have designated as a wilderness area. But as far as the law at the present time is concerned, our jurisdiction extends to wilderness and to wild areas and to primitive areas. Those were reservations set up, as was said yesterday, by Executive order or by administrative designation or withdrawal, and nobody has ever indicated or made the argument that our jurisdiction was affected at all by the Secretary of Interior designating them as wilderness or wild. As far as we are concerned, in licensing they are still part of the Forest Service reservation, but we do take into account in licensing the particular additional reservations that the Forest Service has put on, and we will try to honor to the extent we can under the Power Act these additional uses they want to make of the land as wilderness or wild areas.

In reference there to forest reservations, I should have said Secretary of Agriculture. He has jurisdiction, not Interior. I misspoke. Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, will you yield to me? Mrs. Prost. I will be glad to yield, yes.

Mr. ASPINALL. The colloquy we have been having here at the committee desk has to do with the new designations that have been suggested. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has made certain suggestions and it would appear as if the suggestions made would include the larger tract known as a wilderness tract, which would incorporate more than likely many primitive areas.

Now what is bothering me is how we can differentiate between what may be designated as wilderness areas and primitive areas and wild areas or canoe areas. I think we can take care of the last two all right, but if the wilderness area as set up involves certain primitive areas then, of course, your amendment you would desire would go to the whole tract; is that not right?

Mr. MASON. Yes, that is right. What we are attempting to do here is to, by some language, whether you call it primitive or whatever you designate it, what we are trying to do is to protect the Commission's licensing authority and protect the hydro potential in the particular land areas where that potential exists. And it so happens here it exists in the primitive areas and that is the way we could describe it. If the names are changed around, we would have to change the saving clause. As a practical matter, if the saving clause is across the board, it really does not make any difference because there is not any hydro potential in what is now designated as wilderness and wild. I think maybe that was some of the reasoning back of the Senate amendment, as I read the record.

Mr. ASPINALL. Yesterday we had testimony from the two Secretaries who appeared before the committee relative to the Flat Top Primitive Area in Colorado. As I remember the testimony, they stated their willingness to permit the development that is contemplated by the four-county group which is asking for authority to transport water from one place to another.

Is there any language that you have in mind that would permit a tunnel development rather than a reservoir development? Does your objection go to the whole matter in the granting of your authority?

Mr. MASON. I attempted to cover that earlier by saying that although the saving clause goes to the Commission's jurisdiction or licensing authority to consider applications within the primitive areas for hydro development, as a practical matter and as a matter of law, the Commission must make a finding under section 4 of the Federal

Power Act that whatever the private developer wants to put it there will not be inconsistent with the purpose for which the reservation was created or acquired, and that was the point where the Commission would consider it. A tunnel development I think everybody would agree would not interfere. But if you are going to put a tremendous hydro development in the middle of a wilderness or primitive area, that would destroy the wilderness aspect of it, and then I do not think the Commission, as a matter of law, could make the finding under section 4. We had that to happen in the Niagara case where the Indian reservation was involved, and the Commission said they could not make a finding that a reservoir that took two-thirds of the Indian reservation would not interfere or be inconsistent with the purposes of the reservation. So they refused to make the finding and they were sustained.

So it seems to me the Federal Power Act was designed to leave it up to an agency like the Power Commission that works with these matters as a full-time job to make the decision that you are suggesting we might do now by language, and I think it is almost impossible to foresee all of the possibilities and protect the hydro potential by specific language or legislation. I think the machinery is already set up.

Mr. ASPINALL. With your knowledge of the operations of the Commission to date, are you of the opinion that the Commission would protect the various values concerned, and if it were a wilderness area with great potential, that you would more than likely hold in favor of the primitive area values rather than grant the license?

Mr. MASON. I would answer that, yes, the Commission to my knowledge has leaned over backward in the years I have been there, and that has been since 1941 in licensing work, leaned over backward to honor the other uses of the land and to balance the conflicting uses and try to come up with the best plan for all purposes.

When you have conflicting uses, something has to give. Power has to give. There are many sacrifices power projects have made in the interest of recreation, in the interest of saving communities, in the interest of saving unique scenic values. As I said earlier, in the Namakagon River case the Commission denied the license outright, and recently dismissed a permit for a power project in California because the State wanted to develop a strictly recreational reservoir at that site and did not want to put power in. So that unless you are going to assume that the Commission is going to do less than what the law requires of them to do, certainly they are going to consider these various values and come up with the best answer.

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, the staff consultant has a couple of questions at this place that I wish he would ask in order to have them in the record.

Mr. PEARL. On your proposed amendment, by your reference to "primitive areas as referred to in section 2(a) of this Act," it was intended, I assume, to limit the application to areas classified as primitive on the effective date of the act, and these are readily identifiable and we know which they are; is that correct?

Mr. MASON. That is correct.

Mr. PEARL. And then the last part of the proposed amendment would then apply to all new areas, regardless of size, whether they be 50,000 acres or 100,000 acres?

Mr. MASON. That is true, and the reasoning behind that is that we have no way today to know whether there is any hydro potential in those areas or not. Until you make that determination, the Commission's licensing authority should not be taken away.

Mr. PEARL. So in all new areas brought into the wilderness system, whether they would be designated by today's criteria as "wilderness" areas or "wild" or "primitive," you intend that all new areas would be subject to your proposed amendment?

Mr. MASON. That is correct.

Mr. ASPINALL. Let me ask

Mr. MASON. Could I qualify that?

Mr. ASPINALL. Yes.

Mr. MASON. If the Commission had an opportunity to review the hydro potential of the particular area at the time it is to be brought into the wilderness system as they have had the opportunity to do here with this proposed legislation, why then, of course, the Commission could make a definite recommendation as they have done here. We do not have that. We are not sure we would have that opportunity, so that is the only way we know to protect the potential.

Mr. ASPINALL. The information which was requested and which you suggested that you would give to us relative to the present situation and the prospective 3 million capacity itself, will that identify the primitive areas as they now exist as to their potential possibilities? Mr. FARLEY. Each site will be described by name and location of river and the national forest and primitive area in which it is located. Mr. ASPINALL. And are we to take from that answer then the understanding that if you have not identified some primitive area as having hydro potential that it would not have?

Mr. FARLEY. That is correct; yes.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. ProST. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SAYLOR. I have no questions at this time.

Mrs. Prost. The gentleman from Washington.

Mr. WESTLAND. Have you ever constructed a hydro project in a wilderness area?

Mr. MASON. Neither of us recall one. I think the answer is "no, we have not." We do not construct, by the way

Mr. WESTLAND. I did not mean construct. Have you ever granted a license?

Mr. MASON. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. FARLEY. There have been some constructed in primitive areas. Mr. WESTLAND. Yes; but I mean in wilderness.

Mr. FARLEY. Wilderness, wild, or canoe, no licenses ever granted. Mr. WESTLAND. Has there ever been any application for a license to construct a hydro project in a wilderness area that you can recall? Mr. FARLEY. I cannot recall.

Mr. MASON. I cannot recall any either. Both of us have been with the Commission, I since 1941 in licensing, Mr. Farley earlier.

Mr. WESTLAND. During that time, 21 years, can you recall ever having had a request for a license in a wilderness area?

Mr. FARLEY. Not that I recall.

Mr. WESTLAND. But you have had them in primitive areas?
Mr. FARLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WESTLAND. And you have some pending now in primitive areas?

Mr. FARLEY. That is correct.

Mr. WESTLAND. Would it change your view in any way if these primitive areas according to the legislation become wilderness areas? Would the Federal Power Commission take a different view?

Mr. MASON. The Commission, according to my understanding, was not concerned with the difference between wilderness and primitive areas. They were concerned with preserving the licensing authority with respect to potential hydro undeveloped. If this 3 million had been in the wilderness areas as opposed to the primitive areas, I think the Commission's recommendation would have been the same.

As a matter of fact, the first report that went up to the Senate, in that the saving clause went across the board to include wilderness, wild, and primitive areas and it was only when it became apparent to the Commission that all of the potential was in the primitive that they were willing then to amend their recommendation and have a saving clause apply only to the primitive areas.

Mr. WESTLAND. Well, the only thing I am trying to get at is whether or not the FPC's licensing department would take a different view of a request for a hydro project in a wilderness area than it would in a primitive area. Maybe you cannot answer that.

Mr. MASON. As I understand the bill, once S. 174 or the House bills are passed, substantially as S. 174 is today, the wilderness systemit will not make any difference as far as the use of the land is concerned whether you call it wilderness, wild, or primitive, it all then would be part of the wilderness system. And the Commission would have to make the same finding before it licensed, whether the project was in a wilderness, wild, or primitive area, because the standards of interference would be the same, the purpose would be the same, after the bill was enacted. That is the way I understand it.

Mr. WESTLAND. I think your understanding is right. What you are saying, then, is that there would be no distinction in FPC in its consideration of a request for a hydro project, whether it was in a primitive or a wilderness area.

Mr. MASON. That is correct. As I said earlier, the Commission would be faced, regardless of whether it is a wild, wilderness, or primitive area, with making a determination under section 4 of the Federal Power Act that a license asked for would not be inconsistent or interfere with the purposes for which the reservation was created or acquired. So that in every case the Commission would be faced with that proposition whether it be primitive, wild, or wilderness.

Mr. WESTLAND. These may be the views of the FPC, but there are other views to the contrary.

Mr. MASON. I understand that.

Mr. WESTLAND. That is all.

Mrs. Prost. The gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. LANGEN. No questions.

Mrs. PrOST. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dominick.

Mr. DOMINICK. No questions.

Mrs. Prost. Our consultant has a question.

Mr. PEARL. I just want to ask one more question to clarify a point. Your proposed amendment is directed only to areas of national forest lands, while the provision that was put in S. 174 as section 11 might possibly supersede other laws and might apply to all land that might be placed in the wilderness system. Your amendment would not ex

tend to areas of national park land, wildlife refuges, or other nonforest lands that might be placed in the system; is that correct?

Mr. MASON. It would not go to park land because-I will give you this reference for the record-in section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act a reservation is defined as follows:

Reservation means national forest, tribal land embraced within Indian reservations, military reservations, and other lands and interest in lands owned by the United States and withdrawn, reserved, or withheld from private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws, also lands and interests in lands acquired and held for any public purpose, but shall not include national monuments or national parks.

And that is the reason we have no jurisdiction now with respect to national parks and national monuments.

Mr. PEARL. I know; but we are not sure of the effect of section 11 of S. 174 and are glad to have your views in the record.

Mrs. PFOST. Are there further questions of Mr. Mason.

Thank you very much. We are most appreciative, Mr. Mason, of your appearance.

Mr. MASON. Thank

you.

(Committee note: The information requested by the committee members follows:)

Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
Washington, May 11, 1962.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the hearing May 8, 1962, before the Subcommittee on Public Lands on the wilderness preservation system bills (H.R. 293, S. 174, and others), the Commission staff members who appeared for the Commission were requested to furnish certain additional information. In response, we are transmitting a table describing existing hydro projects and those under construction which would be affected by primitive areas and another table describing the potential hydro sites in primitive areas. The latter table shows that 3,006,300 kilowatts of potential capacity is located in primitive areas. As of January 1, 1962, the status of hydro development in continental United States was as follows:

The potential capacity exclusive of that affected by primitive areas is 76 million kilowatts (79 million kilowatts minus 3 million kilowatts). The capacity within primitive areas constitutes almost 4 percent of the total potential capacity.

In response to a question during the hearing, Commission staff members stated that they could not recall that any entity had ever applied for and received a license for a hydro project within a wilderness area. Upon further investigation we find that recollection to be correct but there was one application filed by the National Processing Co. on September 4, 1956, for a preliminary permit for a project (No. 2220) in what was then designated as the Bridger Primitive Area in the Bridger National Forest in Wyoming. The preliminary permit was issued May 20, 1958 and expired April 30, 1960 without the filing of an application for license. It is our understanding that the primitive area involved was redesignated as the Bridger Wilderness Area in 1960.

Please feel free to call upon me if you, or your committee, should desire further information on this matter.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH C. SWIDLER, Chairman.