many areas, especially explorations; would curtail lumbering activities and endanger all U.S. forests, as well as private property, by creating greatly increased fire hazards and inviting additional insect infestation, while at the same time curtailing construction of access roads which permit free movement of firefighting equipment and bug eradication programs; would stop construction of proposed dams which are essential for the conservation of water resources and for flood prevention, and for the future development of Western States; would remove vast areas from access by the general public for recreational purposes, and would prove to be an expensive monopoly of public resources for the benefit of a mere handful of ardent naturalists and financially endowed sportsmen. We feel that the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and State and National Park Services are adequately administering the forests, public lands, and parks for their preservation, and the conservation of natural resources for the best interests of all of the people, including recreational interests, as well as grazing, lumbering, mining, and agricultural, and we see no reason for additional laws. The present wilderness areas are more than adequate for the small percent of the people of the Nation who have the time, the financial resources, and the physical stamina to enjoy them. The vast majority of the people do not have the time for a pack trip into a wilderness area, do not have the money to hire guides and equip themselves for such a trip, and are not physically able to stand the rigors of horseback trips or to hike the miles necessary to enjoy the interior of a wilderness area where there are no roads and where cars, trucks, and jeeps are not permitted. Figures show that very few avail themselves of the present wilderness areas compared to those who visit vacation spots where good roads and other facilities make them readily accessible to travelers. Additional wilderness areas would even prove dangerous to the lives and health of vacationers. This is called to attention by the many hunters and fishermen who suffer heart attacks or accidents or become lost in the Montrose area, requiring the services of the sheriff's office and a host of volunteer searchers who are called upon to leave their jobs to join in the rescue. Local citizens are also called upon to rescue fishermen who venture into inaccessible canyons in the area, and sometimes lose their lives. A few days ago a hunter, native to the area, and familiar with the terrain, suffered a broken hip in a fall from a tree while attempting to orient himself. In spite of search by plane, ground parties, and individuals, he suffered exposure by lying in the open overnight in freezing temperatures. This was at a time when thousands of hunters are in the field. Another man is missing and an all-out search has failed to discover him or his pickup truck. We have read of the horrible ordeal of the family whose car broke down on a little-used road in eastern Utah and who were not rescued for several days. This sort of thing would become common with the addition of vastly greater areas to the already large wilderness areas in the West. If these wilderness areas are used by the people who are so ardently supporting the act, it would undoubtedly require the creation of a new Government agency, a well-manned rescue force. Finally, S. 174, as now written, deprives Congress of its constitutional function of making laws, placing it in the hands of the execu tive branch, actually the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Interior who are not directly answerable to the people, leaving Congress only the privilege of vetoing their acts. We consider this a very dangerous matter which might well be the beginning of a movement to deprive Congress of its powers, placing all authority in the executive branch of the Government. The potentials of such action is too dangerous to be overlooked. For the economic, political, and recreational welfare of the Nation, S. 174, as written, must be defeated. Thank you. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mrs. Orr? Apparently not. Thank you very much. Now, Mrs. Gore, we will have your statement. If State Representative William Gossard or Senator Wilson are in the room, please come down front. You may proceed, Mrs. Gore. STATEMENT OF MRS. WAYNE A. GORE, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, WESTERN COLORADO COWBELLE COUNCIL AND THE DELTA COWBELLES Mrs. GORE. I am Mrs. Wayne A. Gore, legislative chairman for the Western Colorado Cowbelle Council and the Delta Cowbelles. Why should we set aside 8 percent of our public land for only 2 percent of the people to use? We need an answer to the question of how much wilderness these few people really need. It could amount to one of the biggest land-grab movements we have ever had. For economic growth, it is necessary to estimate the value of wilderness preservation nonuse against use for the production of water, livestock, minerals, gas, oil, and recreational development. Under the principle of multiple use, such areas can be adequately protected from fire, floods, disease, and insects. Ranchers, miners, farmers, counties, and others whose economy depends upon access to resources of the range favor multiple use of the great outdoors. Wilderness areas tend to exclude too many people. People with money to hire guides and horses to explore these areas are likely to be the only ones to enjoy the vast areas of roadless wilderness. Older people and those in poor health would be unable to make these trips. The idea of blocking off millions of acres and doing it in the name of protecting public lands would stifle development of the West and bring future growth to a standstill. Nikita Khrushchev has said: We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have communism. Thank you. Mr. ASPINALL. Are there any questions of Mrs. Gore? Thank you very much. Is State Representative William Gossard present? Mr. GOSSARD. Yes. Mr. ASPINALL. You may proceed. 77350-62-pt. 2-7 STATEMENT OF STATE REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM GOSSARD Mr. GOSSARD. Mr. Chairman and honorable members, I have just a couple of thoughts I would like to leave with the committee, and these run to the practical aspects of the wilderness concept. My State, Colorado, has approximately 64 million acres of total land area, and of that total land area, 24 million acres is federally owned. I represent a district comprised of four counties, and of those four counties, only one county has Federal ownership of less than 50 percent, and that county has 45 percent. So you can see my concern. Now, here in Colorado, in connection with game and fish management, we have a serious problem, which we call the access problem. This is access of hunters and fishermen over private lands to the public domain, one, and the critical factor, really, which aggravates and prolongs this access problem, is the fact of the insistence of hunters and fishermen on driving by vehicle to the pool where they want to fish or to the site where the game is grazing, the very spot. They want to sight the animal from the car, they want to get out and shoot it, drive to the carcass, toss it in, and drive back home. Now this is a fact in Colorado. These recreationalists, whether it is good sportsmanship or not, have clearly indicated to us that they do not want to walk, they do not want to ride horseback, they do not want to exert themselves. I wonder if the eastern Congressmen who are concerned with wilderness legislation are aware of this fact. And it is a fact. One other aspect is the economic aspect. Almost every year in Washington there is deep concern expressed concerning economic growth, the expansion of our economy. Our Western States are even yet substantially undeveloped and certainly offer the best prospect for a fundamental element of economic growth, and that is our undeveloped natural resources. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you, Bill. Mr. GOSSARD. May I ask one thing, sir? Will you please convey to your colleagues that we want you to specify in the act our rights and privileges exactly, and your intent? Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? [Applause.] The next witness is State Senator Hestia Wilson. STATEMENT OF STATE SENATOR HESTIA WILSON Senator WILSON. Members of the committee, I have no prepared statement. I have been listening carefully to the testimony that has been given by the people here in Colorado. I think, with our national parks, with our national monuments, with our wilderness areas and we do have them now in Colorado with our forest lands, with our primitive areas, that there is an area to suit every resident of the State and our tourists, if they want to go there. I see no need to hold over the people of Colorado the threat of a wilderness where no wilderness now exists. If the wilderness areas we have are preserved as they are, and in the proportion that they now exist, those who want to go to the wilderness may go to the wilderness. I hope we will not have wilder ness legislation that will deny to those who are now making good use and careful use of our resources in the forests that continued use. Thank you. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much, Hestia. Is there a representative present for the Albuquerque Jeep Herders Club? I understand he is not here; he has been held up because of the storm. We have received his statement and it will be placed in the record. (Statement for Albuquerque Jeep Herders Club follows:) Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, ALBUQUERQUE JEEP HERDERS CLUB, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, HON. WAYNE ASPINALL: The Albuquerque Jeep Herders Club, consisting of over 50 members fully endorses the wilderness preservation bill, S. 174, and urges its passage as an insurance of continued enjoyment of the great outdoors by future generations and prevention of exploitation by minority groups. Sincerely, HENRY RECTOR. Mr. ASPINALL. Is Mr. Bob Burch of the Colorado Petroleum Council present in the room? (No response.) Mr. ASPINALL. Is someone here speaking for the Conservation Federation of Missouri, headquarters at Jefferson City, Mo.? Is that individual present this afternoon? If not, the next witness is Mr. Mark B. Garman. He is not here. The next witness is Mr. J. A. Hughes, Jack Hughes, of Montrose. He is here. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF JOHN A. HUGHES, SECRETARY, THE TRI-COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, AND ATTORNEY, THE UNCOMPAHGRE VALLEY WATER USERS ASSOCIATION Mr. HUGHES. It is indeed a pleasure to appear before you today. My name is John A. Hughes, and I live at Montrose, Colo. I am appearing here in my capacity as secretary of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District and as attorney for the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association which administers the Uncompahgre project which is located in Montrose and Delta Counties, State of Colorado, serving approximately 70,000 acres of land with irrigation water. I welcome the opportunity to present the views of these organizations at this hearing. I have read and am familiar with S. 174, known as the Wilderness Act. Let me say first that the boards of directors of both of these organizations are opposed to this legislation. We feel that it is founded on a false premise and will not be in the national interests of our country and will on the other hand hamstring the development of our area. To hold back the development of any part of our country can only hurt the Nation as a whole. Insofar as S. 174 concerns the development of our water resources it is not justifiable for the following reasons: The climatic conditions of our area are such that our streams have a large runoff in the spring of the year and in a short period of time most of our water is gone. During the latter part of the summer, from approximately July 10 on, our streams are at a point where the flow of water is not sufficient to irrigate properly the land in cultivation now. From that time on, our streams are overappropriated. The only way we can develop this area is to store water. The water has to be stored at a high elevation to be of use to obtain the maximum benefit from it. Without being able to go into the high areas where these wilderness areas are and develop storage areas, we are not going to be able to develop the area. We respectfully suggest the bill be amended to provide protection for this matter. It is these areas that are being placed in the wilderness system. We feel that the result of S. 174 will be to place so much redtape in the way of getting Presidential approval of every water project will be to stifle the growth and development of our area. Of what benefit is it to say that the bill shall not be construed to be in derogation of State water laws and then require Presidential approval for the construction of a water project? We feel that the bill--if it has to be adopted in some form-should permit the construction of any water projects which comply with State law. Can you visualize any farmer who desires to construct a water project going through all the redtape and expense of obtaining a Presidential determination that his project to irrigate his 160 acres will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial? I cannot. How far would the United States have developed if such restrictions had been in force since 1866? Fortunately the Congress of the United States saw fit to adopt a wise policy in the act of 1866 of encouraging the development of our United States. The United States must continue to develop and use its natural resources if it is to continue to grow and prosper. Recreation is important, but it should be kept within the needs of the people and should not be permitted to stifle the development of the country. We feel that the entire concept of the wilderness system has been promoted by a very minute portion of the people of the United States, that the acres selected are completely out of proportion to the needs. We also are concerned with the dangerous precedent which would be set if this legislation were adopted by delegating legislative authority to administrative bureaus. The Constitution of the United States places the authority and the duty of enacting the laws of our country in the legislature. S. 174 would abrogate this concept on which our country is founded and would require affirmative action by Congress to prevent a law from coming into force. This negative approach to legislation is a dangerous departure from the Constitution and in our opinion should not be adopted. The areas should be studied first by the appropriate bureau and a report submitted to Congress, but Congress should have to say by a |