Dr. CARPENTER. There is an area in San Miguel and Dolores Counties near here which has been designated as a wilderness area. I am acquainted with quite a large section of it. It is rocky, barren, but very rich in mineral wealth. Since I have an interest in a patented mining property in this area, I have been there frequently in the past 3 years. There are a large number of other patented mining properties situated in this rich mineral area also.

We went to one of the forest rangers and stated our desire to operate these mines and the forest ranger said: "No, you cannot.”

We said: "We own these properties, they are patented mining properties." The third forest ranger told us we could go in and work.

During the many trips that I have made in these 3 years, I have not seen a single person who was there because it was a wilderness area. As a result of my observations here and elsewhere, I would like to make two points:

First, we do not need a great number of wilderness areas because, while a lot of people may talk about doing this sort of thing, very few actually do it.

And, secondly, a lot better judgment could be shown in picking wilderness areas so that they, for one thing, are not placed in the richest mineral belts. It has been quite well known recently that this country's iron resources are limited, and another wilderness area has been designated which includes a deposit of millions of tons of high-grade iron.

Recently the Government gave recognition to the fact that our iron resources are becoming less and less, and I believe now they will pay half of the cost for exploring for them. Here is an area that could very well have been excluded from this.

Every time I pick up a paper, or every week or so, it seems I see another new area suggested as a wilderness area. I believe we have ample, or more so now, and no others should be added, and certain functions that have been carried on in these areas should be continued.

I grew up east of the Mississippi River, I have lived in western Colorado 10 years. I am in the mountains a lot; I love the mountains. I believe that I have been in practically all of the remote and supposedly relatively inaccessible areas in western Colorado. Far more so than most anyone who is agitating for this wilderness legislation. Although I grew up in the East, I have come to appreciate the West, and I believe the greatest potential for our resources and for our growth lies in these Western States, in the fact that a great percentage of the Western States is now held by the Federal Government. That is a deterrent.

If we allow a great number more of these wilderness areas, and restrict their use to this very limited proposition, it will further restrict the growth of not only the West but the whole country.

If the people of Colorado who live in these vicinities were allowed to vote on the issue, the wilderness bill would be decisively defeated. The limited number of people then who would prefer to use these areas, instead of other places in our national forests, would have to come from quite a ways away; consequently, we do not have to have a wilderness area in everybody's backyard; and I feel that not more than two should be established in any State-including Colorado.

I say again, I am not against wilderness legislation, but I think it should be reasonable, well thought out, and such that the economic health of this country is benefited by it, rather than it being a deterring factor.

Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Dr. Carpenter.
Are there questions of Dr. Carpenter?
Thank you very much, Dr. Carpenter.
Dr. CARPENTER. Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Mr. Glenn G. Saunders. Will Mr. Claude Thompson please come forward?

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Chairman, I am a substitute for Mr. Saunders. Mrs. ProST. Will you give your name for the record, please.

Mr. SNYDER. Willard S. Snyder. I am on the legal staff of the Denver Board of Water Commissioners.

Mrs. Prost. You may proceed, Mr. Snyder.

STATEMENT OF WILLARD S. SNYDER, MEMBER OF LEGAL STAFF, BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLO.

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The statement which I will present to the members of the committee is signed by the president of the board of water commissioners.

This statement regarding the Wilderness Act, S. 174, as passed by the Senate of the United States is made on behalf of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City and County of Denver, Colo. The board is a nonpolitical entity, having complete charge and control of a municipally owned waterworks system and plant which furnishes a water supply for all purposes to most of the Denver metropolitan area, which includes Denver and suburban areas, with a total connected customer load of 620,000 people and the related industry to support them. This is one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States.

Denver is also an important defense center. The Martin Co., manufacturer of the Titan missile, the Rocky Flats Atomic Energy Plant, and many important Federal agencies and military installations, such as the Denver Federal Center, Lowry Air Force Base, Fitzsimons Army Hospital, and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, are all located in the Denver metropolitan area and are dependent upon the Denver Water Department for a water supply.

Measured against this background, we must remember that Denver is located in the semiarid West. Water commands a value unknown in moister climates. Denver's water gathering system extends over hundreds of square miles and from the Mississippi Basin across the Continental Divide into the Pacific Ocean's watershed. Practically all of its water supply, as it presently exists and as it must be augmented, arises upon the national forest of the United States of America.

The expression "wilderness_bill" as used herein refers to the bill as passed by the U.S. Senate, S. 174. The bill as passed by the Senate is in a form which is much improved over its original form. Nevertheless, further consideration should be given to the bill. These considerations take two forms:

First of all, there is the question as to whether we should have a wilderness bill at this time.

Secondly, there is the question that, if we are to have a wilderness bill, what further amendments should be made to the bill as it presently exists?

I. The areas sought to be blanketed by the wilderness bill are properly managed upon an administrative basis under present lawthere is no need for a wilderness bill.

As far as the State of Colorado is concerned, our fundamental concern is with wild areas and primitive areas already established upon the national forest, upon an administrative basis. There has been no showing that the Forest Service, in administering the areas, is failing to do a proper and competent job.

It is our experience that the Forest Service is to be commended for its judicious approach to the problem of administering the national forest, including wild and primitive areas, so as properly to provide for the various uses having due regard for conservation and the needs of the people.

Over a course of decades we have uniformly had the best of experience with the Forest Service. It is doing an excellent job. It has set aside wild and primitive areas. It can under present law preserve these areas and yet on an administrative basis provide for flexibility where that flexibility is necessary. Consequently, we can see no need for legislation now proposed and known as the Wilderness Act.

The Wilderness Act would freeze these areas and preserve them for a single purpose, notwithstanding some modification might be necessary or even essential. This we do not believe to be in the interest of the people and we believe it to be true whether we are talking about the people of the State of Colorado or the people of the United States.

II. The wilderness bill should not be enacted into law until the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has reported to Congress.

Congress has established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. The Commission is to study and report upon the Nation's outdoor recreational resources. The Commission is giving special emphasis upon wilderness, standards for their establishment and the balancing of the wilderness concept with other recreational activities. The Commission is due to make a report in 1962 upon these

matters.

Congress should have the benefit of this comprehensive report prior to the time Congress enacts into law a wilderness bill. Otherwise, why has Congress appropriated the money for this report? Surely we should not enact into law a wilderness bill and thereafter receive the report of the Commission.

III. Areas to be included in any wilderness system should be presently ascertainable.

If we are, nevertheless, to have a wilderness bill, the areas to be included in any wilderness system should be presently ascertainable. S. 174 provides that the wilderness system shall include all areas within the national forest classified on the effective date of the act by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as wilderness, wild, primitive or canoe, subject to certain provisions.

77350-62-pt. 2-3

At this time no one can say when the effective date of the act will be. During the interval that the bill is being further considered, those who are charged with administration of the national forest, the national parks and the public domain may be subjected to heavy pressure to make new classifications of land, so as to include substantially larger areas in the proposed wilderness system.

We do not believe that those charged with the administration of these lands should be subjected to these pressures. Furthermore, the people, for whose benefit the U.S. Government exists, have a right to know what lands are included or are to be included in the wilderness system as of a fixed date-for example, November 1, 1961.

Upon this basis all who care to know may determine for themselves exactly what lands are to be included if the wilderness bill becomes law and no one will be put in the position of finding out to his surprise that land has been included in the wilderness system which originally was not contemplated.

It is our position that the people are entitled to know exactly what land is proposed as a part of the wilderness system.

IV. Areas the status of which is in doubt should not presently be included in the wilderness system.

At this point we set forth section 3 (b) (1) of S. 174 in part:

(b) (1). The wilderness system shall include all areas within the national forests classified on the effective date of this Act by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as wilderness, wild, primitive, or canoe: Provided, That the areas classified as primitive shall be subject to review as hereinafter provided.

Following this language there is provision for the recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture for continued inclusion or exclusion of the primitive areas in the wilderness system. There is then provision for the recommendation of the President of the United States.

If both recommendations are favorable, then the primitive area is continued in the wilderness system, unless at least one House of Congress votes against continuance.

This approach contemplates action first and determination of its wisdom or unwisdom afterward. We find that the bill puts land in the wilderness system and then a determination is later made as to whether it should have been put in the wilderness system.

This is just the reverse of the normal way of doing things. In most fields of human endeavor a proposed course of action is first carefully considered and then carried out in action. In a situation of this kind it is unwise to take a course of action and then try to figure out afterward whether that course of action was correct.

Therefore, it is our belief that the primitive areas should not be included in the wilderness system in the first instance, with a later determination of whether that was correct or incorrect. Instead, we believe that the primitive areas should not be included in the wilderness system at this time. The matter can then be properly considered and if thought desirable any particular area can later be brought into the wilderness system.

V. Future additions to the wilderness system should be made only upon the affirmative approval thereof by both Houses of Congress.

Sections 3(f) of the wilderness bill provides that recommendation of the President regarding the continued inclusion or addition of areas to the wilderness system shall take effect upon the day following the

adjournment of the first complete session of Congress following the date that the Houses of Congress receive the recommendation; but only if prior to such adjournment neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives shall have approved a resolution declaring itself opposed to such recommendations.

Thus, once the wilderness bill is passed, Congress plays a negative role only. One may ask, Is this a studied attempt on the part of the advocates of the wilderness system to bypass the historic role of Congress?

The Constitution of the United States provides that all legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the United States. In exercising this power, Congress passes laws providing for the management, classification, and disposal of the lands owned by the United States pursuant to standards and criteria established in the legislation. Congress lays down the guidelines or standards of conduct.

As proposed in S. 174, the continued inclusion or addition in the wilderness system of certain areas covered by the act is a matter upon which the executive branch of the Government is given carte blanche authority with only one slender string attached either House of Congress can nullify the action within a severely limited period of time by passing a resolution declaring itself opposed to the action.

It is Congress, perhaps, more than any other branch of our Federal Government that is directly responsible to the people. We believe it is far preferable for Congress to be playing an affirmative role rather than a mere negative role. If in the future there are recommendations concerning continued inclusion of lands within or of addition of lands to the wilderness system, these recommendations should be submitted to Congress and should then become effective only if both Houses of Congress shall approve thereof.

VI. Uses of a wilderness area for the construction of reservoirs and other purposes should be permitted upon a finding by the secretary of the appropriate department of the Government that such use will better serve the public interest than will its denial.

Section 6(c) (2) of the bill provides that the President may authorize uses of a wilderness area for reservoirs, water conservation works, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest upon his determination that such use shall better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial.

We suppose that an attempt might be made to run the whole U.S. Government by providing that nothing can be done without Presidential act. A President already overburdened with responsibilities is put in an impossible position. It would appear that the wildlife interests promoting this legislation want to make sure that these wilderness areas remain untrammeled by man, no matter how great the need of man may be for their use.

In effect, the wilderness bill puts the essential needs of man in a subordinate position and puts desirable, but nonessential objectives in first place. The bill would give wildlife interests dominant control of these areas such that their single use position would be practically unassailable.

There may be those who state that the wilderness system will not detract from water development. It is true that these areas will still continue to develop water. But if permission cannot be obtained to