Congress can make a determination. That development will slow down as a result of the passage of this act is without question. It is the purpose of this act to slow down such development, much of which in the past, was not prudently accomplished and much of which in the past has been noteworthy for its destruction. The amendments proposed but fortunately defeated in the last session of Congress were primarily aimed at establishing procedures that would require an act of Congress to place primitive areas, now considered and administered as wilderness, in the wilderness system. We hope that the purpose of "preserve" will be kept uppermost in the deliberation of all concerned and that procedures will not be adopted that would thwart this effort. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be little quesion that time is running out and if the people of the United States are to achieve any serious protection for areas not already intruded upon by the works of man, this is the golden opportunity to do so. Senator METCALF. Again out of order, to accommodate the witnesses, I am going to call Mr. Barnard, Mr. John B. Barnard, Jr. The committee has a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee and signed by the Governor, Governor John A. Love, of Colorado, and I am going to read just a part. "I regret that it is not possible for me to appear before the committee in person, but I have asked Mr. John B. Barnard, Jr., of Denver, Colo., to present to you my statement of the official position of the State of Colorado in regard to this proposed legislation." Without objection the letter in its entirety will go in the record at this point. (The document referred to is as follows:) Hon. HENRY JACKSON, THE STATE OF COLORADO, EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: Thank you for the privilege of presenting testimony before this committee in its consideration of S. 4, as proposed for passage by the U.S. Senate, to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System. I regret that it is not possible for me to appear before the committee in person, but I have asked Mr. John B. Barnard, Jr., of Denver, Colo., to present to you my statement of the official position of the State of Colorado in regard to this proposed legislation. Mr. Barnard will be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning our position and I will furnish any additional information that may thereafter be useful to the committee if you so desire. Respectfully yours, JOHN A. LOVE, Governor of Colorado. Senator METCALF. We are delighted to have you with us, Mr. Barnard, and go right ahead. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. LOVE, GOVERNOR, THE STATE OF COLORADO, PRESENTED BY JOHN B. BARNARD, JR., DENVER, COLO. Mr. BARNARD. Thank you. Senator ALLOTT. Mr. Chairman, may I just say a word? I have known Mr. Barnard all his life as I knew his very distinguished lawyer father and lawyer brother and his lawyer uncle. It is a family of lawyers. Mr. Barnard also was until recently, when his own pro fessional affairs pressed upon him so hard, first assistant attorney general of Colorado and has been conversant with matters, the subject matter of this bill, for a long time. Mr. BARNARD. Thank you, Senator Allott. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I will read the Governor's statement. It is rather short. And perhaps interdelineate one or two comments that have come to mind during the testimony today. We in Colorado have followed this proposed legislation with deep interest and concern, as, I am sure, have the other Western States where so much of our Nation's forest, park, monument, grazing, and other public lands lie. Certain basic points appear in the bill now before you to which we must take specific objection and on which we propose specific amend ment. I want to say in this connection that I was not unmindful of the fact that the committee today was concerned with matters occurring since the previous hearings. However, since we have a new administration in Colorado, we think in effect this is a new statement of position but it does reflect the fact that we have had virtually unanimity among the official agenices of Colorado in respect to our position on this bill, and basically they are in support of Senator Allott's proposals, and we have one or two new thoughts from the Governor that are contained in the statement. Probably most fundamental of these objections lies in the original designation of the wilderness system. By enactment of S. 4, the Congress will provide for the establishment of the principal portion of the wilderness system, including all national forest areas designated on the date of the act by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe; and including all roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more in the national park system. The designation of primitive areas as parts of the wilderness system are subject to Presidential review and subsequent recommendation to the Congress. Following their receipt, the recommendations shall take effect on the day following adjournment sine die if neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate has resolved opposition to the recommendation, such resolution to include committee hearings on such opposition. We should like strongly to express support for affirmative congressional designation by specific legislation of those areas found to be suitable for identification as a part of the wilderness system, rather than by the cumbersome method now proposed by the bill, of a Presidential recommendation subject to the negative action of the Congress. Such affirmative action will insure the representation before the Congress of any information or recommendations by the executive department pertinent to the designation of areas for inclusion in the wilderness system, and it would avoid the essentially negative method of a veto on Presidential recommendations. Further, we believe strongly that wilderness areas so created by specific act of the Congress also avoids the present identification by administrative order with the concomitant possibility of an arbitrary wilderness designation. With congressional designation of wilderness areas, and the expression of public policy which would accompany such legislative 95399-63- -10 action, such designations would exclude future administrative orders setting aside comparable areas under the guise of such other designations as: Virgin, natural, roadless, and scenic. I note that the bill provides that additions to, or eliminations from, the wilderness system shall be made only after specific affirmative authorization by law. We applaud this provision and restate our belief that it is a far preferable to authorize the system and its expansion or contraction by specific acts of the Congress. The bill directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to include in their recommendations the independent views of the Governor of the State in which a potential addition to the wilderness system is proposed. I suggest that you may wish to pluralize the word "Governor," if such proposed area involves more than one State. I sincerely suggest further that no area should be designated as a wilderness or wilderness-type area within the boundaries of any State or States without the prior and express approval of the Governor or Governors of the States affected. Similarly, recommendations for designation of segments of the wilderness system, or additions and deletions in the system, should be submitted to interested Federal agencies not under the jurisdiction. or authority of the Secretaries of Agriculture or Interior. Such agencies would include, but not be limited to, the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Interstate Commerce Commission. These agencies should determine whether designation of a segment of the wilderness system would conflict with proposed or projected programs for which they would be responsible. Following such review by the States through their Governors and by other interested Federal agencies, the Congress would be in possession of complete and pertinent data with full recommendations on which to base appropriate legislative decision. I should like to direct the committee's attention to the well-known problems of water supply, storage, and use-particularly in the semiarid west, and to urge that this bill provide appropriate review of the effects of wilderness classification upon the stringent problems of water supply and conservation, as well as upon economic and industrial development. With the rapid rise in western population, and the effects of that growth on basic water and other development, including mining, it seems clear that wilderness classification of any area should receive careful joint review by Federal and State agencies prior to its inception. We believe that provisions for public hearings as presently provided in the bill are inadequate. Before any areas are recommended for inclusion in the wilderness system, the full findings of mandatory public hearings should be incorporated in the reports of the Secretaries or the Federal agency having jurisdiction. Such public hearings should characterize not only the original designation, but also the subsequent actions proposing boundary modifications of the wilderness areas. The records of such hearings also should be submitted to the Governor or Governors of the State or States involved for their guidance and for their comments thereon for the record. We note with interest and approval under section 6(c) of the bill that Presidential approval may be extended to certain land uses within the wilderness system compatible with the national interest and the interests of the citizens. I suggest that you may wish to make specific in the bill a provision that where States, for the benefit of their counties, have been receiving revenues from areas within the boundaries of the national forests, the continuity of such revenues may be guaranteed. The loss of such revenues could be of serious consequence to the small, mountainous counties with limited tax resources. I note further that Presidential approval in section 6(c) may be extended to transmission lines, where desirable, as a permitted land use. I am inferring that such language in the bill includes power lines, communication lines, and fuel transmission pipe lines. Section 6(a) of the bill implies that hunting and fishing will be permitted in areas included in the wilderness system. I assume that is exclusive of the national park areas, and so forth. For the wise and conservative management of game and fish resources, I urge that the bill specifically authorize the respective States to manage these resources within the wilderness system and that hunting and fishing be encouraged to the greatest extent possible and compatible with the operations of the system. In making these recommendations I recognize full well the necessity for regulating and controlling the activities of recreationists, including hunters and fishermen who use our public lands. In submitting these comments for your review, we are acutely aware of the tremendous responsibilities which you face in the consideration of this bill. I want to assure you of our support for this bill if the amendatory recommendations which we are making to you are adopted. These recommendations are based on our firm belief that the Congress should be responsible through specific legislative action for the creation of the wilderness system and any subsequent modifications to that system. With our population growth in Colorado and in the West, we are extremely aware of public pressures and the need for designation of such areas as this bill proposes in its well-drafted statement of policy. We are equally concerned that the serious and wide-reaching impact of this bill be a continuing congressional responsibility, supplemented by specific executive department and State participation, to the end that potential economic development and population growth may not be denied full use of necessary natural resources consistent with the preservation of wilderness areas, defined to permit efficient administration and maximum public use. Should the committee desire further expansion or clarification of these comments and recommendations, I should be privileged to provide them. I want to add to that one or two comments concerning the statements that were made this morning, particularly in the field of water resource development. I think the Secretary of the Interior misspoke himself when he said that these wilderness areas were all at high altitudes where there is very little runoff anyway. It is at these high altitudes where we have the extremely high runoff. In Colorado the variation from the low valley areas, with annual precipitation of something in one place under 5 inches, to the high mountains where the precipitation averages 40 inches per annum, most of which is in the form of snow and most of which runs off within a 2-month period, it is in those very high elevation areas that it is necessary to construct works for the storage or diversion of water into other areas where it may be stored, and this is one of the principal concerns we have, is that while at the present time the Secretary may indicate that there are few dam sites within the proposed wilderness areas, there are no dam sites-no dams being built today on sites that were considered good dam sites 30 years ago, but times and conditions change and as our per capita use of water increases, as well as the increase in population itself, things must be done and major projects built that were not conceived of 30 years ago. Now, this is entirely possible 30 years from now. The answer that has been given to this is, well, if this occurs, the President may make an exception under the appropriate provision of the act. This is very logical. But logic and history are not the same things. And I cite as an example of the stopping, the halting, the refusal of an excellent water conservation program because not that it interfered with some natural monument but that it interfered with the principle of national monuments, the deletion and the death of the Echo Park Dam under the upper Colorado storage dam project some years ago. If we at this time have a congressional statement of policy and inclusion and later on say, well, this is a matter of principle and you can't do this, it could very well have a very detrimental effect on water resource development in the future. Senator METCALF. May I interrupt a moment? I went through the Echo Park files and, believe me, I supported the present Chairman of the Interior Committee and Mr. Aspinall in a good part of that fight, but it was Congress that cut out Echo Park from that Upper Colorado system, not the President. Mr. BARNARD. Congress cut it out, that is true, because the power of these conservation groups was such that the act could not be passed without its deletion. And the reason why they opposed this was not that it did any real injury but that it violated the sanctity and inviolability of the Antiguities Act and monument designated under that act. Senator METCALF. I probably received more mail on that Echo Park thing than I have received at any other time since I came to Congress before we had the withholding question up last year, but that wasn't the only reason. There were many other reasons advanced and many of the conservationists really believed that Echo Park should be a national park. It wasn't a violation of the principle. But my point is that it was Congress that took that out. This wasn't an executive thing. And the Upper Colorado bill would never have passed the Congress had we not reached an agreement deleting the Echo Park and satisfied the conservation people. Senator ALLOTT. I think that is what Mr. Barnard just said, isn't it? Senator METCALF. Yes. Senator ALLOTT. At least I understood him to say that. Senator METCALF. I don't see the analogy between going to the President, because this was a case where Congress acted. Senator ALLOTT. Well, I don't know about the analogy of going to the President. I think it is fact that this is what took it out, the pressure of the so-called conservationists, and in this case it was socalled conservationists. But I don't think anyone can contend that under the mining provisions of this bill, for example, that there is |