Page images
PDF
EPUB

Finally, ORRRC recommended that—

Congress should enact legislation to provide for the establishment and management of certain primitive areas (class V), as wilderness areas (p. 131).

Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that the whole report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission supports the wilderness concept as essential to the entire outdoor recreation pattern, and supports the need for legislation-that is, a wilderness bill.

It is clear as well that ORRRC recommended a wilderness management policy even more restrictive than would S. 4. For example, it recommended against any mechanical transportation, except that needed for protection against fire, insects and disease (p. 113). S. 4 would permit use of aircraft and motorboats if their use is already established.

ORRRC recommended that

any economic use of the [wilderness] area, such as the grazing of livestock, that may exist at the time of its establishment should be discontinued as soon as practicable and equitable, and no further commercial utilization of the resources should be allowed (p. 113).

S.4 provides for the continuation of grazing, and also a procedure whereby wilderness can be prospected, or used for reservoirs and other water structures, transmission lines, roads, related facilities, and so forth. Furthermore, section 11 of S. 4 provides specifically that the Federal Power Act shall not be affected.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to us that S. 4, passed by the Senate in 1961 as S. 174, is very reasonable legislation. We believe the Senate bent over backward in meeting the demands of the opponents of wilderness-too far in the instance of section 11, which ought to be eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, the league supports S. 4. We appreciate the privilege of presenting our view.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Dennis, we appreciate your testimony. It has been very helpful to the committee. Thank you.

The next witness is Mr. O. F. Barnett, representing the Defenders of Wildlife.

Mr. Barnett?

(No response.)

Senator METCALF. Mr. Barnett is not here.

Without objection, permission will be granted for him to insert his testimony in the record.

The next witness will be John L. Berry, American White Water Affiliation.

Mr. Berry?

(No response.)

Senator METCALF. We now will hear a statement read by Mr. George Hammond, president, the American Camping Association.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE HAMMOND, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN CAMPING ASSOCIATION

Mr. HAMMOND. The American Camping Association, the national professional organization representing the camping movement in America, wishes to be on record as strongly supporting the wilderness

bill S. 4.

Our association is comprised of agency, private and public camping leaders involving youth, adults, and family constituents.

Over 20 million people will participate in some form of camping this year. The importance of wilderness areas will become more important with the passing years. A growing population and a prosperous Nation demand that we provide at least the amount of land proposed in S. 4 for the use of its citizens as a wilderness area. Many campers, including organized groups, families and others, make trips into wilderness areas for the express purpose of seeing and being a part of such unspoiled natural wonders. Our organization envisions more and more organized camping that will be able to take advantage of these areas as camps are expanded. For instance, trip and pack camping have unlimited possibilities for organized groups. These wilderness areas have esoteric and intrinsic values that all Americans during the coming years need to capture.

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Hammond.

The next witness will be William Zimmerman, Jr., representing the Sierra Club.

Mr. Zimmerman.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ZIMMERMAN, JR., FOR THE SIERRA CLUB

The

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William Zimmerman. I am Washington representative of the Sierra Club, with offices at 710 Dupont Circle Building. Sierra Club is a national, nonprofit organization, founded in 1892 by John Muir and some of his friends. It had 182 charter members. Although sometimes regarded as a local California organization, actually the club now has about 20,000 members in all States of the Union. In recognition of its spreading membership and its national status, the club now has a Washington office. I have been heard by this committee and one of its predecessors over a period of nearly 30 years, but this is the first statement I have submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club.

The club's purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to explore, enjoy, and preserve the scenic resources of the United States and its forests, waters, wildlife, and wilderness; to publish scientific and educational studies about them; and to educate the people with regard to the National and State forests, parks, monuments, and other natural

resources.

In view of these purposes, which have guided the club for 70 years, it is obvious why it has been a strong and consistent advocate for the passage of a wilderness bill. At previous hearings, both in Washington and in California, the club's executive director, David R. Brower, has made clear the club's position. It is not necessary now to restate all of the arguments used, particularly in the light of the chairman's request that the present testimony be limited, so far as possible, to new matters. I shall confine myself, therefore, to two points.

The club wishes to record its strong opposition to the proposed commercial ski lift and auxiliary operations proposed for the San Gorgonio wild area. We fear the record previously made before the congressional committees obscures the fact that this area is not "locked up," as sometimes charged, but is actually being used by more people than

would use a commercial development. Local estimates give a total of 40,000 people who used this relatively small area last year. Whatever the merits of the proposal, we believe that a bill of national significance, such as the wilderness bill, is not the proper vehicle for an amendment which would exempt this one segment from the operation of the act.

Second, we hope that the Congress will see fit to eliminate the reference to the Federal Power Commission, which is, in substance, a reenactment of part of the Federal Power Act. That act, it is true, requires the Commission to make a finding that the construction of a power project within a Federal "reservation" as defined in the act, would not adversely affect the purposes for which the reservation was established. It seems to us clear that the construction of a power project within a wilderness area is patently harmful and contrary to the purpose of a wilderness area, but we see no reason why this burden of decision should fall on the Commission. It is our view that the intrusion of power projects, once a wilderness area has been established in accordance with the language of S. 4, should be permitted only with congressional sanction. Power projects such as are licensed by the Federal Power Commission are not built in a day. They require years of planning and construction. In no sense can the issuance of a license be called a national emergency. It is our recommendation, therefore, that the reference to the Commission be stricken from the bill, so that everyone will know that it is the intent of the Congress to reserve to itself the authority to change the boundaries of a wilderness area to permit such intrusion, or even to permit such construction within existing boundaries.

We should not wish it to appear, Mr. Chairman, even if you follow these suggestions, that we regard S. 4 as a perfect bill. We appreciate the hours and days which your members and your staff have spent in seeking language which would meet the approval of the Senate. Inasmuch as S. 4, now before you, is really S. 174 as passed by the Senate in the last Congress, we hope that your committee will now approve S. 4 with a minimum of amendments. As S. 174 evidently expressed the conclusions of an overwhelming majority of the Senate in the last Congress, our hope, naturally, is that S. 4, once it is reported, will again meet Senate approval without delay.

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman. It is always a pleasure to have you.

Two Members of the Senate who have been unable to appear previously are here and will conclude the testimony on S. 4.

The first of these is the original author of the wilderness bill, Senator Hubert Humphrey, of Minnesota.

Senator Humphrey.

STATEMENT BY HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, just as these hearings are being kept short and to the point, my statement supporting the wilderness bill (S. 4) will be of a similar nature.

The time for reexamining the facts, soliciting volumes of testimony, and holding extensive hearings has passed. Since the first major

wilderness bill was introduced in Congress in March 1957 (S. 1176 of the 85th Congress), literally thousands of pages of testimony have been gathered, evaluated, and acted upon.

This has not been an idle task. Many important changes in the original legislation have been made. The proposal to establish a permanent national wilderness preservation council has been eliminated. The original definition of a wilderness area has been modified considerably. The original regulations for the protection of wilderness areas have been revised and liberalized. In short, the measure introduced by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Anderson) represents a highly reasonable, temperate, and moderate approach to the objective of preserving certain parts of this Nation as wilderness areas.

Mr. Chairman, my association with this legislation is well known. I was honored to be the principal sponsor of the wilderness bill in the 85th and 86th Congresses. During my years as author of this bill, we held an extensive series of hearings throughout the United States, including such places as Bend, Oreg.; San Francisco, Calif.; Salt Lake City, Utah; Albuquerque, N. Mex.; Seattle, Wash.; and Phoenix, Ariz. Extensive hearings were also held in Washington.

In the 87th Congress, the able Senator from New Mexico assumed the role of principal sponsor. He did a masterful job of guiding the wilderness bill to an overwhelming victory in the Senate. The 78 to 8 majority accorded S. 174 in the 87th Congress is impressive evidence of the fundamental soundness of the bill. I profoundly regret the situation that subsequently developed in the House of Representatives. I feel totally confident that the wilderness bill would have received an impressive majority had the legislation reached the House floor for a vote.

As I indicated at the beginning of these remarks, they will be kept very brief. In fact, there is very little left unsaid about the wilderness bill. The members of the committee know the details intimately. The legislative history of this proposal is a model of reasonableness and commonsense. In my opinion, this committee should report the wilderness bill to the Senate floor promptly and without lengthy deliberations. I pledge my complete support for S. 4 when it comes before the entire Senate for its approval.

In fact, I predict that the 88th Congress will send the wilderness bill to President Kennedy for his signature.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that one of my recent floor statements relating to the wilderness bill be included with this statement in order to provide additional evidence of my support for this bill.

Senator METCALF. Without objection, it will go in. (The statement referred to follows:)

[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 28, 1962]

THE WILDERNESS BILL

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the first anniversary of the Senate's passage of the Wilderness Act has now passed. After 5 years of consideration, controversy, and compromise, the wilderness bill was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate on September 6, 1961, by a vote of 78 to 8.

This achievement was a tribute to the leadership and reasonableness of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Anderson). As chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, he sponsored S. 174 in this 87th

95399-63—17

Congress. He also saw it through the Interior Committee and secured the modifications required to accommodate it adequately to the many groups affected by this legislation. The Senator from New Mexico nevertheless managed to do this in a form adequate for the purposes of the legislation. The distinguished Senator has been widely and rightly commended for this accomplishment.

A recent editorial in the Living Wilderness commented: "Wilderness proponents realize that the Senate act goes too far in some respects in permitting nonconforming uses of wilderness and includes some procedural inconsistencies, but they also recognize that in general it is a sound and constructive measure which can greatly improve present conditions and establish a sound national policy and program."

Mr. President, it is regrettable to see wilderness proponents who are now defending this Senate act, with its many compromises, described as extremists who have demonstrated that they have no desire to compromise, and to see the proponents of wilderness preservation charged with refusing to debate the question of accommodating competing uses.

To emphasize the extent to which the proposals of wilderness proponents had been modified, let me recall some of the features of our original revised proposal for establishing a national wilderness preservation policy, but which were greatly changed-and with our concurrence, as we willingly and eagerly sought a consensus that would be truly national.

We proposed, for example, the establishment of a permanent national wilderness preservation council. This has been dropped entirely.

We proposed a national wilderness preservation system that would include at once all the wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe areas in the national forests; all the national parks and monuments with roadless areas as large as 5,000 acres; all the wildlife refuges and ranges with roadless areas as large as 5,000 acres; and also areas within Indian reservations and within various kinds of Federal lands that might be designated by their administrators in prescribed circumstances.

Mr. President, the Wilderness Act as passed by the Senate provided for establishment within the wilderness system of only the national forest, national park system, and wildlife areas. Furthermore, for all the park and wildlife areas and for the primitive areas within the forests the act, as passed, set up a 10-year review program for permanent establishment of the system. And for any other areas to be set up as wilderness, a separate act of Congress would be required.

ness.

Our original proposal set up strict requirements for protecting areas as wilderThese also were greatly modified with regard for users of the areas for commodity purposes as seemed justified. For example, we originally proposed to prohibit mining entirely; the act as passed permitted prospecting that would not destroy the wilderness and mining that might be permitted by the President on his determination that it would be in the national interest. Thus, in many ways that I could further point out, the proponents of wilderness preservation compromised, modified, and clarified their proposed wilderness legislation to accommodate their own concepts to those of others. The result was the outstandingly reasonable measure for which I have so many times commended the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Anderson, for sponsoring and seeing through the committee and the Senate-with some further accommodating amendments, I may add.

In the opinion of 78 Senators the measure, thus carefully developed, will adequately protect user interests, as well as serve the national interest in having a wilderness system. It did not entirely represent what reasonable conservation groups would like. The proposal differs substantially from that which I originally introduced. It is truly a measure of democratic compromise, yet one that still maintains its original principles and purposes.

President Kennedy has supported this act and has urged its passage. Earlier this year he declared:

"We must protect and preserve our Nation's remaining wilderness areas. This key element of our conservation program should have priority attention. I therefore strongly urge the Congress to enact legislation establishing a National Wilderness Preservation System along the lines of S. 174, introduced by Senator Anderson."

I am sure the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in the other body also has given earnest consideration to this proposal. It has obtained testi

« PreviousContinue »