Nation's outstanding wilderness canoe country, since the first roadless reservations 32 years ago, the direct intervention of Congress and the Federal courts up to the Supreme Court and the President of the United States have been necessary. Congress and the courts have had to enter the picture several times. The State legislature and governors and executive departments have had to intervene. For more than a generation, conservationists have had to be on constant alert, virtually resting on their arms, to turn back one determined attack after another. All this time, public opinion was strongly, in later years overwhelmingly, in favor of preservation of this exceptional and unique wild area. We cannot emphasize too strongly, out of the depths of our own bitter experience, that no fine wilderness areas subject to heavy exploitative pressure can safely be expected to withstand it by departmental regulation alone. And, make no mistake, sooner or later every desirable wilderness area in the Nation will come under pressure. We repeat: Only the force of national law can withstand it. The Wilderness Preservation Act is badly needed-now. Tomorrow, as it has been time and time again in the poignant story of our natural resources, will be too late. So, write your Senators and Representatives today and ask their support for the wilderness bills, S. 4028 (Senate) and H. R. 13013 (House of Representatives). Don't put it off; do it now or it may be too late. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, NATIONAL GRANGE, Washington, D. C., July 18, 1958. Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: This letter is to express the support of the National Grange for S. 4028, the proposed National Wilderness Preservation Act, and to urge that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs recommend its passage by the Senate. The bill has had the benefit of careful, detailed analysis by a great many persons and organizations for more than 2 years. It has been constructively revised and amended since it was first introduced. In its present form it represents an eminently desirable statement of national policy with respect to the public purposes of a wilderness-preservation system, as well as a practical procedure and directive for achieving such a system. Subsections (b) and (c) of section 1 of the bill set forth the basic considerations and objectives of the legislation, and these are in accord with policy positions adopted by the delegate body of the National Grange. The bill has been endorsed without qualification by Mr. Winton Weydemeyer, master of the Montana State Grange, who also served as chairman of a specially appointed Grange committee on natural resources policy. Mr. Weydemeyer and his committee produced a comprehensive, 47-point report which was adopted by the entire Grange delegate body in 1955, and which constitutes basic Grange policy on natural-resource matters to this day. Under the pressures of increasing population, expanding settlement, and spreading mechanization and industrialization, there is a clear need to designate, protect, and preserve in their natural, primeval character certain areas of federally owned land "for the health, welfare, knowledge, and happiness of *** citizens of present and future generations. ***" We commend the sponsors of this legislation and those who have participated in the preparation of the present draft of the bill for their skillful blending of vision and practicality. Under the terms of this bill, a national wilderness preservation system would be established without adding an acre of property to Federal ownership, because it applies only to certain lands already under 30973-58--13 Federal control. The bill would not create any new administrative authority. It would recognize the principle of multiple use in the national forests, and it would maintain the high standards of the National Park Service. We respectfully recommend favorable consideration of S. 4028 by the committee, and express the hope that this proposed legislation may become law during the present session of the Congress. I would request, if it be appropriate, that this letter be made a part of the record of hearings of the committee on S. 4028. Respectfully submitted. Hon. GORDON L. ALLOTT, GORDON K. ZIMMERMAN, UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ALLOTT: Recently, you sent us a copy of Committee Print No. 2, dated February 11, 1958, that is in the nature of a substitute for S. 1176, a bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system, and for other purposes, and requested informal comments. Although the original bill has been modified in various ways in order to make it more palatable in the form of Committee Print No. 2 to people interested in reclamation and the multiple use of western public lands, it does not seem to be the type of legislation either desirable or necessary at this time. For the most part, the testimony that I submitted last year, and which is to be found on pages 416-420 of the hearings on S. 1176, is still applicable. Without going into details at this time, this type of legislation is not in the best interests of the 17 western reclamation States because (1) It poses a threat to the conservation, development, utilization, and management of water resources under State laws and State constitutions. (2) It places future Congresses in the position of being forced to act in opposition to an administrative decision-act negatively-in order to be effective. This is a poor way to legislate. Congress should act affirmatively, and should retain its right to establish, maintain, or modify criteria for the determination of the uses of public lands. (3) It is unnecessary. Existing agencies can function better without it. (4) It superimposes another layer of authority, in the form of a council, over the heads of agencies responsible for administering public lands. This would not contribute efficient operation and management. The citizen members proposed on the Council would undoubtedly represent strong pressure groups. Other Council members would hold their positions by virtue of political influence. This would mean the substitution of political motives and pressure-group influence to replace a technical administration by trained and experienced men who are experts in their fields. (5) The theory that the preservation of wilderness shall be paramount is not sound on a blanket basis for all sections of the Nation. Such a step as proposed in S. 1176 (or its Committee Print No. 2) should not be taken without prior and adequate investigations and studies to determine the best multiple use of public lands and the needs and scope of a national recreational program. (6) The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Act recently passed by Congress is the proper way to approach recreational problems at this time. The Commission created by this act is charged with studying the recreational resources of public lands, making an inventory, evaluating recreational opportunities, and with determining what type of program is needed. Until this Commission completes its job, there is no need to take the drastic and far-reaching step proposed in Committee Print No. 2 of S. 1176. I have not made a detailed analysis of Committee Print No. 2. If hearings should be scheduled on this bill-and I hope they are not-a thorough analysis will be made, and we will request the opportunity to submit evidence and argument to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Other organizations in our Upper Colorado River Basin States will also be interested in the problems posed. Sincerely yours, IVAL V. GOSLIN, |