the other side of the picture. That it is in the best interest of the National Government and national society to develop our natural

resources.

Thank you.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much, Mr. Powell. Certainly I think many of the committee members, if not all of us, recognize the fact that industry has been cognizant of the various displacements and has tried in many instances to correct conditions that might exist in order to allow nature to proceed or to take care of certain existing circumstances.

One of the things I was interested in, as I listened to your statement, was that you said you felt more convinced than ever that perhaps Congress should have the responsibility of placing the uses on the areas that would be involved.

Would you be better satisfied with the Congress having jurisdiction over reviews, rather than to leave it to the executive branch, to determine the primitive, the wilderness, the wild and canoe status?

Mr. POWELL. I certainly would be less than honest if I did not agree that those areas that have been set aside in the past as well as those proposed to be set aside in the future, should all be under the review of Congress so that a full long-visioned study could determine if there are some areas in there now that should not be; and that maybe there are some not in there (wilderness) that should be. But again I reiterate that Congress is the best judge of what should or should not be in the various land reserves whether it be for wilderness or other

uses.

Mrs. Prost. In the event, then, that this measure should be amended to that extent and would eliminate this one concern of yours, would this place you in favor of the wilderness legislation rather than being in opposition?

Mr. POWELL. This, plus the other one or two recommendations I made, certainly would remove the opposition of our association. Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall. Mr. ASPINALL. No questions.

Mrs. ProST. The gentleman from Minnesota?

Mr. LANGEN. No questions.

Mrs. Prost. The gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. RIVERS. No questions.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you very much, Mr. Powell.

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent now to proceed to witness number 25, who is Mr. Warwick M. Downing, and the statement of that witness out of order so that the statement, which follows very closely what Mr. Powell has just given us, may be placed immediately following his statement.

Mrs. Prost. Without objection, Mr. Downing's statement will be made a part of the record.

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, I would like to make this introduction to Mr. Warwick M. Downing's statement: Mr. Downing, of course, is a man who has been engaged in oil and mineral resource development, and also in conservation programs for many years. Mr. Downing is ill and has been unable to come to Washington for the hearing.

77350-62-pt. 4- 43

I would recommend that all of the members of the subcommittee and of the committee read Mr. Downing's statement because it comes from a man who is approaching 90 years of age with lifelong experience in these fields. And after having read the statement myself, I feel it is a most valuable statement for the committee's use.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF WARWICK M. DOWNING

I am making this statement in behalf of the Interstate Oil Compact Commission. The Compact Commission favors the wilderness idea and wildlife generally, but opposes the present bill in its present form.

Let me add that the Interstate Oil Compact Commission is a public body authorized by the Constitution of the United States, and created by Act of Congress and by the legislatures of 32 of the oil-producing States. Such legislation has given this public body power to recommend measures for the greater ultimate recovery of oil and gas. In the exercise of this power the commission has made numerous recommendations. Such recommendations have proven valuable to Congress and to the several States, and have been treated with great respect, to say the least. I do not wish to imply that the commission represents the viewpoint of any State, as each State is a sovereign in its own right. But its recommendations do express the viewpoint of the members of this public body, whose only thought and purpose is the public welfare, and whose right to recommend is given by the Constitution of the United States, the Congress and the legislatures of 32 sovereign States.

I note that Senator Anderson has said that the establishment of a Wilderness Preserve System as provided in S. 174 will be "without real danger to anyone." This is all that we ask.

It is said that the wilderness bill assures continuation of grazing where it now occurs; that mining claims now filed on are protected; that oil and gas prospecting and mineral prospecting may be continued: and that water development is possible. But such provisions are not operative without the order of the President, to be given in specific cases.

But let me ask in all fairness, why should the President of the United States, with his multitudinous duties and problems, take time to determine matters of this character? As a matter of fact, he would not make any such determination. He would refer it to the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior would refer it to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, and I need not comment upon how that official would act. He would do everything in his power to prevent Presidential approval.

By way of illustration, I should like to mention the difficulties Denver is now having with the wildlife people. Against a background of drought, Denver has spent some $120 million in the last 7 years on dams, reservoirs, tunnels and water facilities generally, in order to insure a vast metropolitan area of an adequate municipal water supply. These water facilities are built and in place. In many cases they are located on Federal land pursuant to preliminary authorization. Denver has not been able to firm up the right-of-way for these facilities on acount of the demands of the wildlife people. I am advised that demands of the wildlife people upon Denver for fish bypasses, releases of water and limitations in flow of water would result in the seizure of water owned by Denver sufficient to supply, on a firm and permanent basis, a city of 300,000 people. The matter has been under negotiation for many years. It is still under negotiation. The dispute involves only about 30 miles of stream and there are hundreds of miles of stream stocked with fish, which should be sufficient for fishermen, without harming Denver's water supply. The attitude of the wildlife people has been rough, domineering and unalterably opposed. As I understand the present bill, the proposed act creates a Wilderness Preserve System which shall include, first, all areas within the National Forest classified by the Secretary of Interior as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe, comprising 6,773,080 acres, and by me referred to as the primitive area: and, second, additional forest preserve lands supposed to have wilderness value, amounting to 8 million acres, and by me to be referred to as wild lands: and, third, 5,000 acre blocks in the National Parks comprising about 22 million acres; and, fourth, such portions of the wildlife refuges and game ranges as the Secretary of the Interior may recommend, amounting to 24 million acres, which I will refer to herein as the game ranges.

Apparently, the principal argument of those favoring the bill is that the wilderness area comprising some 54 million acres, exclusive of the primitive area, is only a very small fraction of our public lands area. But this small fraction of our total public lands area, of perhaps 800 million acres, covers an area of more than one-third of the State of Colorado. Our largest American oil field in area is only 25,000 acres. Furthermore, if we visualize the use by the people of the proposed wilderness system, the percentage of our people who will ever take advantage of the wilderness area in any one year, is exceedingly small; my guess is, $5,000 a year. I am, of course, referring to the use of the wilderness area as defined in the act itself, an area that is kept in its primitive state, and where anyone who wishes to enjoy it must carry on their back their food and bedding.

The national parks can be created only by Congress; certainly, the result has been of the very greatest value to our people. Our national parks have been of such value to the Nation, and are so desired by the people, that it would seem unnecessary to change their administration or character. I haven't the figures, but I am sure there are several million of our people each year who visit the national parks, the national forests, State parks, and the Denver Mountain Parks. It seems to me folly to take from our national parks large areas which will be visited by the millions, and set them aside for the exclusive use by a trickle of wilderness enthusiasts. Why deny the millions the benefit of our beautiful scenic areas, in order that a trifling number of hardy people may enjoy a mountain climb in solitude?

As a citizen, I am bitterly opposed to the idea that departmental policies may become the law of the land, without direct congressional approval, and that the so-called veto power given to Congress by this bill is really a delusion and a snare and ought to be forever squelched, and squelched so effectively that the idea will never again show its head. I feel strongly that the greatness of America in the past, and her greatness in the future, will depend upon action by Congress rather than by the President. Certainly, the Founding Fathers intended that government through the three great branches should be preserved. I well remember, at a hearing before the Secretary of the Interior some 3 years ago, it was shown that in Alaska, the building of roads by oil developers was highly beneficial, because it made accessible vast areas for moose and other animals which otherwise would not be available.

Pictures were shown of oil wells in California where deer and other animals, out of curiosity, perhaps, came down to the drilling site to investigate and seemed to enjoy the work there going on. It was shown that in Louisiana, where there are vast so-called wilderness areas under State control, the principle of multiple use had been adopted, and was highly successful.

I do not think you have thought about the tremendous importance of the development of our natural resources. It has been because of our natural resources that America has become so great and powerful. There is certainly nothing more important than oil development. In fact, the highest duty of our Government is to provide for national defense. I am sure that we all feel the necessity of doing everything-not something-but everything, possible to make strong our national defense, which means that in the continental United States we should have an adequate supply of energy, petroleum and liquid fuels instantly available for use in case of war. Of greater importance, is it that we develop our natural resources and stay strong in our energy resources, because, if we put down our guard and weaken our means of defense, we invite attack and conquest by an aggressor.

It is said that this legislation will really help our orderly resource development. I really cannot see where resource development will be helped one iota. Resource development is quite different than recreational development. They are both highly important but aid to one does not necessarily aid the other.

The answer to this great conflict is to adopt the principle of multiple use. This principle has been adopted by the Departments and by Congress. It would solve questions of governmental power and would be highly helpful, not only to resource development, but to wilderness use. Multiple use simply means that neither industry nor wilderness has any God-given right to the exclusive use of our public lands and thereby prevent the development of our mineral resources.

Concretely, my suggestions are:

1. That the primitive area aforementioned, comprising 6,773,080 acres, be set aside as wilderness.

2. That the U.S. Geological Survey be directed to survey the wild lands, the national park lands and the game reserve lands, and report whether there is any reasonable possibility that said areas have any value for mining or for industrial

77350-62-pt. 4- -44

use; and that all lands where there is a reasonable possibility that the same have any value for mining or for industrial use, be stricken from the proposed wilderness system.

3. That, as to all the above areas except the primitive lands, the principle of multiple use be applied. A test period of 10 years is provided for in the bill in order to determine the value of many millions of acres for wilderness purposes. It seems to me, also, that during the same test period the same area should be tested for its industrial and mineral value. Obviously only a small part of this tremendous area will ever be needed for wilderness purposes.

Such a policy would be in conformity with and follow the provision of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Act approved January 28, 1958, as follows: "The Commission shall recognize that lands, waters, forests, rangelands, wetlands, wildlife, and such other natural resources that serve economic purposes also serve to varying degrees and for varying uses outdoor recreation purposes, and that sound planning of resource utilization for the full future welfare of the Nation must include coordination and integration of all such multiple uses.” In this same connection, I refer to the Mineral Use Act, 30 U.S. Code, section 521, which act was passed on August 13, 1954, and which provides for multiple use in a large part of the public domain, and also 30 U.S.C., section 241, which provides that native asphalt and bituminous rocks and sands may be leased under the multiple use principle, notwithstanding the existence of an outstanding lease upon the same area issued under any other provision of the mineral leasing law. 4. That there be no additions to wilderness areas established without an act of Congress expressly authorizing the same.

5. That the right to explore and produce be made clear, positive, and certain, and with only such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe in order that the beauty of the area may not be harmed.

6. That all provisions relating to the participation of the President to legislative matters be eliminated because, in fact, the President will never act upon his own viewpoint concerning the many matters he is called upon to recommend and such provisions confuse the issues and are entirely deceptive in their manner. 7. It seems to me that the principal thing to overcome is to check and subdue the overzealousness of the wildlife people. They should realize that while there are fish and birds to be looked after, human beings should also have adequate protection; that while wildlife is extremely important, our national safety and our national defense are even more important. After all, our growth as a Nation, our power in the world, has not been created in the slightest degree by wilderness advocates, but by industry. Therefore, the wilderness bill should not provide for tremendous wilderness areas (far more than will ever be needed). Our national safety depends upon the strength of our oil reserves. A new oil field on the public domain is far more important than that birds, fish, and bear should not be molested.

A personal word: I think I have a record of creational endeavor which will prove my sincerity in my opposition to the wilderness bill in its present form and I believe the results of my efforts for recreation have been greater than that of any other individual. I was the chief promoter of our Denver Mountain Parks System which, by the way, has given recreation to more people than any other place in the world. I battled unsuccessfully for a Denver National Park covering the Mount Evans region. I had a prominent part in the creation of Rocky Mountain National Park. I was pretty much responsible for the playground system of Denver and our parkway and boulevard system.

The essence of my plea is that both sides of the controversy get together and fight for a sensible bill-a bill which, in its language and enforcement, will not injure mining or industrial development, and at the same time, will provide adequate areas for wilderness purposes. Don't let the wildlife enthusiasts get away with their demands for excessive area for wilderness, and don't pass a bill that effectually will prevent the discovery of minerals on a tremendous acreage of land never tested for minerals, but which may add billions in minerals, which may give us security against national disaster.

Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness was to be Mr. L. V. Venable, in behalf of the Olympic Development League, Seattle, Wash.

Mr. Venable has sent a message that he is unable to be present. Without objection, his statement will be placed in the record at this point.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE SUBMITTED BY L. V. VENABLE

Madam Chairman, I am L. V. Venable, of 2422 Eyres Place West, Seattle, Wash. I am director and past president of the Olympic Development League and speak for that organization today.

The Olympic Development League is an association of civic, labor, community and commercial organizations of the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. It is primarily concerned with the development and protection of the resources and economy of the Olympic Peninsula. Since timber and recreation are the major economic forces of this region and much of the land is federally owned, the league has naturally been interested in and has familiarized itself with the wilderness bills which have been introduced to date, including S. 174 as passed by the Senate.

We live in the shadow of the 898,000-acre Olympic National Park and the 425,000-acre Olympic National Forest, and have had every opportunity to observe their workings, to study the recreational values and to obtain the reaction of tourists and all visitors who come seeking outdoor recreation. We are convinced that the excutive provisions for roadlessness written into the wilderness bill are a denial of rights to motorists and all others who are entitled to enjoy scenic beauties even though physically or financially unable to penetrate into unbroken wilderness.

The economy of the Olympic Peninsula has never developed to anywhere near its potential. A major supply of prime timber, estimated at 171⁄2 billion board feet, was removed from use when over a half million acres of Olympic National Forest land were added to the Olympic National Park under an act of Congress of 1938. The promise and expectation were that the tourism and recreation gained by this act would more than offset the loss of jobs and revenue to peninsular communities and counties from the loss of timber use. This offset has yet to occur. The population and economy of the four counties involved have failed to advance with those of the rest of the State. In fact, many of the dependent communities have declined.

Less than 1 percent of the Olympic National Park is developed with roads and campgrounds. A large percentage of the more than 1 million visitors tallied each year do not leave the Olympic Highway which cuts through the edges of the park. Countless campers are turned away each year due to lack of access and facilities.

Nearly all of this park consists of areas "of 5,000 acres or more without roads" which could, and likely would, be included in the wilderness system if S. 174 is enacted in its present form. As the committee knows, the National Park Act of 1916 does not prohibit road and campground development. And the act of April 9, 1924 (43 Stat. 90) specifically authorizes the Secretary of Interior "* ** to construct, reconstruct, and improve roads and trails, inclusive of the necessary bridges, in the national parks and monuments ***."

The league, like Laurance Rockefeller, has been hopeful for new administrative thinking which would develop the national parks, without destroying the scenery, for the use and enjoyment of the people. Only thus will the recreational potential of the Olympic Peninsula ever be realized.

S. 174 as written would prevent this possibility from occurring. Most of the area of this 898,00-acre park would be put in the wilderness system where roads and motoring recreation, including camping, would be permanently barred.

The Olympic Development League therefore earnestly urges that, before enactment, S. 174 be amended to delete all reference to national parks. This is a logical request inasmuch as national park scenery is already protected under law. Having lost the use of the timber and highly productive timberland involved in the half-million-acre transfer out of the Olympic National Forest, the peninsula must not have its hopes further shattered by the foreclosure of ultimate full development of the recreational potential involved, which was to have offset the first loss. We respectfully request the committee's understanding and help in this plight.

Mrs. Prost. Our next, and I believe our last witness, is Mr. Ralph D. Hodges, chief forester of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association.

We are glad to have you before the committee, Mr. Hodges. You may proceed with your statement.