SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: WASHINGTON, D. C., July 23, 1958. As citizen and conservationist, urge favorable report of wilderness bill. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, F. R. FOSBERG. SPORT FISHING INSTITUTE, Washington, D. C., July 23, 1958. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: We are certainly pleased to see that you have called for additional hearings on S. 4028, the wilderness bill. The Sport Fishing Institute wishes to go on record as supporting S. 4028 in its present form. We have been very impressed by the way the original wilderness bill has been amended to meet objections which were raised, and we believe that the national wilderness preservation system, which is proposed in S. 4028, is badly needed to enable the Federal land-management agencies to meet the growing recreational needs of our Nation. Your interest in this bill is sincerely appreciated. ROBERT M. PAUL, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF MISSOULA, MONT., July 23, 1958. Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Our organization has noted with interest steps being taken to pass S. 4028, the wilderness bill, as introduced by Senator Humphrey. As yet, we have no way of knowing the full implications of this legislation and how it may affect our economy in western Montana. This date our board of directors passed unanimously a resolution urgently requesting that hearings on this bill be held in the immediately affected areas before the bill is reported out of committee. It would appear to us that, since our people and our economy are the ones that will be most directly affected by the measure, we should have ample opportunity to express our thinking. We sincerely urge that you do everything within your power to make possible hearings on the measure in our area before it is passed. Very sincerely yours, DONALD F. WILSON, Manager. AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS, Re S. 4028, national wilderness preservation system. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The American Mining Congress, a national organization composed of both large and small producers of all metals and minerals mined in the United States, wishes to register its opposition to the pending measure, S. 4028, which would establish a national wilderness preservation system on the public lands of the United States. The mining industry, meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, in September of last year, adopted a declaration of policy which reads in part as follows: "Increasing population and industrial development emphasize the importance of maintaining maximum availability of public lands for the finding and development of our national mineral resources. *** We oppose the creation or continuance of withdrawals which withhold lands from mining location except in cases where the national interest clearly justifies such withholding." This same policy statement made it clear that the mining industry is firmly behind the system established by the general mining laws for the location and patenting of mining claims as the best means of encouraging and providing for development of the mineral resources of the public domain through private initiative and enterprise. The pending measure, which has as its objective the creation of a permanent national wilderness preservation system, is contrary to the principles long espoused by the mining industry, and is in contradiction of those principles, carried out by intrepid prospectors, which have furthered the development of our Western States. The great natural resources of the Western States formed the foundation for the development of the industrial and agricultural economies of those States, and have made possible their rapid growth and progress over the years. Any measure which would deter further mineral development through the curbing of the ardor of the prospector would result in a great disservice not only to the Western States but to the Nation as a whole. We in the mining industry cannot understand why legislation is believed to be required to provide for the creation of wilderness areas and for their extension through the acquisition of other areas when such power already resides within the executive branch of the Federal Government. This power in the past has been confined to activities in national parks, monuments, and forests, and has been respected and upheld by the mining industry. Those wielding the administrative authority have, for the most part, recognized that mineral development, particularly in our national forests, has been a necessity to the further development and utilization of our natural resources. We see no reason why this situ ation should be changed at this date. Congress, throughout the years, has made it clear that mining on the public domain was to be encouraged in order that the resources of the public domain might be fully developed for the benefit of the Nation as a whole. Thus, the incentive for prospecting, exploration, development, and mining through the assurance of ultimate private ownership of the minerals and lands so brought into economic development has been recognized by Congress since 1872. Under existing laws, a prospector may go out on the public domain, locate a mining claim, search out its mineral wealth, and, if discovery of minerals is made, can then obtain a patent to those lands. That property, upon the issuance of a patent, becomes the individual's, to develop or sell according to his initiative or desire. Without such an incentive, the future development of mineral resources on the public domain is likely to wither on the vine. We submit that the pending measure is not in the public interest, and that it would seriously deter the natural-resource development necessary to the future progress of our Western States. Section 3 of S. 4028 would provide that "* * * no portion of any area constituting a unit of the Wilderness System shall be used for any form of commercial enterprise not contemplated in the purposes of this Act *** [except that] Within national forest areas included in the Wilderness System 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, and such measures as may be found necessary in control of insects and diseases, including the road construction found essential to such mining and reservoir construction, upon his determination that such use in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial. ***" So far as the mining industry is concerned, this provision constitutes the heart of S. 4028, for section 3 also provides that "The Wilderness System shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, educational, scenic, scientific, conservation, and historical use. All such use shall be in harmony, both in kind and degree, with the wilderness environment and with its preservation, and the areas within the Wilderness System shall be so managed as to protect and preserve the soil and the vegetation thereon beneficial to wildlife." We believe that this section would, in effect, prevent any prospector from setting foot upon any wilderness area authorized by the bill. The development of untold mineral assets necessary for the economic well-being of the Nation, or for the advancement of science requisite for national defense, could be denied by such a law. The Congress of the United States over the past several years has made plain its intent and has explicitly required the encouragement of the multiple use and development of the natural resources of our public domain lands. It specifically set forth this objective in Public Law 585 of the 83d Congress, and further reiterated its belief in these principles in Public Law 167 of the 84th Congress. Your committee, in reporting only 3 years ago on what later became Public Law 167, significantly stated: "The broadest possible use of all of the resources of our public lands and forests for the benefit of the American people is a matter of great national import. The rapidly expanding population and economy of our Nation, and of the Western States in particular, have been accompanied by an ever-growing need for more general and more intensive use of our natural resources. The high tempo of our housing industry has brought about heavy demands for timber; stock growers need more grazing area to meet the increasing consumption of meat, leather, and wool; our mining industry is under the constant necessity of exploring for and developing additional sources of new and old minerals to meet the ever-increasing requirements of our national security and industrial economy; and our growing population requires expanded recreational areas. "Conflict between surface and subsurface uses of our publicly owned lands is as old as the West itself, where most of the remaining public domain lies. Surface uses include stock grazing, forestry, soil-erosion control, watershed purposes, fish and wildlife preservation, and recreational areas. The subsurface use is that of development of the minerals that have been a basis for our great industrial and economic development. "As long as there was plenty of land that could be dedicated to each use, separately, the results of conflicts between surface and nonsurface uses were generally local and minor in character. "However, in recent years our security needs, the growth of our population, and the expansion of our economy have brought about a situation in which it is no longer in the national interest that the public domain should be used for one of the uses to the exclusion of the other." We do not see how your committee, which has so clearly expressed its conviction that multiple use of our natural resources on the public domain is of prime national interest, could approve S. 4028. We in the mining industry are unalterably opposed to the locking_up_of natural resources of any kind from development for the public good. We believe that the future of the Nation, and of the Western States in particular, lies in continued development of these resources. In the light of the facts set forth above, we urge you to disapprove S. 4028. Very respectfully yours, Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY, JULIAN D. CONOVER, Executive Vice President. ST. REGIS PAPER CO., New York, N. Y., July 24, 1958. Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D. C.: Re your consideration S. 4028 strongly recommend consideration be given to hold hearings on bill in Western United States. This legislation extremely important to western economy. Our company's interests in Montana and Washington are closely related to full use of timberlands including wilderness area. Prospects hopeful that recently approved National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission will make important recommendations pertinent to sound land management and administration which are vital to pending legislation. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, PAUL M. DUNN. AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the Air Transport Association, representing virtually all of the certified scheduled airlines of the United States, I am taking the liberty of setting forth our views with respect to S. 4208. We have reviewed this bill in an effort to determine its effect on aircraft operations. The bill purports to encompass under a national wilderness preservation system all national forest areas, national park system areas, natural wildlife refuges and ranges, Indian reservations, and any other public land which could be preserved as wilderness areas. As a part of the areas here mentioned, the bill provides for control under the system "of all related airspace reserva tions" (sec. 2, p. 4). Such reservations are not spelled out in the bill, and it cannot be determined what is meant by this term; the extent of such a reservation and how it is composed; by whom such reservations are determined; and the regulations pertinent thereto. For example, within a national forest area, the use of aircraft where "practices have already become well established may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Chief of the Forest Service deems desirable." The bill does not explain where such practices became "well established." If the national wildlife preservation system is granted the power, inferred in the example above, to determine the extent of such related airspace reservations and to designate the same on a unilateral basis, such action could seriously affect aircraft operations over flying areas encompassed under the system. Also, under the bill, in national-forest areas the Secretary of Agriculture is given the authority to designate additional areas for inclusion in the system. So could the Secretary of Interior, in the case of Indian reservations. If airspace is included in such authority, we have additional agencies unilaterally determining the extent of airspace and controlling it by their individual regulations. The authority for establishing an airspace reservation is set forth in section 4 of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 570; 49 U. S. C. 174). Acting under this authority, civil aviation agencies have established detailed procedures for establishing airspace reservations. It should be noted that the airspace reservation over the Superior National Forest was established under the authority of the Air Commerce Act and under the procedures established by the civil aviation agencies. We strongly suggest that it be made absolutely clear in the bill itself that it is not intended to change in any way the present authority or the present methods whereby airspace reservations are established. In this regard we suggest that a special provision be added to the act under section 3 (c) as follows: "SEC. 3. (c) (6) Other provisions of this Act to the contrary notwithstanding, related airspace reservations encompassed under the wilderness system shall be those as established in accordance with the provisions of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 570; 49 U. S. C. 174) and in accordance with the procedures established thereunder." Sincerely yours, Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, LEO SEYBOLD, Vice President, Federal Affairs. PORT ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Chairman, Senate Interior Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: The board of directors of this chamber of commerce, in meeting this date, passed unanimously the following resolution: "The Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce requests holding public hearings on wilderness preservation bill, S. 4028, in the West, before any action is taken." Thank you for your attention. Respectfully, Mrs. ITA M. THOMAS, Manager. STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, AFL-CIO LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE The AFL-CIO supports S. 4028 for two main reasons: (1) Labor has a real and genuine interest in preservation of the wilderness, just as it has in the conservation of all our land and resources. Labor is help ing to shape a more leisurely society for its members, their children and all America. In such a world, the remaining areas of wilderness, of our country in its natural state, will have greater value by far than they have today, when the value of wilderness is just beginning to be recognized. Not merely the increasing leisure time of labor and of all the people of the United States, but the increasing population will bring constantly greater pressures, on those areas, already limited, which permit outdoor recreation. Such recreation culminates in the unspoiled outdoors, in areas, as the bill says, "untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." 30973-58--15 It has been argued that only a few persons enjoy wilderness or can afford the time and money needed to make trips into a region without roads and other facilities. The fact is, if we are correctly informed, that in almost every case of existing parks or wilderness areas, access to the edge of the wilderness is easy and the cost is not excessive. Further, the minority which uses the wilderness is steadily growing. In any event, the Nation is large enough, rich enough, and farsighted enough, to set aside a fraction of its area for that minority, for those people who derive physical and spiritual renewal from intimacy with nature. If the few acres so reserved were commercially exploited, even assuming that they contain resources which might produce a profit for a few, they would not improve living standards for the great majority of the American people. (2) We favor the preservation of wilderness areas for reasons other than recreation. Wilderness has practical values, even though they cannot be measured in dollars, of obvious benefit to the Nation. Wilderness is often the best and cheapest form of soil and watershed conservation. Its destruction would invite more land erosion and flood. Wilderness is assurance, and it is also insurance, that there will always be a place where wildlife and fish can be obtained, for sport and food, for breeding purposes to restock depleted lands and streams. Finally, the scientific value of wilderness should be stressed. There the processes of nature can be studied. Man has learned and will continue to learn there about natural processes, about the recurring cycles of birth, growth, decay, and death. As to the operation of a wilderness system, it is our conclusion that the bill is adequate. It would leave the jurisdiction of Federal lands in the agencies which now administer them. It would set up no new administrative unit, and apparently would not involve the Federal Government in large additional expenditures. Mechanisms are provided for the establishment of new units in the system, but only with congressional approval. The special provisions of the bill safeguard the rights and interests of users, such as stockmen, already established in affected areas. The bill seeks to preserve wilderness without destroying the rights or property of people who have established dependence on the areas. We believe that the National Wilderness Preservation Council will serve a useful purpose. Although it has no administrative authority, it will be in a position of responsibility, and will have constant access to information about agency operations under the act. It would serve as an information clearinghouse and as a central repository for records, which would otherwise be scattered among various bureaus and departments. Its annual report to the Congress would, of course, be a public document and would make certain that Congress and the public are both informed about the administration of the wilderness. The authorization for the Council's expenses, $100,000 a year, seems a modest sum. Lastly, the presence on the Council of two department heads and the appointment of citizen members by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate would seem to insure Council members of high caliber. In conclusion, we do not wish to leave the impression that the preservation of wilderness is a field in which labor has an exclusive interest. We see this as a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, nonprofit task, one which is important to all citizens, no matter of what color, creed, or economic status. The United States will be a better place in which to live if we are wise enough to preserve adequate wilderness units for all the purposes which such units will serve. STATEMENT OF CITIZENS NATURAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATION My name is Charles H. Stoddard and I have been asked by the board of directors of the Citizens Natural Resources Association of Wisconsin to express their support in favor of the new wilderness bill, S. 4028, introduced by Senators Humphrey, Douglas, and Neuberger. At the hearings on the earlier draft of this bill our group expressed its complete support of the objectives of the bill. It is the feeling of the association that the revised version of the bill is an improvement and does take care of some of the objections raised by the administrative agencies without greatly weakening the central purpose of the measurethat of assuring by law the continued maintenance of wilderness areas now protected only by administrative regulations. I should like to address our remarks to answering two main points which the opposition will present: that wilderness areas abnegate the multiple-use |