Page images
PDF
EPUB

struction of upstream reservoirs on the tributaries of the Snake River which rise in this so-called wilderness area. Thousands of acre-feet of water annually go to waste through lack of adequate storage on the upstream tributaries.

I should like to cite an instance of the attitude of the wilderness area enthusiasts where water is concerned. According to the Denver Post of October 3, 1958, David R. Brower of San Francisco, the executive director of the Sierra Club, spoke to the closing session of the conference which was called to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of President Theodore Roosevelt. This is what he said:

We don't approve of dams in parks and dedicated wilderness. We don't approve of wiping out scenic resources in favor of power or storage that can be provided in other ways, even if at greater cost in dollars.

He said that the Sierra Club opposed the Echo Park Dam in northwestern Colorado and would oppose other dams that would destroy wildlife areas, "because we dare not let wilderness disappear."

To me, this is a vicious attitude in that it boasts of the strength of these organizations who were responsible for the elimination of the Echo Park Dam, even though language was written into the bill authorizing the Echo Park providing for a reclamation and power dam. Efforts to construct upstream storage on the Columbia in the Northwest have already been thwarted by nature lovers.

This bill, while it states that provisions can be made for reservoirs for water storage if so designated by the President, contains language that is unsatisfactory and ambiguous. It is obvious that there is a conflict between the preservation of wilderness areas untrammeled by man and the upstream construction of projects for irrigation and flood control. Under the provisions of this bill there is no doubt in my mind which would prevail. The preservation of wilderness areas is paramount.

Let us review the attitude of the Forest Service on the matter of wilderness areas. In the July 20 issue of Time magazine for 1959, Dr. Richard E. McArdle, who has been Chief Forester since 1952, made this reply when asked for a statement:

I am taking no sides. This country needs to maintain and preserve some primitive America, and this we intend to do. Ninety-nine percent of the people who hunt, fish, camp, picnic, or just ride around the country enjoying the scenery in the national forests don't use our wilderness areas. Many of them don't have the time or money to get there. There is a steadily growing demand to make more recreational areas accessible to motor transportation.

And on another occasion he said:

I think that sometimes in our enthusiasm for wilderness preservation we are inclined to ignore some of the costs. Maybe this is a carryover from pioneer days, when land was to be had for the taking. Maybe it is because many people think of wilderness as idle land, doing nothing. You don't get wilderness for free; it costs something and those costs are increasing. Part of the cost is measured in terms of what you can't have if you have wilderness * * * less timber, less forage, less water, less opportunity for people to enjoy the best scenery, and so on. Some of it is measurable in dollars; some isn't.

As recently as last week at our National Reclamation Association convention, Chief Forester McArdle said:

These public lands must serve many resource needs. They are owned by all the people of this country, not by any one user group. Water is an extremely valuable part of the total resource complex of the national forests. These lands must be managed for various combination uses. Uses of our national forest

resources is increasing rapidly. There are a number of reasons for this, but the biggest reason is simply more people ***. Diversion to single-in-purpose use of lands which can provide a number of products and services will need to be examined more critically now and in the future than has been in past years

The Forest Service wants the national forests to be used. We want them to furnish the greatest possible benefits in products and services to the largest number of people over the long run.

In the year 1960 the forests of the United States took in approximately $129 million from timber sales, grazing fees, and other items ranging down to rentals of 18,000 summer homes. One fourth of this figure comes back to the State and county in which the forests are located. This is a big item to those outlying areas.

If S. 174 becomes law, how is it going to affect Idaho and our economy? Let us analyze it for a minute. There are approximately 15 million acres within our national forests now classified as wilderness area. Idaho has 20 percent of all wilderness and primitive area in the United States. This amounts to 15 percent of all forest lands in the State, or 3,100,000 acres is now wilderness and primitive area. the bill passes and the amount of wilderness area designated is doubled or trebled, as many experts predict, Idaho would lose, under the present ratio, an additional 3 to 6 million acres of timberland in our national forests.

If

It is certain that this legislation will affect very materially the lumber industry of Idaho. Fifty percent of the now wilderness area is classified as commercial forest or timberland. If this bill goes into effect, adding millions of acres to primitive and wilderness areas, which would not be available for commercial timber, you can see the effect it would have on Idaho's economy in this industry alone. Also, the value of commercial timber has greatly increased in recent years. To illustrate, the Forest Service recently sold a large block of timber in the Targhee National Forest on a 40-year sustained basis, for $15 a thousand board feet on the stump. This was second-grade lumber which a few years ago sold for half this price. A large stud mill is now being erected in St. Anthony.

Also, there are several reasons why it will be a blow to mining. First of all the President may authorize prospecting and mining, but the chances that he will are remote. In the first place, there will be little or no opportunity for interested parties to undertake the costly geologic and geophysical studies necessary to justify an exploration program. For the bill says, "There shall be no commercial enterprise" within the wilderness system, and mineral exploration is a commercial enterprise.

It would be a very rare case for a Federal bureau to recommend to the President that prospecting and mining be permitted. A good example of this can be taken from our national park system. Did you ever hear of a unit of the national park system authorizing prospecting? Not even during the Government-sponsored search for uranium did anything like this occur.

If S. 174 becomes a law, there will be only a single use for a very large area of public land, whereas Congress in June 1960 passed Public Law 86-517, which pledges that "national forests shall be used in accordance with the principle of multiple use."

Civilizations have come and gone as the water has come and gone. Of all our resources water and soil are by far the most important.

Water is the great limiting factor of human development. Yet this bill treats water and soil conservation as orphans, to be barely tolerated and then only under exceptional conditions.

When Congress reconvenes, the House will be pressured to consider this bill. It should realize, however, that 12 Western States have passed memorials in opposition by their respective legislatures. It should further realize that the agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests have by no means abandoned their opposition to this bill.

If the House should consider the bill favorably, at least this bill should be amended in the House by insisting that a positive act of Congress be required before any area be included in the wilderness system instead of the unsatisfactory "veto" procedure now proposed. This would give the local economies the protection they need through congressional hearings to assure that all interests in each area make their case that additions to the wilderness system will not adversely affect the local economy. The precedent for this is in the procedure for the establishment of national parks, each of which is done by act of Congress. Certainly the people of the West are entitled to such protection so that the productive use of these areas shall be for the highest use to society.

I would like, also, to recommend one other amendment.

Section 9 of the bill provides that in any State having more than 90 percent of its total land area owned by the Federal Government, there shall be established for such State a Presidential Land Use Commission, composed of five members, three of whom shall be composed of residents of the State concerned, who shall advise and consult with the Secretary of the Interior on how federally owned land can best be utilized. As it is now passed by the Senate, this would apply only to Alaska. The 90 percent should be changed to 25 percent. Each of the 12 principal public land States has more than 25 percent of its total area in Federal ownership-Alaska, 99 percent: Arizona, 45 percent; California, 45 percent; Colorado, 35 percent; Idaho, 64 percent; Montana, 30 percent; Nevada, 86 percent; New Mexico, 35 percent; Oregon, 51 percent; Utah, 69 percent; Washington, 30 percent; and Wyoming, 48 percent.

In closing, I would like to attach as part of my statement a resolution adopted by the Idaho State Reclamation Association at its annual meeting at Pocatello, Idaho, on September 25-26, 1961, opposing the enactment of S. 174.

Thank you.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Coleman.

Without objection, the resolution opposing wilderness legislation adopted by the Idaho State Reclamation Association will be included in the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION No. 14-OPPOSITION TO WILDERNESS LEGISLATION

Whereas there was introduced in the last session of the Congress S. 174, to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System which would seek the conversion of large areas of public domain into wilderness areas, which said bill recently passed the United States Senate; and

Whereas the economy of the State of Idaho is based upon its agriculture, mining, lumber, sheep and cattle industries, and the use of its waters for irrigation and hydroelectric power; and

Whereas one of the great potential industries of the State of Idaho is its tourist trade and wildlife attractions; and,

Whereas such "Wilderness Areas," if created, would interfere with orderly programs of land and watershed management and development, and would impair present public land uses for grazing, lumbering and mining and storage reservoirs for irrigation and would prohibit the use of such lands for transportation purposes; and

Whereas most areas of forest land are capable under management of supporting more than one use, most all forest uses and protection problems are best served with some form of development, whether it be scientific and educational uses, grazing, timber and watershed management and protection against fire, insects, and diseases; and

Whereas such wilderness areas by reason of their inaccesibility and lack of facilities would neither be available nor suitable for recreational uses by the average vacationing American family but would be adapted only to that restricted minority whose life pattern and inclination require availability of vast areas of uninhabited and untended primeval domain for their pleasure: Now, there fore, be it

Resolved, That the Idaho State Reclamation Association hereby declares that it is opposed to the enactment of S. 174, for the reasons that the enactment of said bill prevents the normal development and utilization of the natural resources contained in such a wilderness system, that the agricultural, mining, timber, sheep and cattle industries, and the wildlife and tourist industries will be irreparably damaged, and that the present very satisfactory and normal administration of our national resources by the present land-management agencies will be superseded and replaced by another unnecessary Federal Bureau; be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the Idaho congressional delegation in Washington, D.C.

Mrs. ProST. Without objection a resolution of the North Side Communities, Inc., Wendell, Idaho, opposing the legislation will be made a part of the record. The resolution is signed by Hugh M. Nelson, acting president, and Blanche B. Bungum, secretary. This organization, the North Side Communities, Inc., is a composite of North Side Chambers of Commerce and community organizations encompassing seven south central Idaho counties north to the Snake River.

Hearing no objection, the resolution is placed in the record at this point.

(The resolution referred to follows:)

Re S. 174, wilderness bill.

To HON. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,

NORTH SIDE COMMUNITIES, INC.,
Wendell, Idaho, October 28, 1961.

Chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee:

We, the members of North Side Communities, Inc., Wendell, Idaho, a composite of North Side chambers of commerce and community organizations encompassing seven south central Idaho counties north of the Snake River, comprising an area of 42 million acres and a population of more than 45,000, office of the secretary at Wendell, Idaho, respectfully and unanimously represent that:

Whereas the amended bill fails to correct the basic defects of the original S. 174; and

Whereas the economy of the State of Idaho is based upon its agriculture, sheep and cattle, mining and lumber industry and the use of its waters for irrigation and hydroelectric power; and

Whereas 66 percent of the land in Idaho is federally owned and contains approximately 3 million acres set aside for primitive areas; and

Whereas these designations are restrictive to multiple-purpose use and deny to the natural resources industries of the State of Idaho the right to wisely develop the natural resources contained in those large primitive and wilderness areas of the State and further deny ready access to those areas to millions of Americans, all to the detriment of said industries and to the people of the State of Idaho; and

Whereas one of the great potential industries of the State of Idaho is its tourist trade and wildlife attractions; and

Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission will not make their findings known until February 1, 1962: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the North Side Communities, Inc., That we are opposed to dedicating additional lands as wilderness and primitive areas in Idaho and sincerely request that all wilderness and primitive areas in Idaho be studied with the view of eliminating all lands which have a higher or multiple-use potential than that of single-use dedication as primitive or wilderness; and be it further

Resolved, That we oppose Federal enactment of future wilderness legislation embodying the principle of locked-up areas for a single-purpose use which would deny to the natural resources industries the right to wisely develop such natural resources and would also be to the detriment of said industries and to the people of the State of Idaho.

WENDELL, IDAHO.

JEROME, IDAHO.

BLANCHE B. BUNGUM, Secretary,

North Side Communities, Inc.

HUGH M. NELSON,

Vice President, acting President,
North Side Communities, Inc.

Mrs. PrOST. Next is Mr. Cullen. You may proceed, Mr. Cullen.

STATEMENT OF FRANK CULLEN, IDAHO FISH AND GAME
COMMISSION

Mr. CULLEN. Madam Chairman and Congressman Olsen, my name is Frank Cullen. I am a member of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, and I appear here today in behalf of the commission.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission is charged by the laws of the State of Idaho with the duty of preserving, protecting, perpetuating, and managing all wildlife of the State, including wild animals, wild birds, and fish, in order to provide hunting and fishing to all persons who are permitted by law to do so.

Based upon this statutory responsibility, the commission adopted the following resolution at its regular quarterly meeting in Boise, Idaho, October 26, 1961:

Whereas the State of Idaho is richly endowed with a great variety of wildlife, from the irrigated plains of the Snake River through the rugged wilderness areas of central Idaho to the large lake regions of the northern panhandle; and Whereas certain wildlife species such as elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and cutthroat trout thrive in a wilderness type of environment; and

Whereas the establishment of wilderness areas offers the most permanent and secure method for insuring the future of wilderness-type fish and game; and Whereas it is important to the people of Idaho that some areas be preserved for the future where they can enjoy wilderness-type hunting and fishing in the typical tradition of America: Now, therefore,

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission does hereby endorse the concept of wilderness area preservation in order to preserve and maintain a high quality and quantity of fishing and hunting for the present and future people of America. The opportunity to present this statement to this congressional committee is respect fully appreciated.

I think at this time, from my observations from sitting here for a day and a half listening to testimony for and against, the Chair should be commended, and the committee, for a very fair and unbiased hearing.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Cullen. I have a question I should like to ask. Can you give the committee some idea, or do you have the figures on the amount of license fees paid into the State of Idaho through

« PreviousContinue »