S. 1123 is contrary to existing national policy.—The bill conflicts with existing national policy by refuting the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which established a national policy for the promotion of exploration and development of oil and gas in the Federal lands and waters. That policy was bolstered, subsequent to 1920, by the enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. We would like to know if the Congress is going to contribute to the piecemeal and large-scale repudiation of this policy by enactment of legislation such as S. 1123. America's needs for oil are rapidly increasing. In order to meet the estimated demands for oil, between now and the year 1967, and to maintain necessary domestic reserves, we must find 11⁄2 barrels of new oil for every barrel of oil we take out of the ground. We can ill afford to lock up potentially productive sedimentary basins in a vast wilderness preserve. This is particularly true here in Arizona, where 1958 saw a marked increase in the industry's interest in the State as well as its fifth producing well. Large scale exploration must continue if Arizona's oil future is to be assured. To assure the continuance of such interest in Arizona, land must remain available.

S. 1123 contradicts the policy outlined by the Congress in enactment of Public Law 85-470, which established a National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. This Commission is charged with the responsibility of estimating the Nation's recreational resource needs for the years 1976 and 2000, and reporting thereon to the President by the year 1961. It is noted, within Public Law 85-470, that the major premise of the Commission should be "to preserve, develop, and secure accessibility to all American people ** of our recreation resources In section 1(b) of S. 1123, we find mention of recreational uses of the proposed wilderness areas-but no provisions as to accessibility. In fact this entire piece of legislation denies accessibility to all but a small segment of our population.

*** 99

The provisions of the bill are inconsistent with the recent mandatory oil import program. Restricting the amount of foreign oil that could be brought into the United States was done with the definite purpose of bolstering the health of our domestic industry. Domestic drilling activities which have been slumping (presently only two-thirds of the record rate of 3 years ago) are expected to increase--provided land is available. The closing of vast areas of land by this bill will jeopardize the desired effects of the oil import controls. Our domestic demand for oil in 1967 will be in excess of 14 million barrels a day. Unless exploration activities are intensively increased, we will be able to supply only two-thirds of this amount in 1967 from domestic production. To lock up sedimentary basins today, by classifying them as wilderness, will in the future, directly and adversely affect this Nation's economy.

It is necessary to stress the fact that enactment of wilderness legislation will adversely affect the economy of the west and, specifically, that of the State of Arizona. Within the 11 Western States, there are 623,438 people employed in industries that will be directly affected by the locking up of lands as wilderness. The total payroll of these individuals is $3,294,348,260. Narrowing the focus to Arizona, we find there are 27,120 people employed in natural resources industries affected by this legislation, with a payroll of $144,800,000. Enactment of S. 1123 will place 3,784,796 acres in a single use category. This constitutes 11 percent of all the Federal land in a State where 70 percent of the land is presently owned or managed by the Federal Government.

There has been created in Arizona a political and business climate attractive to industry and to large and small business in general. Its population will increase. It is expected that by 1970 Arizona will have 1,802,000 satisfied residents. The State's water needs will increase, and as a resident of California, I will not press this point further. To provide the goods and services as well as the space to support such population growth, land is needed. Rather than support legislation designed to restrict the use of this State's land area, it would seem increasingly necessary to urge that large amounts of Federal lands within the State be turned over to State control.

In conclusion, I repeat that there is already too much wilderness in the Westtoo little in the East. The well-meaning conservationists, who so earnestly support this wilderness legislation, should use their dollars, now devoted to urging the Government to create western wilderness areas, in the reclamation of eastern lands. The citizens of the West do not feel that their main function is that of a park devoted to the recreational use of eastern citizens. We are not second-class citizens. We have a right to fully develop our economic potential.

I favor conservation; my company favors conservation; and the petroleum industry favors and practices conservation. In a word, conservaton not only has its place, but is needed in our society. But when it comes to the type of alleged conservation that favors limiting the use of resources that can be economically employed by the present generation so that future generations may have a larger supply, problems are generated which are impossible to solve with assurance. They involve weighing the economic or other advantages that may accrue to the future generations against the losses to the present generations. The difficulty in doing this arises from the uncertainty as to how important the resources saved will be to future generations in view of the unknown possibilities in the progress of science and invention. Though such progress seldom makes any resource useless. It has been responsible for vast changes in the relative importance of various resources to different generations. S. 1123 represents a failure to adequately consider and balance these losses and gains.

Finally, I refer you to the position taken by the Secretary of the Interior, Fred H. Seaton, who is quoted in a United Press release of March 21, 1959, as expressing the hope that the new mandatory import quotas would stabilize U.S. oil prices and encourage greater U.S. production. Seaton said, "I believe the control program will provide an incentive for more oil exploration; that is the reason for the program-to provide more oil to protect our national security." This position, with which we agree, is difficult to reconcile with the Secretary's support of the wilderness bill, which closes lands for more oil exploration— lands badly needed by the oil industry for the benefit of the public and for the purposes advocated by Secretary Seaton.

We appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Mr. STONG. Gordon Goodwin, Los Angeles, California, for the Richfield Oil Corporation.

STATEMENT OF GORDON A. GOODWIN, ATTORNEY, RICHFIELD OIL CORP.

Mr. GOODWIN. Senator Murray and Senator Goldwater:

My name is Gordon A. Goodwin. I am an attorney for Richfield Oil Corp. and I am appearing on behalf of Richfield Oil Corp. in opposition to S. 1123. Richfield is engaged in the exploration for and development and production of oil and gas in all of the Rocky Mountain States and Western States and in the new State of Alaska. This bill would lock up in a so-called wilderness system and close to humans and industry unlimited areas of federally owned or controlled lands and waters. Just how many millions of acres no one can tell. It would start out with about 55 million acres in the wilderness system, and any part of the public domain can be added to the system. Continuous pressure would be brought to bear on Congress by the wilderness lobby and other related pressure groups to enlarge the system and the new bureaucracy which will feed on this system.

The enactment of this legislation would be an abandonment of the congressional policy of promoting development of oil and gas resources on federally owned lands and waters. New discoveries of new reserves of oil and gas must continue and increase. This is a stern fact and places a responsibility on all of us in and out of Government.

How much more reasonable is the doctrine and policy of multiple compatible use. There are some weasel words about multiple use in subsection 1(d) of the bill insofar only as national forest lands are concerned.

39871-59-23

But this mention of multiple use is completely emasculated by subsection 1(e) and section 3 of the bill. Subsection 1(e) provides:

(e) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. * * *

The "wilderness" referred to includes all the land in the wilderness system.

Section 3(b) provides:

** ** no portion of any area constituting a unit of the wilderness system shall be used for any form of commercial enterprise not contemplated in the purposes of this act. ***

And it says there shall be no permanent road; nor any use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, or landing of aircraft, nor any other mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies, nor any temporary road, nor any structure or installation, in excess of the minimum required for the administration of the area for wilderness purposes. This language of the act is completely at variance with any philosophy of multiple use. Why are the sponsors of this bill afraid of other compatible use of the public domain?

The development and production of oil and gas are completely compatible with the use of all or any part of the public domain for forest, scenic, wildlife, wilderness, and for any other use, even including that of our parks.

The oil industry has continuously improved its methods and techniques just as have all other industries within recent years. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in the California cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Barbara, La Habra and others. Oil and gas exploration and development are being conducted in highly developed residential and recreational areas in these cities without in any way interfering with or detracting from the highly valuable residential and recreational values of those areas.

These techniques include the slant drilling from one location of many wells so as to reduce to a minimum the use of the surface. One soundproof or removable derrick is used with noiseless drilling equipment. Upon the completion of the wells at any drilling location, the drilling derrick is removed and all surface facilities can be countersunk below the surface of the ground, completely covered over and the drillsite is landscaped so as to be invisible from above the ground. Pumping equipment where used in such operations is of a hydraulic type and is completely noiseless and vibrationless. For instance, the millions of people living in and visiting the city of Long Beach and its famous recreational pike are completely unaware that the whole area is underlaid by oil wells, literally hundreds of them producing oil from below the surface, with no evidence above the ground for anyone to see or hear. When these things have been accomplished in highly developed residential and recreational areas in our cities, what justification can there be for prohibiting such operations on our public domain when, if proper methods are used, no person or any wildlife or any scenic beauty or any wilderness of any kind could be adversely affected thereby.

Let no one be deceived into believing that exploration and production of oil and gas are incompatible with the full use of our public

domain for the preservation of our wilderness, or the preservation of our national forest areas or the full and complete use of our national wildlife refuges and ranges or our parks for the paramount purposes for which they are established.

If additional hearings are held by your committee in Washington or elsewhere where time will permit, we offer to make available to you a visual demonstration of the modern methods and techniques of the oil industry that I have here referred to. This will be by motion pitcures and still pictures which can be projected on a screen for viewing of these various operations.

I do not mean to imply the methods I have outlined would be necessary in all such areas. Other less expensive methods of operation would be found to be compatible in many areas.

All that would be required to secure compatible oil and gas development would be for the administrative agency having jurisdiction of the lands to require those methods to be used which would adequately protect all the other values of the particular area. The oil and gas industry is capable of meeting any such challenge.

In our opinion any such bill as S. 1123 is untimely and unnecessary. Untimely because any legislation of this nature should in all realism await the outcome of the studies and recommendations provided for by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Act of 1958. The Commission created under that act will report to the President and Congress by September 1, 1961, on the policies that should be adopted to meet our future outdoor recreational resource requirements. We have here an example of a special pressure group trying to jump the gun ahead of this comprehensive study and report.

Wilderness legislation is unnecessary because it would deprive the overwhelming majority of the American people from the enjoyment of the various areas which it is designed to lock up. Even now without this bill, in the 11 Western States 13,231,620 acres have been classified as wilderness and withdrawn from other uses, 1,577,326 of these acres being in the State of Arizona. In the State of Alaska alone, 6,981,725 acres are now classified as wilderness. However, if consideration is to be given to legislation of this kind, adequate language should be written into the law to provide for full multiple use of all of our national resources within such areas.

Thank you.

Mr. STONG. Arthur B. Johnson, of West Covina, Calif., for the Southern California Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR B. JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT,
FEDERATION OF WESTERN OUTDOOR CLUBS

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, Senator Goldwater, I am Arthur Johnson. I have prepared a statement, Mr. Chairman, which I will digress from.

I am speaking as a vice president of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs and for the Desomount Club (desert, ocean, mountain), the Roamer Hiking Club, the Ramblers, and the San Antonio Club. All four have their headquarters in my jurisdictional area. Other witnesses at this and other hearings have covered the esthetic, ecological, recreational, wildlife propagation, scientific, and

other valid and pressing reasons for preserving a portion of our remaining wilderness. I wish to speak on certain features of the Wilderness Preservation Act, S. 1123, which the opposition appears not to understand or which they prefer to ignore.

I am not a lawyer; I am an engineer. An engineer must also be able to analyze and interpret legal documents and codes.

Opponents of the act have claimed that large blocks of the public domain will be blanketed into the wilderness system. On the contrary the act provides that only existing wilderness-type areas designated by one of several synonymous names can be blanketed in. The blanketing in, however, can be automatic only after the administrative agency in charge has failed to act regarding an area within a specified period in no case less than 5 years. They also chose to ignore the provision that in the case of national forests even existing areas designated as wilderness-type areas may be reduced in size at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture will have at least 15 years to study each area before deciding. It is further provided that even after the Federal agency charged with administering an area does act to include it in the wilderness system any opponents may have a public hearing to argue their objections, propose alternate solutions or plead complete elimi

nation.

Another major point many opponents appear to ignore is that any area after inclusion may be withdrawn after a 90-day public notice, and a public hearing, only if asked for, and the failure of the Congress to pass a joint resolution against the withdrawal within the first ensuing period of 120 days of a continuous session of Congress. This says that wilderness areas are not locked up forever. They are only held in trust for future generations to decide their future wise use.

It is hard, extremely hard, to comprehend how anyone could object to the fairness of these provisions of the act. Perhaps the opponents' objections are based on their fear that their motives will not stand up against public reaction in open hearings.

They are indeed justified in their fears of public reaction, for preserving the wilderness for the public is not a new idea.

In 1894, when the people of our most populous State, New York, amended their State constitution they said that all State forest reserves, existing and all additions, shall "be forever kept as wild forest lands." Then in 1954 to plug a loophole they again amended their constitution by more than a 10-to-6 majority to require that even flood control projects invading the reserves must be approved by a referendum vote of the people. Their determination to keep their forests wild was tested in 1955 when the Panther Mountain Dam invading 1,500 acres of the Adirondack Forest Preserve was rejected 3 to 1 even though their Governor backed the project. The wild forest reserves in New York State total nearly 2,500,000 acres.

Last year the Legislature of Michigan, almost unnoticed, passed a law allowing mining in their State parks. Immediately the Bear Creek Mining Co. applied for a lease of nearly a thousand acres of the 56,000-acre Porcupine Mountains State Park, the last extensive wilderness hardwood forest in the State. Public indignation became so great that on January 5, 1959, 4 days before a showdown meeting