Mr. CLIFF. As I understand your question, if we iss leases in the areas which have been applied for, what is revenue? Mrs. ProST. That is right. Mr. CLIFF. What would be the loss of revenue! Mrs. PrOST. What about leasing in wildlife refuge a ranges? Mr. CLIFF. We have no responsibility for the administra mineral leases on the wildlife refuges. Mrs. Prost. That is right, because those areas come ett ri the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. I will withdraw that part of my question concerning teg uges as it does not pertain to your Department. (COMMITTEE NOTE.-By agreement with the departments, data were consolidated and included with material fursa Secretary of the Interior. See p. 1176.) Are there further questions from the committee member Mr. Pearl do you have some questions? Mr. PEARL. No, Madam Chairman. Mrs. PrOST. Do you, Mr. Witmer? Mr. WITMER. No, Madam Chairman. Mrs. PrOST. You have been extremely patient. We are n ciative for your tolerance this afternoon. We have certainly tried everyone's patience, and we t'.... much for your wonderful cooperation. (Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the committee was recesses · convened at 9: 45 a.m., Tuesday, May 8, 1962.) WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1962 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:50 a.m., in the mittee room, New House Office Building, Hon. Gracie Pfost Airman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mrs. PrOST. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will now come to wer for the further consideration of the wilderness preservation sys a measures. The first witness this morning will be Mr. John C. Mason, Deputy sel, Federal Power Commission, accompanied by Mr. William R. Farley, Chief, Division of Licensed Projects, Bureau of Power, FedPower Commission. The Federal Power Commission's comments on this legislation have **n received and were placed in the record during yesterday's meet STATEMENT OF JOHN C. MASON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM R. FARLEY, CHIEF, DIVISION OF LICENSED PROJECTS, BUREAU OF POWER, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; AND JAMES N. WOOD, ATTORNEY, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION Mr. MASON. Madam Chairman, I took the liberty of bringing Mr. James N. Wood, an attorney, with me this morning. Mr. Wood works legislative matters. Mrs. ProST. You do not have a statement; do you? Mr. MASON. I do not have a prepared statement. As you have indicated, the Commission's reports, which were subted on May 4 have been incorporated in the record. We came wn for the purpose of trying to give you a little information on the tionship between this proposal for the wilderness system and the Federal Power Act. We were here yesterday and heard the testimony of Secretary Udall and Secretary Freeman and that question, as you know, came up on everal occasions. I thought it might be helpful if I very briefly outined the relationship between the proposed wilderness system and the Federal Power Act as we see it from the Federal Power Act angle. When the Federal Power Act was passed in 1920 it gave the Com mission jurisdiction and authority to issue licenses to non-Fede entities, States, and municipalities, or corporations and associatio organized under State law, so-called non-Federal entities. It gave the Commission authority to issue licenses to them for wat power projects to be located on public land and reservations. N that is the part that we are interested in here today, although as a s issue the Commission also has authority to issue licenses for proje on navigable waters and at Government dams. At the time the act was passed in 1920 all public lands and reser tions were subject to the Commission's licensing authority. In 19 Congress by special act removed national parks and national mor ments then in existence from the Commission's licensing authority the theory there would be no waterpower development in those spe fied areas. Later that was amended to include national parks and nation monuments subsequently authorized to be set aside. So the today by its terms excludes national parks and monuments whet created prior to 1920 or whether created in the future. That is t only exception to the Commission's licensing authority of a consequence. As we looked at these bills when they were before the Senate concluded that the reservations that would be created by the wild ness bills would be no different from the forest reservations or a other reservation as far as the Commission's licensing authority concerned, and that is the way we originally interpreted the bi However, we later learned that Interior and principally For Service intended the bills to exclude the Commission's licensing a thority and at that point we then began to think about and lat recommended a saving clause that would preserve the Commission licensing authority in the wilderness system after enactment of t bills. That first saving clause that was recommended would have sav the Commission's jurisdiction in "wilderness," "wild," "canoe," a "primitive" areas as we understand them from the record. Our investigation, however, of the wild, wilderness, and canoe are as designated by the Forest Service showed that in those areas presently designated by the Forest Service, the hydroelectric pote tial; that is, undeveloped hydro, was minor, unimportant. There w very little in those areas that showed promise of development. However, in the primitive areas our investigation showed or 3 million kilowatts of undeveloped hydroelectric capacity. The are not just sites that somebody knows are there, someone know about; these are sites that have been investigated. We have a tab lation which, through oversight, we did not give to you with ou report and I would be very glad to furnish it for the committ because I think it would be helpful in showing by site, State an project name this 3 million kilowatts of undeveloped hydroelectr capacity in the primitive areas. Mrs. ProST. I think, Mr. Mason, that would be very helpful t the committee. Without objection, it will be placed in the record following you remarks. (See p. 1240.). Mr. ASPINALL. Reserving the right to object and, of course, I sha not object. Is this pointed to the primitive areas concerned? D have a definite geographical location of all of these proposed ersite locations? Mr. MASON. The answer is "Yes." We know the precise site and has a common name and all of these have been investigated_by ce agency, either the Army or Federal Power or Bureau of Reemation or the U.S. Geological Survey. Mr. ASPIN ALL. Do I understand that this will be Mr. MASON. A clean copy of that tabulation. Mrs. PrOST. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MASON. With that in mind, with the 3 million hydroelectric tential in the primitive areas in mind, the Commission last week considering its latest report of May 4 decided to reiterate, or this ent Commission again requested that the bill be amended to inde the savings clause that would protect the Commission's licensing hority with respect to primitive areas or any other areas that might er be added under the provision of one of the bills that the Forest Service has some authority to put further areas in the wilderness em. However, the testimony here yesterday indicated to me that there some doubt as to the exact areas that will eventually be included in wilderness system under the present pending bills, and I am not clear about it except there was some discussion and some request the committee for further information as to whether the area might entually be 50 or 60 million acres or larger. If those areas that later come in have hydroelectric potential then, of course, the Commission's same assumption or theory should be aped and that is that the licensing authority of the Commission Could be preserved with respect to any other areas that are brought nhat do have a definite hydroelectric potential. We do not know what those are at the present time and that was e reason for the limitation of the saving clause of the primitive as, because we do know that that is where the potential is today of and we were definitely able to segregate as going into the system. Tnder the Federal Power Act, which was passed in 1920, and has Pained substantially unchanged since that time, before the Comssion can issue a license for a project in a reservation, it must find at the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose which the reservation was created or acquired. That provision Aself might result in the Commission refusing to issue a license for project in a primitive area if the type of development was such that finding could not be made. In addition, the Commission under that same provision of the act rts conditions in the license for the protection of the reservation olved, national forest, or whatever it may be. And the Commission has denied a license in the Namakagon hydro because the Commission found the scenic values on the Namagon River in Wisconsin were unique and should not be disturbed ydroelectric development. It might do so in other cases. Really what the Commission is talking about is not whether to bene a license in a particular case but whether or not it should have sing authority after the act is passed with respect to primitive areas where there is substantial hydroelectric development. The Commission was set up by Congress in 1920 and has continu ever since as the agency which balances uses of land within reser tions after receiving reports and recommendations from all agenc involved, including the State agencies. The Commission must find before it licenses that the particul project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for all public p poses, and in 1935 the act was amended to specifically include recr tion as one of those purposes. So the Federal Power Act was design to weigh all of the various uses and was an effort by Congress to p vide a means for the ultimate utilization of reservations for power a other purposes. I think generally, Madam Chairman, that is the Commission's terest in these bills and in a very brief way I have attempted to gi you the relationship as we see it between the pending bills and t Federal Power Act. (The information referred to, to be furnished by Mr. Mason, gether with other information furnished by the Federal Power Co mission appears at p. 1240.) Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much, Mr. Mason. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspina Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Mason, have these reports which you sent under date of May 4 been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. MASON. That particular version or those particular pieces paper have not been, but reports which are to all intents and purpo the same as these in substance have been just recently submitted Budget, and they offered no objection to the reports. Mr. ASPINALL. Let me ask you this: What position is this committ supposed to take when we do have a conflict here between the repo of the Department of Agriculture and the report of the Departme of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission on this particul matter, and all matters are supposed to have cleared through the a ministration's highest hearing agency for the President? Mr. MASON. That is a very delicate area. Based on my own e perience at the Federal Power Commission, the Commissioners of t Federal Power Commission in many respects, and the Commissi itself, is considered by many to be an agency of the Congress rath than part of the executive department, and my personal view is th it is somewhere in between, and this question of whether the indepen ent agencies should conform their views to the Bureau of the Budget the administration or executive branch has always been a very troub some question. Our present relationship with the Bureau of t Budget is that they do not attempt to tell us what our reports shou be. They do ask that we submit them for consideration and commer and that is the present procedure. We do that and they then tell whether there would be objection or not to the submission of t report. A report with this saving clause in it and substantially the same 1 port you have before you has been to Budget. They have advius there is no objection, that the Commission was free to submit tì report; and that is the way it was handled. Mr. ASPINALL. After all, that very common phrase that the Bure of the Budget uses, that they have no opposition to the report of t various departments or agencies, whatever they may be, means simp |