Page images
PDF
EPUB

unless either House or Congress "shall have approved a resolution declaring itself opposed to such recommendation." This is the perilous and ineffectual remedy which I regard as a negative review. It is negative for the reason that the burden of proof shifts to Congress, obligating it to show why a Presidential recommendation is unacceptable. Such a procedure runs contrary to established practice and represents an abdication of congressional responsibility. Presidential recommendations with respect to wilderness are no different than those with respect to national parks, and there is no question but that the latter cannot be created without Congress taking affirmative action. Paradoxically, S. 4 and its forebears returns to the established form of affirmative review in section 3 (h), which states:

The addition of any area to, or the elimination of any area from, the wilderness system which is not specifically provided for under the provisions of this act shall be made only after specific affirmative authorization by law for such addition or elimination.

Similar language is, in my opinion, imperative for section 3(f). Only by this means can we be assured that suitable public lands will become a part of the wilderness system.

The merit of this approach continues to gain support. I was very pleased that the other body incorporated this concept of an affirmative review into H.R. 776-a bill reported last session. In my judgment, the negative review provision of the Senate bill is the major stumbling block in the path of wilderness legislation. Unless this committee or the Senate eliminates it, a wilderness preservation system is in jeopardy. There rests the crux of the matter, the decision remains to be made.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks.

I would like at this point to introduce some matter into the record. Senator ANDERSON. Surely.

Senator ALLOTT. First, these are all in opposition to the bill as it stands in toto or without the affirmative review provided for by the amendment which I have had printed and which is before the members of the committee.

The first is a wire from Mr. Eldon Zwicker, president of the Southwestern Colorado Livestock Association.

The second is a wire from Mr. A. J. Teske, secretary of the Idaho Mining Association.

The third is a wire from the Southwestern Cowbells of Cortez, Colo. The fourth is a letter from Mr. Ralph W. Crosser, of McGill, Nev., and I have discussed this with a member of the Nevada delegation. And there is another letter from Mr. Leroy Casody, also of Nevada. Then, lastly, I would like to introduce a statement from Judge Warwick M. Downing, who is known very well to the chairman of the committee, and who is one of the grand old men of conservation in Colorado and all over the West, and has been known for many years for his part in this.

He has asked me to insert in the record his statement in opposition to the bill as it is written.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator Allott. They will go in the record.

Senator Yarborough has a statement that he wants to have inserted in the record. I therefore want to say that if the members of the

committee have statements they want to have inserted in the record, permission will be granted at this point and they will be placed in the record at the end of the session.

(See pp. 66-99, 249-258.)

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Cliff?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD P. CLIFF, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. CLIFF. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Cliff, we will be glad to have you state your name and what position you occupy in the Department of Agriculture. Mr. CLIFF. Mr. Chairman, I am Edward P. Cliff, Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

Members of the committee, I am pleased to be able to be here today before your committee and on behalf of Secretary Freeman express again the strong support of the Department of Agriculture for the wilderness bill.

The policy of the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture to establish and maintain wilderness areas has been continuous since the first such area was established in 1924. We have consistently and enthusiastically recommended the enactment of wilderness legislation insofar as it would affect the national forests ever since the Department's report on such legislative proposals in the 85th Congress. Our strong support for this legislation has not diminished.

You have before you the Department's report on S. 4, signed by Secretary Freeman on February 21. It sets forth the Department's recommendation for the enactment of this legislation and includes our recommendations for amendments.

In reporting and testifying on several occasions on the previous wilderness bills we have laid before you the facts about the wildernesstype areas in the national forests and the reasons we favor enactment of wilderness legislation. However, there have been some recent changes in statistics as to these areas since the material was furnished to your committee on the previous bill. The current data as to the number and kinds of areas and the acreage contained in them are set out in the Department's report, previously placed in the record. In the announcement of this hearing attention was directed to the extensive hearings which this committee has held on this legislation in the past, and it was requested that oral statements be limited, insofar as possible, to new material. I am happy to comply with this request and will be glad to undertake to answer any questions the committee may have.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Cliff.

Do you have the figure showing how many acres in the primitive areas would be covered in the wilderness system unless Congress took action to the contrary?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir. The number of acres in the 37 remaining primitive areas is 6,098,532.

Senator ALLOTT. Those are primitive areas?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Most people have agreed that the wild and wilderness areas should go into the wilderness system under the bill.

Since primitive areas have caused the discussion I was anxious to know actually how many of them there were.

Now, what about this canoe area in Minnesota? Were you in the Forest Service when the original arrangements were made with the State of Minnesota to take that over or are you familiar with it? Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir; I am familiar with it.

This canoe area is a special area which has congressional legislation behind it.

I think the first legislation was passed in 1930.

The Shipstead-Nolan Act, which provided for the protection of the water areas and the areas adjoining water areas in order to conserve them in their primitive condition.

The second major act was in 1948, I believe, the Thye-Blatnik Act, which gave congressional approval or direction to acquire the remaining private lands in this area, and enable it more effectively to be managed for that purpose.

The provisions as to this area do not exclude timber harvesting. In certain parts of the area, timber harvesting is permitted, but permanent roads are excluded. The area is managed primarily to preserve the wilderness nature of the canoe routes, and it is a very important wilderness type of area.

It does not fully measure up to the qualifications in the wilderness bill for a wilderness area.

This bill would simply include this unique area as part of the wilderness system and recognize the particular type of management which has been in effect and which has been sanctioned by Congress

for some time.

Senator ANDERSON. There was specific congressional action that it be handled in this way, was there not?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir, but it left the details of the administration to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, and it is administered under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Senator ANDERSON. So does this bill leave it there?

Mr. CLIFF. That is right.

Senator ANDERSON. So there was specific congressional authority for the very thing that this bill carries along with it?

Mr. CLIFF. That is correct.

Senator ANDERSON. Was not that bill strongly supported by the people of Minnesota, if you know, or was it not?

Mr. CLIFF. It has had strong support nationally. It is an area of national interest.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Kuchel?

Senator KUCHEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cliff, you were here earlier today when I asked Secretary Udall about the recommendations of the Department for a change in the language of the bill?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir.

Senator KUCHEL. In your department-your department makes practically the same recommendations for an amendment?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, our position is identical to the position of the Department of the Interior on that.

We feel that if power development is to be permitted it should have the same treatment as other commodity uses that might be permitted; that is, a requirement for a Presidential determination that

the development would be more in the public interest than would its denial.

Senator KUCHEL. Was that the department's position in the last Congress with respect to this particular

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir.

Senator KUCHEL. In making that recommendation has your department or your agency had occasion to consult the State governments involved, such as Minnesota ?

Mr. CLIFF. I do not recall that we have had specific discussions with the State governments on this point.

Senator KUCHEL. Do you not agree that their position ought to be a relevant part of these hearings?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, I do. And the bill would provide for a review of any proposals by the executives for the creation of new wilderness areas or a reclassification of primitive areas by the Governor of the State in which the area is located.

Senator KUCHEL. I read very hurriedly the report of the Federal Power Commission which, I take it, is divergent in its conclusion from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior, in that it believes that the divisions of the bill, as now written, pertaining to questions of power sites, ought to remain in the bill.

Mr. CLIFF. I am not sure I followed your question. Our

Senator KUCHEL. Well

Mr. CLIFF (continuing). Position is the Federal Power Commission could take action in issuing licenses but subject to Presidential determination that the development was needed.

Senator KUCHEL. Whereas the Federal Power Commission, I take

it, is

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, the Federal Power Commission likes the provisions of the bill as written.

Senator KUCHEL. I see. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I will take the responsibility of asking my State government to comment. I do think it is quite important.

The people of California have embarked, as you know, on a tremendous venture called the State water plan.

Presumably, it will be a multi-billion-dollar venture. They have approved bonds in the amount of $1,750 million. So they have a concern in the acts of Congress which would affect the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission and, to that effect, I do want an appropriate representative from my State government to comment on that particular position.

I mentioned earlier that there are people in California who have written to this Senator, urging that some area in southern California, San Gorgonio, be set aside in some fashion for recreation, and there are others who oppose that request.

I wonder if you could now or if, by an appropriate memorandum, you might furnish the committee a history of the interest in the San Gorgonio area in southern California, including the disposition which the department has made with respect to any requests to you administratively to open up any part of that area and the reasons which the department may have assigned for its rejection of those amendments or those recommendations, rather?

Mr. CLIFF. We will be glad to supply that history for the record.

I can say that this question has been up before. I think it was 1947, when there was strong interest in the development of it as a winter sports area, and there was a hearing held on a proposal to open up part of this area for development.

At that time the department decided that the area should not be developed for this purpose, and should be preserved for a while.

Now, the question is coming up again and, as you say, it is very controversial.

Senator KUCHEL. Has it arisen in the department since 1947?

Mr. CLIFF. We have had correspondence and a number of conferences with people who are interested in having this opened up. We have not agreed as of this time that it should be opened up.

We are suggesting that the proponents and the opponents try to discuss this among themselves and see if they cannot arrive at some mutual understanding or mutually agreeable position that the majority can recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture.

Senator KUCHEL. Does the department, in considering requests of this type, concern itself with the recreational needs of the people in the area involved?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir. We try to consider all of the resource values involved, as well as the wilderness values at stake.

Now, this area happens to be the largest wilderness area in southern California but actually it is a "wild area," since it is under 100,000 acres in densely populated southern California. It is within easy traveling distance of millions of people.

Its very location gives it added significance as wilderness. Because of its location it is one of the most heavily used pieces of land in the entire national forest wilderness system.

It is used for wilderness purposes by youth groups and by, oh, lots of other people. By the same token, it is one of the areas that has good snow in southern California.

It is within easy traveling distance. There are lots of people, skiiers, and they would like to see it used for skiing. We have a conflict here that is very difficult.

Senator KUCHEL. Has the department ever, in a similar situation any place in the country, seen fit to make available to sportsmen, and skiiers particularly, any part of an area previously classified? Have you ever done that any place else?

Mr. CLIFF. I do not recall any other instance where such an area has been opened up for skiing.

There are examples of where, in the reclassification of primitive areas, we have eliminated certain lands for various uses. We have

eliminated them for reservoir development and that sort of thing. I cannot recall one for skiing specifically.

Senator KUCHEL. Did I understand you to say that you have received requests from people in my State asking that the Department open up a portion of that range?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir.

Senator KUCHEL. How many requests have you received along those lines?

Mr. CLIFF. I could not say offhand, Senator Kuchel.

There has been considerable correspondence on it from, oh, probably a dozen people, but they are representing or purport to represent

« PreviousContinue »