ever any opportunity for mining in any wilderness area. This section (A) is just so much pap, on page 15 of the bill. It is just pap which is just a sop to make somebody think they are getting anything, and anybody who believes that under section 6 (2) (A) there is ever going to be any prospecting, any mining, has been smoking the wrong kind of pipe.

Mr. BARNARD. Senator Allott, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Now, it is true that Congress was in a position where it couldn't authorize what was a very desirable water project because of the situation, but this was the point I was making.

Now, at this time they say, well, if you ever need water for people, of course, we are going to have a Presidential exception. I don't think that "of course" will follow 15 years from now when we find that without an adequate analysis, not only of the desirability of these lands as wilderness but also the potential future needs of these lands, possibly for water conservation rights-of-way, and possibly for electric transmission line right-of-way, that are necessary in order to make a water project feasible, that if we don't make a careful study of the potential conflicting uses, that may be required in the future and do it at the time we set aside the area, we in fact have effectively excluded those regardless of how pressing the need for them becomes. Now, I think another example that establishes this as a matter of history instead of as a mater of logic, what is said in the bill is logical and the President can make an exception, but as a matter of history it is almost impossible to accomplish, is this San Gorgonio situation which is certainly before the committee. I never heard about it while it was before this committee but we certainly heard about it last year before the Public Lands Subcommittee of the House Committee, the hearings which Mr. Dominick attended and I attended on the other side of the board, and it was clear that here are 3,500 acres in a valley that is self-contained which would not affect, according to the testimony of Mr. Deutch who presented this matter to that committee, wouldn't affect the rest of the area and they have got 8 or 9 million people, a very large percentage of which comparatively want to utilize a good skiing area.

Now, we in Colorado are fortunate. We have many areas that are available, that are very fine skiing areas. Of course, if it hadn't been for the mining activity and the creation of the town of Aspen, what is now the town of Aspen and the Aspen ski area, it would probably be in a wilderness area. But this happened a long time ago, wasn't developed, wasn't included in the area, so this didn't happen, but those in California and other places where the number of areas is limited I think we will see with increasing frequencies that the very areas that are most desirable for wilderness are also the most necessary or will become the most necessary for mass public recreation, and if we do have a conflict between mass public recreation and preservation for wilderness purposes, there has to be a balancing of those needs.

I am not saying one completely overrides the other. But where there is a conflict it should be recognized and Congress should act with its eyes open instead of taking the blind chance that such conflict will never develop. And this is what we fear in connection with the wilderness system.

Now, as far as the existing areas of wilderness, it is pretty well agreed that the size involved is not so substantial that any particular contest need be made. The principle applies not only to the primitive areas. The principle would apply to the existing wild and wilderness areas because those areas were examined and reexamined and the determination made not only the basis of a potential conflict in uses but whether or not it was satisfactory for wilderness use and that was the only consideration. I think that this is not in a essentially it is a public land zoning measure, that this is a proper way of going at it. The potential conflicts, the need of land for other purposes, possible future developments, necessary for rights-ofway, possible in the future for other developments, all ought to be considered and ought to be considered by this Congress instead of by an administrative agency who may be completely dedicated, may be completely honest, but have a very narrow function and a very narrow area of interest.

I think the former is better than the latter as a forum in which to take these areas up for consideration.

Senator METCALF. I am not quite clear as to what your position is and I think you have read a strong statement and made a strong supplemental statement. It is my fault that I didn't quite understand.

You are opposed to including any of these areas in the wilderness system.

Mr. BARNARD. No. I say that the principle-here is the thing: As to the primitive areas, there are three good reasons why they should not be included in the system, or perhaps I should put it this way, they should not be permanently included in the system except by a specific act of Congress.

One of these is that the areas themselves have not been specifically reviewed in detail as being suitable for wilderness areas. They are doing that. They are in the process of doing it.

Another is the fact that the conflicting uses have not been adequately considered, and I would have to think of a third point that I had.

But in the case of wild and wilderness areas, at least one of those reasons is satisfied. It has been carefully reviewed and there have been some public hearings, and so forth. I think our feeling is that because at least part of the objection has been removed and because of the rather limited size, some 6 million acres, we would not object to their immediate inclusion. But as far as the principle of an adequate review of each area by Congress, taking into consideration all of the various factors instead of just the limited factors of suitability for wilderness, that principle would apply to these areas but, in effect, we are saying we will compromise, or we would be willing to compromise, and I think it would be reasonable to compromise to the extent of including the wild and wilderness areas from the outset without the detailed review that as a matter of principle should be had. Senator METCALF. So largely the difference is how to handle the primitive areas of around an additional 6 million acres.

Mr. BARNARD. Yes.

Senator METCALF. And, of course, game refuges and wildlife refuges are in a little different category than the national forest or national park.

Mr. BARNARD. Yes. And, of course, it has long been my position, and I don't think this is again one of the important points of the bill because the actual practical effects are not too great, but it has long been my position that when lands have been set aside for a specific purpose, the fact that that purpose is not incompatible with wilderness does not justify another act setting it aside for that purpose, and I think the same is true of national parks. While the national parks are zoned, so to speak, for certain areas that are involved for mass recreation, certain areas that are to be retained as wilderness, in effect, this has been done, there is plenty of authority under the National Park Act. There has never been any serious difficulty with interfering with the Park Service and its administration. I could not and I still cannot see the logic behind including those areas within another system called the wilderness system.

But what we address ourselves to principally, the issue has narrowed itself principally to the primitive areas in the national forests. Senator METCALF. Thank you. You have clarified it very well for

me.

Senator Allott?

Senator ALLOTT. I just want to thank you very much, Mr. Barnard, for a very excellent statement. I assure you that your trip here in behalf of Governor Love and the State of Colorado was well worthwhile.

Mr. BARNARD. Thank you, sir.

Senator METCALF. Senator Dominick?

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate what my senior Senator has said. It is good to see you here, John, and I appreciate the work that you have done on this.

Mr. BARNARD. Thank you very much.

Senator METCALF. Thank you, and thank Governor Love for a fine paper.

Mr. BARNARD. I will do that, Senator.

Senator METCALF. Obviously this hearing has to go over until tomorrow to hear the witnesses. I am going to hear one more witness for the convenience of the Senators from Colorado and then adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow. And so the next and last witness for today will be Mr. John A. Wolfe, representing the Colorado Mining Association.

While Mr. Wolfe is preparing for his presentation I will read the statement of Mr. William C. Grayson, who is representing the Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. GRAYSON, VICE PRESIDENT, PROGRAM, AUDUBON NATURALIST SOCIETY OF THE CENTRAL ATLANTIC STATES, INC.

The Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, with a membership of more than 1,600 persons, fully endorses the wilderness bill and respectfully urges passage of this bill without any weakening amendments.

We appreciate the immeasurable value of wilderness and stress its importance to our civilization and culture and to future generations of our crowding country. These unique and irreplaceable areas are an integral part of our national heritage and, once spoiled, can never become wilderness again. There is no substitute for wilderness; we feel that these areas should be given the most immediate and fullest possible protection.

That completes Mr. Grayson's short statement.
You may now proceed, Mr. Wolfe.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. WOLFE, PRESIDENT, COLORADO MINING ASSOCIATION

Mr. WOLFE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is John A. Wolfe. I am president of the Colorado Mining Association. I am a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado and chief geologist of the Ideal Cement Co.

I would like to read a statement here and an appeal for amendment of the Wilderness Act, S. 4.

On behalf of the Colorado Mining Association, I want to present a request that the proposed Wilderness Act, S. 4, be amended to protect the use of the resources within the areas which may be subject to the bill. More particularly, it is extremely important that large portions of the terrain which are most promising for the future production of pristine mineral wealth not be prevented from contributing to our economy.

Mineral resources of the world have been 2 billion years in formation. The natural processes of smelting, refining, and concentrating have made available the materials to build our civilization. Combined with the ingenuity and acumen to win them from the earth, they are the fundamental difference between our standard of living, the highest the world has ever known, and that of the hungry, impoverished, backward lands. Poor nations are watching these hearings. To some, the proposed bill suggests that the United States is so rich and so unmindful of the needs of other countries that we propose to lock up our own resources and use theirs, possibly contributing to their further impoverishment.

Minerals are fundamentally different from any other resource. The quantity which is available is finite. When our available minerals are used up, there will be no more. A deposit that is irrevocably allocated to some other use is forever and irreplaceably lost to our economy.

I mentioned that it has taken 2 billion years for our mineral resources to be formed. To the best of our knowledge, our abundance will be consumed within the next few generations. Man himself has become one of the most powerful geologic forces. Dr. Hubbert devoted his presidential address to the Geological Society of America last November to the mounting professional concern that worldwide resources may be inadequate to sustain a high civilization. Some, unaware that our abundance is temporary, are demanding that potential mineral wealth be set aside. This nonuse is a luxury which the perspective of future history will prove that we can ill afford. Our times may be looked upon as an era which could not tell the difference between luxuries and necessities.

What many people will not believe is that we can enjoy the wild natural beauty of our mountainous West and still keep these regions available for the production of minerals which are needed to maintain the standards which permit this enjoyment.

I want to point out that in the decade starting in 1956 we are expecting to build as many highways, buildings, bridges, and dams as in the previous history of the Nation. This is literally the construction of another entire nation as great as the one which we now have. By the standards of 1975, every building predating 1955 will be substandard or obsolescent. In the decade following that, we may build two more Americas. This means that in the next 20 years we must find

and deplete three times as many Leadvilles and Buttes and Bingham Canyons and Mesabis and Ambrosia Lakes as we have already exploited. Think what this means in terms of steel, copper, zinc, concrete, and plastics, and in the energy requirements both in fossil and nuclear fuels.

I mentioned the natural processes whereby our minerals were concentrated into economic deposits. The same smelting process which made these metals available has heaped gigantic natural "slag piles" in our Western States. These slag piles are the mountains which we love and enjoy. They are in themselves the foremost clue to the pinpoints of potential wealth which are present in the mountain vastness. There is a small group who would set aside for their exclusive enjoyment some of our Nation's most resourceful areas. These same persons will be among the loudest in castigating the professional minerals engineers if we fail to provide the economic foundations for the America of tomorrow.

You gentlemen are being asked to choose between two points of view. First, there is a small but vociferous group of faddists who believe that "wilderness" is some sort of a goal sacrosanct in itself: "Nonuse must be preserved regardless of the economic price." There is a large group of people who have been persuaded to back the negativists' program. Unwittingly, they are urging the adoption of a program by which they will exclude themselves from visiting and enjoying those very spots of beauty that they think they are preserving for their use. Second, there is a small group of professional men who are trying to explain that surrender to the loudest voice would be inadvisable. This group is trying to say that it is possible to have and enjoy the luxuries of accessible wilderness areas while at the same time deriving benefits from the resources contained within them.

You have been asked by some to postpone a decision until some sort of an inventory can be taken of the resources within these regions. I feel that this is impossible. How can we use the standards of today to control the needs of tomorrow? No test can prove for all time that any region is barren or devoid of valuable minerals.

Stone Age man did not recognize the value that copper and bronze would have a few millenniums later. The copper-bronze man comprehended nothing about the future impact of iron and steel, only a few centuries ahead. A few decades ago, our citizens could see absolutely no use for the Four Corners area-Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. One Senator of that time stated that it was fortunate that the area was divided among four States, as no one State could possibly include the entire area and survive. Today, with oil and uranium production, it is the energy capital of the world.

I can illustrate this point with a personal experience that took place a few months ago. One of my field geologists, doing reconnaissance work, located a prospective deposit on public domain. Evaluation of the samples indicated that this tract warranted preliminary exploration. My properties engineer, in checking through the records, found that the Bureau of Land Management had classed this tract as nonmineral, withdrawn it from mineral entry, and reserved it as small tracts for sale to individuals. This is not a criticism of the policy of disposal of public lands by the small tract sales, nor of the technical competence of the professional men in the Bureau. It merely illustrates that it is virtually impossible to