companies, and our municipalities. More expensive and difficult projects are now being developed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

In the second place, we are just now reaching a stage for actual development of the Colorado River participating projects, for which we have worked so earnestly for so many years.

In the third place, I do not think that any of us ever expect the United States to elect a President from the State of Colorado and I do not agree that our rights to the development of our public lands and our water resources should be represented in the National Government by anyone other than our own elected representatives.

Without water, we cannot exist and any law which limits our right to develop water resources directly limits our very existence and directly or indirectly restricts the growth of our towns and our right to future development in the arid West. In my opinion, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service are already administering our public lands in an adequate and satisfactory manner to the great and overwhelming majority of our people.

Multiple uses are beneficial to our public lands and complete access thereto is necessary for their preservation. If the grass and forage on our mountains are not used, they become fire hazards. If our timber is not harvested, our forests become subject to insection infestation. Even with careful management, great damage sometimes results from storms which leave weakened timber subject to infestation such as the Englemann spruce infestation on Grand Mesa which resulted from windstorms in the year 1939.

What I have said about the dependency of this community upon the Government lands for water supply, grazing, timber production, and recreation I believe applies to each and every community, large or small, in this State.

A number of amendments have been proposed to make the bill more palatable and if this law should pass, certainly amendments will have to be made to keep control of the matter in our own representatives and in Congress where it belongs and to protect our rights to develop water, timber, grazing, and also recreational development for the great majority of our people, but in my opinion the whole proposal is fantastic and should be opposed in its entirety.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.

Are there any questions?

I noted you referred to the fact that it is not likely we will elect a President from the State of Colorado. I do not believe that makes very much difference, because I think the people of the Western 19 States, which includes Hawaii and Alaska, should know that this bill was supported by all but 7 Members of the U.S. Senate. So this question of locale does not mean too much; it is a question of understanding what is involved.

We will hope that the House will understand the different matters that are involved in the bill.

Mr. PALMER. What I meant, of course, was that we want this under the supervision of the Congress rather than the President of the United States.

Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, that pleases this committee very much; that is a part of it.

Mr. CHENOWETH. You state that you do not believe this bill can be amended or any legislation written which would meet the approval of this area. Is that correct?

Mr. PALMER. While we think the bill is more or less fantastic, yet, if it is going to be passed at all, we feel it should be passed with suitable amendments.

Mr. CHENOWETH. But you would rather see no bill passed at all? Mr. PALMER. That is right.

Mr. CHENOWETH. That is all. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr. ASPINALL. Is someone representing the San Miguel Water Conservancy District present?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE MIKE YOUNG, CHAIRMAN, SAN MIGUEL WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Mr. YOUNG. My name is George Mike Young, chairman of the San Miguel Water Conservancy District, also a member of the Southwestern Water Board.

It is my opinion and that of many others that I have talked to that the public lands of our country should be used for the most benefit of all the people. In order for public lands to be used for everyone's benefit, we must have water and power development where and when needed to insure the proper future development of our great country. Without adequate water and power, no country can continue to progress, and in many cases such development must be made on public lands.

Other important uses of public lands are the grazing of livestock and mining; the two are important to the economy and welfare of many communities and areas.

Recreation is another very important use of our public lands. In this age of modern travel, people like to see nature's wonders, but they want to see it from an automobile or jeep. Only a very small minority are willing to travel on foot or by horse to see anything. I therefore feel that a wilderness bill that did not take all of the above things into consideration would not be in the best interest of the majority of the people or the economy of our Nation.

Thank you.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much.

Mr. Dominick has a question.

Mr. DOMINICK. Do you oppose the bill in its entirety? Or do you think it could be amended to make it possible?

Mr. YOUNG. I think it could be amended to make it possible. Mr. DOMINICK. At the present time we have some primitive lands, as you know. Do you think that some of them should be taken out of that category?

Mr. YOUNG. I think some of the primitive lands I know of are being used more or less for multiple use at the present time.

Mr. DOMINICK. Thank you.

Mr. ASPINALL. The next will be Mr. J. Reed Williams, representing the soil conservation district at Montrose.

If he is not here, his statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(Statement of Mr. Williams follows:)

COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS,

Olathe, Colo. To: House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. From: J. Reed Williams, director, Colorado Association of Soil Conservation Districts.

Subject: Wilderness legislation.

The supervisors of the Shavano, Uncompahgre, and Cimarron Soil Conservation Districts met on the evening of October 20, to discuss the wilderness bill. Points brought out in the discussion were:

Access roads are necessary in the wilderness area to fight or prevent forest fires, as well as small dam construction.

That very few of our population would benefit from an area designated as playground. That wilderness areas now set aside, are not being used.

At this meeting, the supervisor unanimously endorsed the resolution passed at the annual meeting of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts in January 1961, which is:

The NASCD, in view of the rapidly expanding population of the Nation, recognizes the need for allocating additional areas of public lands to parks, defense, recreational, wilderness, and other noncommercial purposes.

At the same time, we take position that each and every allocation of public land to such specialized single-purpose use be made only after thorough study and justification; that any allocation of public lands transferred from multiple to restricted use be made only after a complete inventory of all the resources of the area involved-which sets forth their essential uses; that these uses be cataloged in accordance with the present and potential needs; and further, that we oppose vigorously all indiscriminate, unselective, and exclusive allocations beyond the demonstrated, justified needs for the purposes indicated.

Moreover, we strongly urge adequate provision for access roads, fire protec tion, watershed protection, and water production on all lands retired from multiple to restricted use.

J. REED WILLIAMS.

Mr. ASPINALL. The next witness is Mr. F. M. Petersen, of the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Will Mr. William J. Dodd of Delta also come forward?
You may proceed, Mr. Petersen.

STATEMENT OF F. M. PETERSEN, MEMBER, WATER CONSERVATION BOARD OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. PETERSEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is F. M. Petersen. I am a member of the Water Conservation Board of the State of Colorado.

I appear here today as the representative of that board. It is the general purpose of the board to formulate and further a continuing State policy with respect to water development programs and problems, both intrastate and interstate. It is my purpose today to present the views of this board on S. 174, an act to establish a national wilderness preservation system for the permanent good of the whole people and for other purposes.

I wish to express the deep appreciation of the membership of our board for the committee's scheduling of this hearing in Colorado. The act, in its present form, will have a material effect on the economy of the State of Colorado and its impact on future development in Colorado is of great concern to this board and to the people and interests of the entire State.

We do not disagree with the broad policy statement included in section 2 of the act presently before this committee. The maintenance of

certain areas in their wilderness condition will undoubtedly be of benefit to present and future generations of the people of this country. Certain segments of the population have the means and the desire to avail themselves of the solitude and the primitive nature of these areas for unconfined recreation. The maintenance of certain areas for "ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value" will undoubtedly prove to be of some value.

At present 21.5 percent of the land area of the State of Colorado is included in national parks, monuments, and national forests (including wild and primitive areas). The concern we have for the administration of these areas can be appreciated when it is realized that 90 percent of the water supply in Colorado, which is subject to development for beneficial uses, originates within this 21.5 percent of our State. Anything which is done in this area, whether it be in the natture of restrictive regulations or permissive regulations, affects water, the lifeblood of our economy.

The concern which we in Colorado have for the preservation and utilization of our limited water supplies is borne out by the findings of the Senate Select Committee on National Resources. Our State is in a semiarid zone and is entirely dependent upon the conservation and wise use of the water resources originating in our mountain areas.

Major Pike, in his report on the results of exploration in the West and Middle West, stated that this was a desert area which would forever constitute a barrier toward development westward. Major Pike did not reckon with the ingenuity and perseverance of the early settlers in developing the water resources originating in our mountain areas and making the desert bloom. The increasing store of information on streamflows and the technological advances in control and utilization of these streamflows makes it possible to collect and use waters which only a few short years ago were considered to be unusable because of the problems involved in collection, storage, and transportation to the sites of use. It is this progress and continued development of our water resources which we wish to preserve.

We do not feel that adequate safeguards to permit the orderly conservation and development of our rapidly dwindling water supplies, have been incorporated into the legislation now under consideration. It is our feeling that this legislation approaches the problem from the negative rather than from the affirmative side. As a practical matter the act amounts to an abandonment of congressional authority over public lands and leaves the disposition of vast areas to the decisions of administrators who are not answerable directly to the people. It is our feeling that a more proper procedure would be for the legislative branch to take affirmative action in the establishment of specific wilderness areas. The legislative branch should not be placed in the position of being required to veto administrative recommendations. The privilege of local and State interests of making their voices heard in the Halls of Congress through affirmative actions of their elected representative should not be denied.

The State of Colorado in concert with the Federal agencies charged with the development of water resources has expended a great deal of time and money in the inventory of water supplies and in the uses for these water supplies within the State. Waters originating in the

mountainous areas of Colorado flow through 18 States in their course to the sea. Through the medium of interstate compacts and under decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the State of Colorado must share its water with these other States; therefore, any action which affects the water supply of Colorado also affects the water supply of those States through which the water must flow.

Should the potential area to be covered by this proposed legislation become incorporated into wilderness areas, the source of nearly all of our water would be under a wilderness blanket. Because of this blanket it is impossible at this time to determine the complete effect of this legislation upon our water supply.

Since we have made long and determined efforts to locate the exact sources of our water, the character of the flows from these sources, the uses to which this water may be put, and the locations in which it is required, we feel that specific wilderness areas should be studied to determine their effect on our water development program before they are created. Utilization of water in wilderness areas is only one of the resource requirements for water.

The requirement of water for wilderness and its effect on existing supplies has not been determined. It should have its proper niche in the water-use picture; however, all other uses of water should not become subsevient to it. The act should not only permit, but should require, a determination of water uses which may be in conflict with wilderness areas before those areas are created. It is only after such a detailed determination has been made that intelligent designations of wilderness areas can be made. This would, of course, involve a statement of the views of other affected agencies of the Federal Government as well as the views of the State and local interests involved. Modification of the provisions of section 9 of the proposed act to include a State such as ours would at least insure that the people of the State of Colorado would be represented at deliberations on the use of public lands, including wilderness area designations.

Colorado, together with the other States of the Upper Colorado River Basin, finds itself in the position "once burned, twice shy." Our experience with the protection assured in Executive proclamation has not been good. The enlargement, by Presidential proclamation, of Dinosaur National Monument excepted the operation of the Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920, as well as the reclamation withdrawal of October 17, 1904, for the Brown's Park Reservoir site. The situation there was somewhat similar to the situation here in that detailed investigation of the most feasible reservoir site had not been completed. Water interests were assured that the intent contained in this proclamation would protect water resource development. When the time came for authorization of the Echo Park Dam which would encroach on the enlarged Dinosaur National Monument, the authorization was defeated in spite of the assurances that ample protection for water resource development had been provided in the proclamation.

Thank you.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Petersen.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Chenoweth.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I would like to inquire if the Colorado Water Conservation Board has taken any official action or position on this legislation?