PAGENO="0001" NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 8416, H.R. 90, S. 119 AND RELATED BILLS TO ESTABLISh A NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM MARCh 7, 8, 18, AND 19, 1968 Serial No. 90-22 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 92-560 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1968 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC. 20402 - Price $2 PAGENO="0002" JAMES A. HALEY, Florida ED EDMONDSON, OklahOma WALTER S. BARING, Nevada ROY A. TAYLOR, North Carolina HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California HUGH L. CAREY, New York MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona PHILLIP BURTON, California JOHN V. TUNNEY, California THOMAS S. FOLEY, Washington RICHARD WHITE, Texas ROBERT W. KASTENMEXER, Wisconsin JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan WILLIAM F. RYAN, New York PATSY P. MINK, Hawaii JAMES KEE, West Virginia LLOYD MEEDS, Washington ABRAHAM KAZEN, Ja., Texas SANTIAGO POLANCQ-4]3RETJ, Resident CommissiOi~*, Puei~tg Rico HAROLD T. JOHNSON HUGH L. CAREY MORRIS K. UDALL RICHARD WHITE ROBERT W. KA'STENMEIER JAMES G. O'HARA WILLIAM F. RYAN PATSY T. MINK ABRAHAM KAZEN, Ja. JOHN P. SAYLOR, ?ennsylvanla Ranking Minority Member E. Y. BERRY, South Dakota CRAIG HOSMER, California ~OE SKUBITZ, Kansas LAURENCE J. BURTON, Utah ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Maryland WENDELL WYATT, Oregon GEORGE V. HANSEN, Idaho ED REINECKE, California THEODORE R. KUPFERMAN, New York JOHN KYL, Iowa SAM STEIGER, Arizona HOWARD W. POLLOCK, Alaska JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho *-J~E SKUBITZ ROQE~S C. B. MORTON THEOt~ORE R. KUPFERMAN JOHN KYL SAM STEIGER HOWARD W. POLLOCK JAMES A. McCLURe COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS Housn ow REI'aEsENTATIvEs WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Colorado, Chairman SIDNEY L. ~ ~ta~ Director ~i~: ~IcHLRD~Ww~stz~, Coun8e1~ NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION ROtA, TAYLOR, Chairman T. RICHARD WITMzR, Consultant on National Parks and Recreation Note: The chairman, Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, and the ranking minority member, Hon. John P. Saylor, are ex officio members of each subcommittee. (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held- ` March 7, 1968 : ~ Page Morning session 1 Afternoon session 109 March 8, 1968 : Morning session 171 March 18, 1968 : Morning session 265 March 19, 1968: Morning session 331 Afternoon session 427 Text of: H.R.8416 i H.R.90 . 9 S.119 16 Report of the Secretary submitting the Administration report dated February 18, 1967 24 Report of the Department of the Interior dated August 14, 1967, signed by Secretary Udall 34 Report of the Department of the Interior dated September 18, 1967, signed by Assistant Secretary Anderson 41 Report of the Department of the Interior dated March 6, 1968, signed by Assistant Secretary Stanley Cain 44 Report of the Department of the Interior dated March 6, 1968, signed by Assistant Secretary Anderson 45 Report of the Department of Agriculture, dated August 11, 1967, signed by Secretary Freeman 46 Report of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, dated July 20, 1967, signed by Under Secretary Wilbur Cohen 49 Report from the Department of the Army, dated August 11, 1967, signed by Acting Secretary McGiffert 50 Report from the Tennessee Valley Authority, dated June 9, 1967, signed by Aubrey J. Wagner, Chairman of the Board of Directors 51 Report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, dated August 21, 1967, signed by Secretary Robert C. Weaver 52 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Anderson, Hon. William E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee 87 Aspinall, Hon. Wayne N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado 53 Bennett, lion. Charles E., a Repres~nt~tive in Congress from the State of Florida 106 Blatnik, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota~ - 105 Brown, Hon. Clarence J., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio 89,91 Bush, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 285 Church, Hon. Frank, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho 198 Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan 104 Fisher, Hon. 0. C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 59 Fraser, Hon. Donald M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota 78, 85 Fulton, Hon. Richard H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee 109 Fuqua, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florid& 107 (III) PAGENO="0004" Iv Gathings, Hon. E. C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Page Aikansas _ 54 Harrison, Hon. William Henry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wyoming 107 Jordan, Hon. Len B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho 201 Karth, Hon. Joseph E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota 74, 77 Laird, Hon. Melvin R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 63 Nelson, Hon. Gaylord, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin 93, 100 O'Konski, Hon. Alvin E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 102 Quie, Hon. Albert H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota 105 Reuss, Hon. Henry S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 62, 70 Staggers, Hon. Harley 0., a Representative in Congress from the State of West Virginia 58 STATEMENTS OF OTHER WITNESSES American Farm Bureau Federation, presented by Herbert A. Watkins, assistant legislative director Baker, John A., Assistant Secretary, Department of Agriculture Black, Charles R., Jr., Upper Eleven Point River Association, Arkansas Black, Col. Claude A., U.S. Army, retired, Board of Advisors, Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association Bluff City Canoe Club, Memphis, Tenn Bovey, Martin K., president, Trout Unlimited Brandborg, Stewart .M., executive director, The Wilderness Society, Washington, ~ Brown, Herbert E., chairman, Suwannee River Authority, ~ Burns, Mrs. John Locke, Jr., Charles Town, W. Va Callison, Charles H., executive vice president, National Audubon Society Chambers, Larry L., vice president, Potomac Basin Federation, Martins- burg, W. Va Colorado Open Space Coordinating Council, Inc Crafts, Hon. Edward C., Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Dc- partment of the Interior __________~_____________________.. 110, Cutbirth, J. Brown, Houston, Tex Douglas, Flach, secretary, Little Miami, Inc Douglas, Philip A., executive secretary, Sport Fishing Institute, Washing- ton, D.C Dunn, James Taylor, secretary, St. Croix River Association, St. Paul, Minn East Tennessee White Water Club, by Richard E. Reed, ~ Edgar, Robert R., Bowaters Southern Paper Corp., Calhoun, Tenn Federation of Conservationists, United Societies, Inc Forest Industries Council, presented by R. R. Edgar Fretwell, James H., Explorer Post 20, Boy Scouts of America Germann, Mrs. Richard, secretary, the Little Miami River Interleague Group, League of Women Voters, Milford, Ohio Gibson, Hon. L. P. Pete, State senator, Florida Goddard, Hon. Maurice K., Secretary of Forests and Waters, Common- wealth of ~ Goulding, Mrs. John P., Shepardstown, W. ~ Green River Valley Cattlemen's Association Gutermuth, C. R., vice president, Wildlife Management Institute Hanson, Martin, president, Wisconsin Resource Conservation Council, Mellen, Wis_____________ - Hathaway, Stanley K., Governor, State of Wyoming Hella, U. W., director of parks and recreation, Minnesota, on behalf of Jane Leirfallom, commissioner of conservation, Minnesota Depart- ment of Conservation I 257 209 404 298 538 215 438 288 326 241 380 I 459 120 285 416 332 338 304 420 544 422 269 368 291 514 396 457 233 354 453 337 PAGENO="0005" V Page Heller, Homer K., Canoe Cruisers Association, Washington, D.C ~ 412 Hill Country Arts FQundation of Ingram, Tex 278 Hoffman, Jack, Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, Minn 361 Jackson, Guy C., Kerrville, Tex 282 Junkin, Fred, Upper Guadalupe River Authority, Kerrville, Tex 285 Kerr County Chamber of Commerce 280 Kerrville Board of Realtors, by Floyd Price, president 281 Kimball, Thomas L., executive director, National Wildlife Federation 235 Leirfallom, Jarle, commissioner of conservation, Minnesota Department of Conservation 337 Leonard, Mrs. Robert P., 1-larpers Ferry, W. Va 383 Lochte, Arthur, Upper Guadalupe River Authority, Kerrville, Tex 285 Miller, Robert A., representing Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association and Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning, before the Senate Corn- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, April 14, 1967 541 Minnesota Council of State Parks, presented by Eldon Zachman, first vice chairman 335 Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission 346 Moulton, Dr. Barbara, M.D., Washington, D.C 372, 376 Moulton, John R., president, Potomac Basin Federation 388, 391 Nelson, John M., superintendent, I)epartment of Lighting, city of Seattle, Wash 266 Neunhoffer, Hon. Julius R., county judge, Kerr County, Tex 277 Odegard, H. Peter, executive director, Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, Hudson, Wis 345 Peck, Roy, executive director, Wyoming Natural Resource Board 455 Penfold, J. W., conservation director, Izaak Walton League of America 228 Pickett, John, Dalton, Ark., Upper Eleven Point River Association, Arkansas 401 Pomeroy, Kenneth B., chief forester of the American Forestry Associa- tirni 323 Porter, Robert T., director, Suwannee River Citizens Association 292 Prezioso, Dr. Sal J., executive vice president, National Recreation and Park Association, presented by Ben H. Thompson 246 Protheroe, Maurice, director, Florida Audubon Society, Jacksonville, Fla~ 428 Quick, Denton J., chairman, Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council, Strousburg, Pa 309 Russell, Liane B., Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning 300 Scott, Walter E., Madison, Wis 348 Shifflette, Margaret, director and secretary, Suwannee River Citizens As- sociation 289 Smith, Spencer M., secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources. 220 Sorenson, James F., president, National Reclamation Association 253 Stegner, Ed, on behalf of I-Ion. Warren E. Hearnes, Governor of the State of Missouri Stokes, Thomas M., vice admiral, U.S. Navy, (retired,) Charles Town, W. Va 398 Talley, Mrs. Elizabeth, Jefferson County, W. Va 449 Taylor, Keith, president, West Virginia Division, Izaak Walton League of America~ 318 Texas Water Conservation Association 198 Thompson, Ben H., executive secretary, National Conference on State Parks 246 Thompson, Charles P., Landowners Protective Association, Harpers Ferry, W. Va 394 Thompson, Glenn, editor, Journal Herald, Dayton, Ohio 413 Umseheid, Clifford, Cliff's View Farm, Charles Town, W. Va 446 Voight, Mr. L. P., secretary, Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin, read by Walter E. Scott, Madison ,Wis ~ 348 Voigt, William, Jr., Mechanicsburg, Pa 466 Waldrop, Robert, Sierra Club 250 Watkins, Herbert A., assistant legislative director, for the American Farm Bureau Federation 257 Weiler, William P., president, New York.~New Jersey River Conference~ 315 Werner, Julius J., John Muir chapter of the Sierra Club, Madison, Wis~.. 356 PAGENO="0006" VI Page Wyoming Stock Growers Association 456 Zachman, Eldon, first vice chairman, Minnesota Counëil of State Parks, Waterville, Minn 334 LETTERS Allard, Robert D., Birchwood, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 4, 1968 532 Anderson, Hon. Harry R., Assistant Secretary of the Interior, to Hon. John W~ McCormack, dated February 18, 1967 (plus enclosures) 24 Anderson, Hon. Harry R., Assistant Secretary of the Interior, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated September 18, 1967 (with enclosure) 41 Anderson, Hon. Harry R., Assistant Secretary of the Interior, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 6, 1968 45 Anderson, Hope D., Washington, D.C., to Hon. Roy Taylor, dated March 16, 1968 . 464 Anderson, Norman C., Madison, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 5, 1968 531 Angell, David C., M.D., chairman, ~ conservation committee, Chippewa Wildlife Society, Eau Claire, Wis., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 25,1968 523 Baber, Glenn G., executive manager, Auburndale Chamber of Commerce, Auburndale, Fla., to Mr. Robert W. Gould, president, Suwannee River Citizens Association, Mayo, Fla., dated December 1, 1965 491 Baring, Hon. Walter S., Member of Congress, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 11, 1968 329 Barney, Joshua N., president, Morgan County Court, Berkeley Springs, W. Va., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 21, 1968 _ 500 Barron, W. B., chairman, Board of County Commissioners, Labelle, Fla., to Robert W. Gould, president, Suwannee River Citizens Association, Mayo, Fla., dated December 16, 1965 494 Blair, Robert A., president, Cumberland Falls Preservation Association, Inc., Corbin; Ky., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated April 2, 1968 543 Blecha, Carmella, Green Bay, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 8, 1968 531 Bollas, Barclay M., Princeton, N.J., to Hon. Roy A, Taylor, dated March 22, 1968 464 Bortleson, Gilbert C., University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 11, 1968 ~ 525 Bowling, Martin L., and others, Lake City, Fla., to House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated March 13, 1968 484 Brasch, John G., chairman, Upper Mississippi River Conservation Corn- mittee, Madison, Wis., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 8, 1968 458 Brigham, Dorcas, president, Mount Dora Audubon Society, Mount Dora, Fla., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 15, 1968 (telegram)~ 483 Brigham, Morton R., Lewiston, Idaho, to Representative James McClure, dated March 5, 1968 472 Brown, John H., mayor, Williamson, W~ Va., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 16, 1968 502 Brown, Ronald A., Chevy Chase, Md., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 27, 1968 464 Buettner, Caspar, White Lake, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 16, 1968 527 Buettner, Herbert, White Lake, Wis., to Congressman Roy A. Taylor, dated March 17, 1968 532 Buettner, Herbert, president, Wolf River Chapter'-TlJ, White Lake, Wis., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 17, 1968 522 Burleson, Bob, president, Texas Explorers Club., Temple, Tex., to Repre- sentative Wayne N. Aspinall, dat.ed March 11, 1968 512 Burleson, Bob, Temple, Tex., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 12, 1968 513 Burrell, Robert, Morgantown, W. Va., to Hon. Roy A~ Taylor, dated March 9, 1968 509 Cain, Hon. Stanley A., Assistant Secretary of the Interior, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspin~d1, dated March 6, 1968 44 PAGENO="0007" VII Callison, Charles H., executive vice president, National Audubon Society, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated April 16, 1968~ Cargo, David F., Governor, State of New Mexico, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 22, 1968 Carnes, Cecil, Jr., Los Alamos, N. Mex., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 4, 1968 Carnes, Cecil, Jr., and 18 others, the Izaao Walton League of America, Los Alamos, N. Mex., to Representative Wayne N. Aspinall Carter, Randy, Fauquier County, Department of Building Inspection, Warrenton, Va., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 13, 1968 Casto, Dayton C., Jr., colonel, U.S. Air Force, the Castos' Cacapon River Camps, Largent, W. Va., to Hon. Jennings Randolph, dated March 21, 1968 Charles, Ralph, Albuquerque, N. Mex., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated February 12, 1968 Cohen, lion. Wilbur J., Under Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated July 20, 1967 - Compton, Neil, M.D., president, Ozark ~ Society, to Congressman Wayne Aspinall, dated March 22, 1968 Couch, Martha and Keith, Overland Park, Kans., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated April 12, .1968 Crookham, George L., Jr., chairman, Idaho Water Resources Board, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 14, 1968 Cruickshank, Mrs. Allab D., conservation chairman, Indian River Audubon Society, Rockledge, Fla., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 11, 1968 Dahmer, Virgil, president, Petersburg Kiwanis Club, Petersburg, W. Va., to Hon. Roy Taylor, dated March 11, 1968 Dexture, L. N., Houston, Tex., to Congressman Roy A. Taylor, dated March 16, 1968 (telegram) Dickerman, Ernest M., chairman, Conservation Committee, Smoky Mountains Hiking Club, Knoxville, Tenn., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 29, 1968 Dickson, William C., to Representative Wayne Aspinall Duncan, Owen L., mayor, Huntington, W. Va., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 11, 1968 ~ Dyer, Lloyd, vice. president, Middle Fork Lodge, Inc., Reno, Nev., to Hon. ~ Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 13, 1968 ~ - Emigh, C. Robert, Los Alamos, N. Mex., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 18, 1968 Fancher, Mrs. Anne, secretary, Wisconsin Bowhuntei~s * Association, Menomonee Falls, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 3, 1968 Ferrell, Fred W., scoutmaster, Troop 229, Los Alamos, N. Mex., to, Repre- sentative Wayne N. Aspinall, dated.March 11, 1968 Ferrell, Walter L., mayor, Keno'va, W. Va., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor Fitt, Alfred B., Special Assistant (CiVil Functions), Department of the Army, to John Pickett, President, Upper Eleven Point River Association, Dalton, Ark Franks, Hardin, Alton, Mo., to Senator Stuart Symington, dated. March 6, 1968 Freeman, Hon. Orville L., Secretary of Agriculture, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated August 11, 1967 Freeman, Hon. Orville L., Secretary of Agriculture, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 7, 1968 , Frost, Edwin C., president, Izaak Walton League.of America, Inc., Jackson County Chapter, Medford, Oreg., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated Janu- ary 26, 1968 ~- Gainer, Carl E., Chairman, Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Senate of West Virginia, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 11, 1968. - Galloway, Miss Jane, conservation chairman, Buck Ridge Ski Club, Spring- field, Pa., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, datect March 23~ 1968 Gerlach, Erwin, Nelson Lake Association,' Inc., Hayward, Wis., to Repre- sentative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 11, 1968 Gertenbach, Mrs. Robert, Racine, Wis., `to Chairman Roy A, Taylor, dated March 18, 1968 (telegram) Page 244 475 480 476 499 507 479 49 536 545 470 482 505 331 540 508 499 474 477 478 500 411 534 46 171 545 496 .461 523 332 PAGENO="0008" VIII presentative Roy A. ri Va.. D Con presentatives, en, A. C., ~, Inc.~ PAGENO="0009" Ix Knowles, Hon. Warren P., Governor, State of Wisconsin, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, date~t May 10, 1968 - ~ - Kolka, Henry W., arid 12 others, Wisconsin State University, Eau Claire, Wis., to Representative Roy A Taylor, dated March 11, 1968_ IKowaisky, Mr. and Mrs. James Ilk, instructors in music, Union College, Barbourville, Ky., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 17, 1968~ Kuykendall, Dan, Member of Congress, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated April 1, 1968 Ladin, Lawrence, representing the State of Iowa on the Upper Mississippi compact, Des Moines, Iowa, to Representative Wayne Aspinall, dated March 27, 1968 Langford, George, president, Explorer's Club of Pittsburgh, Pa., to Rep- resentative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 11, 1968 Lanham, Rex, and others, Emmett, Idaho, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 14, 1968 Leeson, C. E., mayor, Ravenswood, W. Va., to chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated March 13 ,1968 Leonard, Mrs. Robert P., president, Jefferson County Planning Corn- mission, Charles Town, W. Va., to the Jefferson County Court, dated July 20, 1967 Leonard, Mrs. Robert P., president, Jefferson County Planning Corn- mission, Charles Town, W. Va., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 14, 1968 Leonard, Mrs. Robert P., president, Jefferson County Planning Corn- mission, Harpers Ferry, W. Va., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 21, 1968 Leonard, Mrs. Robert P., president, Jefferson County Planning Corn- mission, Charles Town, W. Va., to the Jefferson County Court Lester, Mrs. Evelyn, Takoma Park, Md., to Hon. Roy Taylor, dated March23, 1968 Litch, Robert B., executive secretary, Federation of Conservationists, United Societies, Barnegat Light, N.J., to National Parks Subcom- rnittee, dated March 8, ~ Little, Clayton N., chairman, Arkansas State Stream Preservation Corn- mittee, Bentonville, Ark., to lion. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 22, 1968 Lukens, Donald E., Member of Congress, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 26, 1968 Lyon, David L., Cornell College, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated April 5, 1968 MacMullan, RalphA., director, Michigan State Department of Conserva- tion, Lansing, Mich., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 7, l968~ - - Lagargle, Mr. and Mrs. Hal and family, Lanbam, Md., to Hon. Roy Taylor, dated March 19, 1968 ~. Magic, William H., executive secretary, Friends of the Wilderness, Duluth, Minn., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 10, 1968 March, James H., Milwaukee, Wis., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 17, 1968 Mark, Robert, vice president, Stanford Conservation Group, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 14, ~ MeAlister, Jim, Kansas City, Mo., to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs dated March 5, 1968 MeCord, Mrs. Gayte P., Jr., legislation chairman, Florida Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc., Tallahassee, Fla., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated July 21, 1~67 McGiffert, Hon. David E., Actiug Secretary of the Army, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated August 11, 1967 Meredith, Otis, Houston, Tex., to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated March 15, 1968 Mettler, Donald G., West Orange, N.J., to National Parks Subcommittee, dated March 21, 1968 Michael, M., president, Pelican Audubon Society, Vero Beach, Fla., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 15, 1968 (telegram) Miller, James E~, president, Hampshire County Taxpayers Association, Augusta, W. Va,, to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 19, 1968 (tele~ gram) Page 546 355 462 451 I; 519 515 474 502 385 384 387 385 463 544 534 452 546 515 463 519 531 462 539 481 50 328 466 483 507 PAGENO="0010" x Morgan, D. B., mayor, Poi~nt Pleasant, W. Va., to chairman, Committee on Interior ar~d Insular Affairs, dated March 12, 1968 Moses, Richard L., CLTJ, Miles W. McNally, Inc~, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March29, 1968~ Munchheimer, K. H., M.D., Rio Dell, Calif., to Hon. Roy Taylor, dated April 2, 1968 Mytas, Ed, president, Wolf River Conservation Club, White Lake, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 16, ~ Nierengarten, Phil, Superintendent of Parks, St. Cloud, Minn., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated April 24, 1968 Odegard, H. Peter, executive director, Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, Hudson, Wis., to Hon. Clement J. Zablocki, dated March 5, ~ Olsen, Arnold, Congress of the United States, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, ~ dated March 22, ~ Olson, Roy L., chairman, W~shing~on ~ County Parks and Recreation Committee, Stillwater, Minn., to HOn. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 14 ~ Payne, Ray M., mayor, Clarksbnrg, W. Va., to chairman, Committee on ~ Interior and Insular Affairs, dated March 15, 1968 Penn, Hon. Brooks County Judge, ahd six others, Walnut Ridge, Ark., ~ to Congressman J~.C, Gathings, dated February 26, 1968 Pieper, Daniel F., secretary, Oconomowoc Fish `.N Gun, Milwaukee, Wis., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated april 2, ~ Poage, W. R., Congress of the United States, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspimdl, dated March 13, 1968~,~ Pohl, Pearl L., president, *Milw~kee, La l3udde Memorial Chapter, Izaak Walton League of Wisconsin, and others, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 17, 1968 (telegram) Radder, Carl C., conservation chairman, St. Petersburg Audubon Society, St. Petersburg, Fla~, tQ HQr~. Wayne N~ Aspinall, dated March 15, 1968 (telegram) Radin, Alex, American Public Power Association, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, datedAprill, 19~38 _~_________~ Rand, Charles S., Spooner, ~ Wis~, to Representative Roy A. ~ Randall, Hon. William J., Member of Congress, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated February 21, ~ Reilly, N. M. P., economist, High Meadow Farm, Center Sandwich, N.H., to Cdngressmàn Roy Taylor, dated March 15, ~ , Renshaw, Mr. and Mrs. Leslie. L., Titusville, Fla., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 21, ~ Reuter, Senator Cliff, Florida Senate, ~ ]~ort Pierce, Fla., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 19, 1968 (telegram) Reynolds, S. E., secretary, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Santa Fe, N. Mex., to Hoe. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated April 4, 1968 Roark, Eugene M., secretary, Dane County Conservation League, Madi- son, Wis., to Representative Roy A. #I~aylor, dated March 7, 1968 Rouse, Tom, and 14 others, Wisconsin State University, Eau Claire, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 14, 1968 Rumer, R. R., vice president, Monsanto Co., and Lanigan, R. J., vice president, Owens-Illinois, Inc., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated ~ March 28, 1968 (plus enclosure) Rynearson, Emmett E., chairman, and others, River Committee, Missoula, Mont., to Representative James A. McClure, dated March 9, 1968~ _ _ Samstad, Lawrence B., P.E., engineer, Itasca Engineering, Inc., Cokato, Minn., to Richard L. Moses, St. Paul, Minn., dated March 21, 1968~ _ Samuelson, Don, Governor, State of Idaho, to Hon. James A. McClure, dated March 18, ~ Sobrommer, Ralph F., Trimbelle Rod and Gun Club, Inc., Ellsworth, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 18, 1968 (tele- gram) Scott, Walter E., Madison, Wis., to House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated March 18, 1968 Setzer, Robert, president, Winford Lands Home Association, Inc., St. Croix County, Wis., to Representative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 12, ~968 Page 501 525 544 533 517 516 450 518 498 56 462 450 I 522 483 457 355 263 465 484 481 475 521 525 485 473 526 468 521 358 524 PAGENO="0011" Sizemore, Paul 11., mayor, ~ Town of Delbarton, W. Va., to I-Ion. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 16, 1968~ Shumard, Hon. M~ A., Jr., county judge, Kendall County Texas Corn- missioners Court, to Hon. 0. C. Fisher, dated March 15, 1968~ Smith, John Wesley, Mayor, Beckley, W. Va., to chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated March 12, 1968 Speaker, E. 13., president, Association of Midwest Fish and Game Corn- missioners, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated Aug. 31, 1967 Specht, Virginia G., Brookeville, Md., to Congressman Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 17, 1968 Steel, Charles L., colonel, CE, chairman, White River Basin Coordinating Committee, Little Rock, Ark., to Charles R. Black, dated February 26, 1968 Stephens, Thomas D., president, Cacapon River Valley Association, to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 21, 1968 Stine, 0. C., Jefferson County Planning Commission, Charles Town, W. Va., to the Jefferson County Court, dated July 24, 1967 ~. Sulewsky, Mrs. Max W., legislative chairman, Wisconsin Federation of Women's Clubs, Milwaukee, Wis., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, (telegram) Suzuki, Howard K., Ph. D., temporary chairman, Arkansas Conservation Council, Little Rock, Ark., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated April 8, 1968 Swanson, John R., Berkeley, Calif., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 18, 1968 Symington, Stuart, U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 12, 1968 (plus enclosure) Tabb, Lyle C., president, West Virginia . Eastern Panhandle Land and ~ River Protective Association, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated April 6, 1968 Tadich, Mrs. James J., corresponding secretary, Cocoa-Rockledge Garden Club, Inc., Rockledge, Fla., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 12, 1968 Talley, Mrs. Elizabeth J., secretary, Upper Potomac River Basin Protec- tive Association, Martinsburg, W. Va., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 10, 1968 (plus petition) Teske, A. J., secretary, Idaho Mining Association, to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 18, 1968 Timme, John, and others, Ingram Garden Club, and Roger Stone, and others, Hunt-Ingram Lions Club, to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Thomas, Robert G., president, Idaho Wildlife Federation, District No. 1, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, to Represeatative Jim McClure, dated March 6, 1968 Thompson, Charles P., executive director, Landowners Protective Associa- tion, Harpers Ferry, W. Va., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 21, 1968 Thomssen, Geraldine Wiggins, St. Paul, Minn., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 9, 1965 Thomssen, Kathy, Appleton, Wis., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated March 14, 1968 Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated August 14, 1967 (with enclosure) Van Someren, Frank, Jr., county board chairman, and others, St. Croix County, Hudson, Wis Wagner, Hon. Aubrey J., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, datedJiine 9, 1967 Walling, 0. U., secretary, and 40 others, Bluff City Canoe Club, to Repre- sentative Roy A. Taylor, dated April 3, 1968 Weaver, Hon. Robert C., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, to Hon Wayne N. Aspinall, dated August 21, 1967 Westerholm, Kermit, president, Sequin and Guadalupe County Chamber of Commerce, to Hon. Abraham Kazen, Jr., dated March 20, 1968 Whalen, Charles W., Jr., Member of Congress, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 26, 1968 Wheeler, Temple G., mayor, Corporation of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated March 14, 1968 XI Page 499 282 498 459 508 I 411 504 387 522 537 468 534 393 482 506 471 282 471 496 527 531 34 519 51 461 52 511 451 388 PAGENO="0012" XII White, Lee C., chairman, Federal Power Commission, to Hon. Wayi~e N. Page Aspinall, with report on H.R. 8416 172, 192 White, Roger H., Explorer Post 20, BSA, Los Alamos, N. Mex., to Repre- sentative Roy A. Taylor, dated March 6, 1968 477 Whittington, Charles W., president, the County Court of Jefferson County, Charles Town, W. Va., to Hon. Hulett C. Smith, the Statehouse, Charles- ton, W. Va., dated July 27, 1967 Wipperman, P. J., Middletown, Wis., to House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated March 19, 1968 Wolf, James R., Pittsburgh, Pa., to Hon. John P. Saylor, dated February 26, 1968 Woodside, Murray D., Greensburg, Pa., to Hon. Roy Taylor, dated March 22, 1968 Woodworth, John R., secretary, Idaho Fish and Game Commission, Boise, Idaho, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 15, 1968 Wright, James F., Delaware River Basin Commission, Trenton, N.J., to Congressman Wayne N. Aspinall, dated March 15, 1968 Young, Hon. John, Member of Congress, to Hon Wayne Aspinall, dated March 7, 1968 RESOLUTIONS Association of Midwest Fish and Game Commissioners Resolution No.6 Bay County, Fla., Board of County Commissioners, adopted December 13, 1965 Bell Chamber of Commerce, resolved December 9, 1965 Coma! County Commissioners Court, adopted October 20, 1967 Columbia County~ Fla., county commissioners, resolved unanimously March 5, 1968 Dixie County, Fla., Board of County Commissioners, adopted February 1, 1966 Escambia County, Fh~t., Board of County Commissioners, adopted Decem- ber 7, 1965 Florida Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc., adopted June 21, 1967 Florida Legislature, House Memorial No. 2073, dated June 2, 1967 Hamilton County, Fla., Board of County Commissioners, adopted Decem- ber 16, 1964 Hamilton County, Fla., Board of County Commissioners, adopted August 17, 1965 Hamilton County, Fla., Chamber of Commerce, adopted August 9, 1965~. Homestead-Redland District Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, adopted January 10, 1966 Industrial Foundation of New Braunfels, Tex~, approved March 12, 196& Jacksonville Beaches Area Chamber of Commerce, Jacksonville, Fla., ~ adopted June 13, 1967 Kiwanis Club of Los Alamos, N. Mex Lake City-Columbia County Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, adoptedJune 12, 1967 Lee County, Fla., Board of County Commissioners, adopted December 1, 1965 National Conference on State Parks, Resolution 2, adopted March 22, 1968 Newberry Area Chamber of Commerce, Newberry, Fla., adopted May 31, 1967 Rotary Club of Lake City, Fla., Board of Directors, adopted March 1, 1968 Texas Committee on Natural Resources Texas Explorers Club adopted March 30, 1967 Upper Guadalupe River Authority board of directors, Scenic Rivers Act- resolution, dated March 1, 1968 Washburn County, Wis., Board of Supervisors, adopted January 10, 1967 Washburn County Board of Supervisors, Wis., proposed resolution for St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, dated January 10, 1967 Washington County Parks and Recreation Committee West Virginia Eastern Panhandle Land and River Protective Association, accepted March 15, 1966 _~ 385 359 168 468 469 515 215 I 459 492 E" :~; 491 481 292 493 494 495 495 277 491 477 489 493 458 490 490 510 450 278 517 103 518 373 PAGENO="0013" Page 497 497 505 163 130 306 140 125 122 262 262 426 409 173 138 260 144 261 38 41 158 167 125 165 350 167 I xiii: West Virginia Senate Concurrent Resolution 9, adopted March 13, 1965 West Virginia Senate Concurrent Resolution 10, adopted March 5, 1965 West Virginia Senate Concurrent Resolution 24, sponsored by the Izaak Walton League, West Virginia division TABLES Approximate river miles in public and private ownership Cost of acquisition of designated ~ Cost estimates for Tennessee Rivers proposed for inclusion in a National Scenic Rivers ~ Estimated cost of acquisition and development for rivers designated in S. 119, H.R. 8416, H.R. 6166, and H.R. ~ Initial rivers designated and difference in mileages in HR. 8416, 1-JR. 90, ILR. 6166, and S. ~ Summary of number of rivers and estimated cost and acres to be acquired to establish a national system of scenic and wild rivers under four spec- ified bills~_ Volume and characteristics of travel: 1963___~_______________.~_ Ten largest cities and population density per square mile MAPS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 314 363 273 313 . Counties in Tocks Island Regional Advisory ~ Northern States Power Co., and United Power & Land Co., St. Croix River Land Management area (paster) ~ Rafting, kayaking, and canoeing on the Rio Grande in northern New Mexico (map) Regional zone map of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Amendments to H.R. 8416 proposed by the National Forest Products ~ Eleven Point River, Mo. and Ark., short recent history of proposed Water Valley ~ Federal Power Commission report on HR. 8416, 90th Congress (plus tables) Justification for study cost of $50,000 per river, information furnished by Dr. Crafts_______________~_________________~____________________ Land owned by the Federal Government, 1966 (chart) ~ Language to provide a more flexible application of the 320 acres per mile, proposed amendment No. 1 of the Department of the Interior report of August 14, 1967 on H.R. ~ National travel-characteristics of trips : 1963 (chart) Principal differences between ll.R. 8416, ll.R. 90 and S. 119 and H.R. 6166 from Department of the ~ Principal differences between ll.R. 8416, 5. 119 (as passed by the Senate), H.R. 90, and H.R. 6166 ~ Selection of rivers in 1963-64 by the Departments of the Interior and Agri-. culture for study for preliminary field evaluation, information supplied by Dr. ~ Sixty seven rivers that received preliminary consideration in study, submitted by Dr. ~ Summary of major differences between H.R. 8416, 5. 1 19, H.R. 90, and H.R. ~ Types of development appropriate for a river in a wild river state, informa- tion furnished by Dr. ~ Wisconsin Conservation Commission Policy on Wild and Scenic Rivers submitted by Mr. Voigt Twenty two rivers that received detailed consideration in study, submitted by Dr. Crafts PAGENO="0014" PAGENO="0015" NATIONAL SCENIC RIV~RS SYSTEM THURSDA~Y, MARCH 7, 1967 Rousi~ or REPRESENTATIvES, StiBC0MMITTEE ON NATIONAL P4R1~ AND Ri~cmwrioN OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Wa~1th~gton, D.C. The subcon~imittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 ~.ni., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Roy A. Taylor (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. TAYLOR. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation will now come to order. We convene for the purpose of conducting a hearing on bills to es~ tablish a national scenic rivers system, the bills being H.R. 90 by Con- gressman Saylor, }LR. 493 by Congressman Dingell, ELR. 3996 by Congressman Reuss, JLR. 6166 by Congressman Reuss, }J.R. 6588 `by Congressman Anderson, H.R. 8416 by Congressman Aspinall, H.R. 15429 by Congressman Fulton, ELR. 15690 by Congressman Fraser, S. 119 which has passed the Senate, }LR. 752 by Congressman Karth, H.R. 753 by Congressman Kastenmeier, H.R. 3389 by Congressman Reuss, H.R. 3983 by Congressman O'Konski, H.R. 6289 by Congress- man Quie, H.R. 6373 `by Congressman Laird, and }LR. 14180 `by Con- gressman Kyl. In the absence of `c~bjection, ~ copy of H.R. 8416 will be made `a part of the record at this point. In the `absence of objection, copy of H.R. 90 by Congressman Saylor will be made a part of the record at this point. In the absence of objection, S. 119 the Senate bill, will `be made a part of the record at this point. (H.R. 8416, H.R. 90 and S. 119 follow:) [HR. 8416, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To provido for a national seenic rIvers s~~stem, an~I for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate a~uZ House, of Repre~enta4ives of the UnSted States of America in Congress assernbled, That (a) tkis Act may be cited as the "Na- tional Scenic Rivers Act of 1967". ~ ~ ~ (b) It is hereby declared to be the policy 0J~ th~ United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments~ possess outstanditigly remarkable scenic, ~ recreatioiial, ~ geologic, fi~h and wildljfe, his- tone, cultural, or other similar. values shalL be preserved in free-flowing condi~ tion, and that they and their immediate envinronments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. (c) The purpose of this Act is to implement this policy by instituting a national scenic rivers system, `by designating the initial `components of that system, and by prescribing the methods `by which and standards according to which additional compOnents may be added to the system from time to time. SEc. 2, (a) The national sceflic rivers system shall coxaprise rivers (i) that (1) PAGENO="0016" 2 are authorized for inclusion therein by Act of Congress, or (ii) that are desig- nated as scenic rivers by or pursuant to an act of the legislature of the St~ite or States through which they flow, that are to be permanenly administered as scenic rivers `by an agency or political subdivision of the State or States con- cerned without expense to the United States, that are found by the Secretary of the Interior to meet the criteria established in this Act and such criteria supple- mentary thereto as he may prescribe, and that are approved by him for inclusion in the system. The following types of rivers are eligible for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system if they and the lands adjacent to them can and will be admin- istered in general accord with the criteria hereinafter set forth: (i) WILD Rivnns.-Free-flowing rivera located within designated units of the national wilderness preservation system or within de facto wilderness areas. Lands adjacent to a~y such rivers, and all interests therein, should be acquired by `the administering agency to the full extent necessary to preserve a true wilderness environment and should be managed as wilderness in accordance with the concepts emhodied in the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890 ; 16 U.S.C. ch. 23). (ii) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Rivims.-Free-flowing rivers the valleys of which have been little changed by man but to which public access is facilitated and along which compatible resources uses may be permitted. Lands adjacent to any such river should be so controlled and managed as to give priority to preservation of natural values. (iii) PASTORAL RIvExs.-Free-flowing rivers the valleys of which are pre- dominantly used for agriculture and other dispersed human activities which do not substantially interfere with public use of the rivers and enjoyment of their surroundings. Lands adjacent to any such river should remain primarily in the type of use existing at the time it is designated a national scenic river, and its value as a pastoral river should `be preserved primarily through acquisition of conservation easements and, in the case of a river administered by a State or political subdivision, by zoning, tax incentives, and similar means : Provided, That this shall not preclude acquisition of fee title if the cost of other methods of land use control is excessive compared with the cost of acquiring the fee with lease~back or other comparaNe arrangements. ( iv ) HIsToRIc AND CTJLPTTRAL RIvERS.-RiVers, including reservoirs, canals, and other manmade structures, which have great historic or cultural significance. Lands adjacent to any such river, and `the use thereof, should be subject to public control sufficient to realize the purposes for which such river is designated a national scenic river. (c) The following types of areas are also recognized as eligible for inclusion in the nationail scenic river~ system ordinarily, but not necessarily, as supple- ments to scenic rivers of the types described iii subsection (b ) of this section: (1) UNIQuE NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIVER AREA5.-Specific sites along rivers which should be preserved intact because of their particular value for scientific study, for the enjoyment of naitural beauty, or for the preservhtion of areheologi- cal or histOric remains. The lands involved in such areas should be acquired in fee by the administering agency and managed to serve the puri~ose for which they are acquired. (ii) HIGH-DENsITY-UsE AEEA5.-Sites along or not far removed from rivers which, in order to serve the needs of the people for outdoor recreation ( includ- ing access for this pur~ose) , may involve substantial alteration of the environ- ment. The lands involvOd in such areas should be acquired in fee by the adminis- tering agency unles~, in the judgment of `the Secretary of the InteHor, other meth- ods of public control are sufficient to assure their use for the purpose for which they are created. Sno. 3. The followIng rivers and the lands adjacent thereto as depicted on the maps hereinafter identified, and according to plans hereinafter set forth, are hereby designated as components of the national scenic rivers system: (1) Rogue River, Oregon : The s~gment between the mouth of the Applegate River and Lobster Creek Bridge (map numbered ), to be preserved as a wild river from the mouth of Graves Creek `to thirty-eight river-miles below Flea Creek and as a scenic river above and below said reach; to be administered by ~geneies of the D~partment~ ~xf the Interior and Agriculture as agreed upon by the Secretaries of said Departments or as directed by the President. (2) Rio Grande, New Mexico: The segment between the New Mexico-Colorado PAGENO="0017" 3 State line and State Highw~ay Number 96 ; and the lower four miles of the Red River ( map numbered ) , to be preserved as a natural environment river ; to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. (3) Salmon River, Idaho : The cegment between the town of North Fork arid the town of Riggins and the entire Middle Fork (map numbered ) , to be pre- served as a wild river ; to be administered by an agency of the Department of the Interior or the Departmeiit of Agriculture as agreed upon by the Secretaries of said Departments, or as directed by the President. (4) The following tributaries of the Olearwater, Idaho : The Seiway from its origin to the town of Lowell, the Lochsa from the Powell Ranger Station to the town of Lowell, and the Middle Fork from the town of Lowell to the town of Kooskia (map numbered ) , to be preserved as a wild river ; to be admin- istered by the Secretary of Agriculture. Sue. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall study and from time to time submit to ~the President and the Congress proposals for the addition to the na~ tional scenic rivers system of rivers and sites which, in his judgment, fall within one or more of the categories set out in section 2, subsections (c ) and (d ) of this Act and which are proposed to be administered, wholly or partially, by an agency of the United States. Each proposal ahall be accompanied by a report, including maps and illustrations, showing among other things the area included within the proposal ; `the characteristics which, in the judgment of the Secretary, make the area a worthy addition to the system ; the current status of landowner~ ship (and use in the area ; the reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land which would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the national scenic rivers system ; the Federal agency ( which in the case of a river or site which is wholly or substantially within a national forest, shall be the Department of Agriculture) by which it is proposed the area be administered; the extent to which it is proposed that administration, including the costs thereof, be shared by State and local agencies ; and the estimated cost to the United States of acquiring necessary lands and interests in land and of administering the area as a component of the system. Each such report shall be printed as a Senate or House document. (b) Before submitting any such report to the President and the Congress, the Secretary shall submit copies of his proposed report to the Secretary of Agri- culture, the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Federal Power Commis- sion, the head of any other affected Federal department or agency, and unless the lands proposed to be included in the area are already owned by the United States or have already been authorized for acquisition by Act of Congress, the Governor of the State or States in which they are located or an officer designated by the Governor to receive the same. Any recommendations or comments on the pro- posal which the said officials furnish the Secretary within ninety days of the date on which the report is submitted to them, together with the Secretary's comments thereon, shall be included with the transmittal to the President and the Congress. (c) Before approving or ~isapproving for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system any river designated as a scenic river by or pursuant to an act of a State legislature, the Secretary shall submit the proposal to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, and the head of any other affected Federal department or agency and shall evaluate and give due weight to any recommendations or comments which the said officials furnish him within ninety days of the date on which it is submitted to them. If be approves the proposed inclusion, be ~hall publish notice thereof in the Federal Register. Sue. 5. (a) The following rivers are, without prejudice to other eligible candidates for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system, hereby designated for potential addition to that system: (1) Cacapon, West Virginia ~. The entire river and its tributaries, the Lost River and North River. (2) Chattooga, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia : The entire river. (3) Delaware, Pennsylvania, . and New York : The segment from Hancock, New York, to Matamora, Pennsylvania. (4) Eleven Point, Arkansas and Missouri: The segment between the Black River and Tbom,asville, Missouri. (5) Flathead, Montana: The North Pork from the Canadian border down- stream to its confluence with the Middle Fork; the Middle Fork from its head- 92-560-68----2 PAGENO="0018" 4 waters to its confluence with the South Fork ; and the South Fork from its origin ~ to Hungry Horse Reservoir. ~ (6) Gasconade, Missouri : The entire river. (7) Green, Wyoming : The segment from its origin in the Bridger Wilderness Area to its confluence Wlith Horse Creek. (8) Guadalupe., Texas : The entire river. ~ ~ (9) Illinois, Oregon : The entire river. . (10) Klamath, California : The segment frbm Scott Rh~er' to Klamath Falls. ( 11 ) Niobrara, Nebraska : Ph~ mainstem segment from `the confluence of Antelope Creek to the beadwaters of the proposed Norden `1~eservoir east of the town of Valentine, and the lower eight miles of ita tributary, the Snake River. (12) Penobscot, Maine : ~ Its east and w~st br~nches. * ~ ~ (13) Pere Marquette, Michigan : The entir~ r1v~. (14) Pine Creek, Pennsylvania : The ~egment from Ansonia to Waterville. (15) Saint Croix, Minnesota and Wlscon~hi : The segment between the dam near Paylo'rs Falls, Minnesota, and th~ dam near llordon, Wisconsin, * and its tributary, the Namekagon ; the segment between the dam near Taylors Falls~ and its confluence with the Mi~s1ssippi River. (16) Shenandoah, West Virginia : Phë ~egment in the State of West Virginia. (17) Skaglt, Washington : The segment between the town of Seciro Woolley and the Gorge powerhouse near the town of Newbalem ; the Cascade River between its mouth and the junction of its North and South Forks ; the South Fork to the boundary of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area ; the Suiattle River from its mouth to the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area boundary at Milk Creek; the Sauk River from its mouth to its junction with Elliott Creek ; the North Fork of the Sank River from its junction with the South Fork of the Sank to the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area boundary. (18) Susquehanna, New York and Pennsylvania : The segment between a dam at Cooperstown, New York, and the town of Pittston, Pennsylvania ; the segment of the West Branch Susquehanna between Clearfield and Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. ( 19) Suwannee, Georgia and Florida : The entire river from its source in the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia to the gulf and the outlying Ichetucknee Springs, Florida. ~ (20) Upper Iowa, Iowa : The entire river. (b) The Secretary of the Interior shall proceed as expeditiously as possible to study each of the `rivers named in subsection (a ) of this section in order to determine whether it should be included in the national scenic rivers system: Provided, (i) That the Secretary shall pursue his study of any of said i~ivers in as close cooperation with appropriate agencies of the affected State and its political subdivisions as possible and such study shall include `a determination of the degree to which the State or its political ~ubdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of the river should it be proposed for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system, and (ii) that no study otherwise required by this subsection shall be undertaken ot ptlrsi~ed by the Secretary in the case of any streath or ~ection of a stream which the Governor of the State in which it is located certifies the State or one of its agencies or political sub- divisions is prepared to study for th~ purpoae of determining whether it should be proposed for inclusion in the national scenic `rivers system so long as the State oroneof its agencies or political subdivisions ~o~s in fact pursue said study with diligence, Nothing contained in this clause (ii) , `however, shall betaken to forbid the Secretary to cooperate with the State, the `agency, or the political subdivision in undertaking and carrying out the study. SEC. 6. (a) The Seere1~ary of the Interior Is authorized to acquire lands and interests in land within the authorized boundaries of any federally administered component of the national scenic rivers system designated in section 3 of this Act or `hereafter designated for inclusion in the system `by act of Congress. Such lands and interests in land, however, if they are owned by or a~e' within the boundaries of any political subdivision of a state, or are held by or for an Indian tribe, or are owned by a State may be acquired only with the consent of the political sub- division, `tribe, or `State, `as the case may be, unless, in the case `of lands within the boundaries of a political subdivision, there are not in effect, with respect to such lands, valid zoning laws or o'rdinance~ which are approved `by `the Secretary a~ adequate to pi,otect the land and to assare its use for purposes consistent with this Act or unless, in the case `of lands owned' by the subdivision, the subdivision PAGENO="0019" 5 is ~not following a plan for the management and protection of the lands that the Secretary finds protects the land and assures its use for purposes consistent with this Act. (b) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept title to non~1~ederal prc~perty within the authorized boundaries of any federally administered corn- ponent of the national scenic rivers system designed in section 3 of this Act or hereafter *desigrn~ted for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress' and, in exchange therefor, convey to ~ the grantor any federally owned property which is under his jurisdiction withinthe State or States in which the component lies and which he classifle~ as suitable for exchange or other dispos~l. If the properties exchanged are nOt of approxirnately equal fair rnarket value, the Secretary uiay accept cash from or, subject to the availability of appropriations the~,efor, pay cash to the grantor to the extent of the difference in the values involved in the tratisaction. ~ (c) The head of any Federal department or agency having. administrative jurisdiction over any lands or interests in land within the authorized houndaries of any federa1l~ administered component of the national scenic riversi system designated in s ~kion 3 of this Act or hereafter designated for inclusion in the system by Act Congress is authorized to transfer to the Secretary of the Interior jurisdict1on over such lands for administration in accordance with the provisions of this' Act. (d) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept donations of lands and interests in land, funds, and other property for use in connection with his administration of the national scenic rivers system. (0) Subsections (a) , (b) , (c) , and (d) of this section shall apply with equal force to the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of any component of the national scenic rivers system which is within his administrative jurisdiction. SEC. 7. (a) The Federal Power Commission shall not license the constvuction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or other project works under the Federal Power Act (49 Stat. 863) , as amended (16 U.S.C. 791a at seq. ) , on or directly affecting any river which is designated in section 3 of this Act as a component of the national scenic rivers system or which is hereafter designated for inclusion in that system, and no department or agency of the United State's shall assist by loan, grant, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project on or directly affecting any such river. No depart- ment or agency of the United States shall recommend authorization of any water resources project on or directly affecting any such river or request appropriations to begin construction of any such project, whether here'tofore or hereafter authorized, without advising the Secretary of the Interior in writing of its in- tention to do at least days in advance, and without specifically reporting to the Congress in writing at the time it makes its recommendation or request that construction of such project ~rould be in conflict with the purposes of this Act. (b) The Federal Power Commission shall not license the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, tramsmission line, or other project works under the Federal Power Act, as amended, on or directly affecting any river which is listed in section 5, subsection (a), of this Act, and no department or agency of the United State's shall assist by loan, grant, or otherwise in the construction of any water ~resources project on or directly affecting any such river- . (I) during the five-year period following enactment of this Act unless, prior to the expiration. of said period, the Secretary of the Interior, on the basis of study, concludes `that such river should . not be included in the na- tional scenic rivers system ~n'd publishes notice to that effect in the Federal Register, and (ii) during such additional period thereafter as, In the case of mrny river which the Secretary recommends to the President and the Congress for in- elusion in the national scenic river's system, is iiecess'ary for congressional consideration thereof, or, in the case of . any river recommended to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusibu in the mition'a~ scenic rivers system, under section 2(a) (ii) of this Act, is necessary for `the Secretary's considera- tion thereof, which additional period, however, shall not exceed three years in the first case and' one year in the second. No department or agency of the United States shall, during the periods herein- before specified, recommend authorization of any water resources project on any PAGENO="0020" 6 such river or request appropriations to begin construction of any such project, whether heretofore or hereafter ai~thorized, without advising the Secretary of the Interior in writing of its intention so to do at least days in advance of doing so and without specifically reporting to the Congress in writing at the time it makes its recommendation or request that construction of such project would be in conflict with the purposes of this Act. (c) Phe Federal Power Oc~mmission and all other Federal agencies shall, promptly upon ennctment of this Act, inform the Secretary of the Interior of any proceedings, studies, or other activities within their jurisdiction which are now in progress and which affect or may affect any of the rivers specified in section 5, subsection (a) , of this Act. They shall likewise inform him of any such proceed- ings, studies, or other activities which are hereafter eemmenced or resumed before they are commenced or resumed. (d) Nothing in this section with respect to the making of a loan or grant shall apply to grants made under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 19~5 (78 Stat. 897, 16 U.S.C. 41301-5 et seq.). SEC. 8. (a) All public lands within the authorized boundaries of ~ny compo- nent of the national scenic rivers system which is designated in section 3 of this Act or which is hereafter designuted for inclusion in that system are hereby withdrawn from entry, sale, or other disposition under the public land laws of the United States. (b) All public lands which constitute the bed or bank, or are within one- quarter mile of the bank, of any river which is listed in section 5, subsection (a), of this Act are hereby withdrawn from entry, sale, or other disposition under the public land laws of the United States for the periods specified in section 7, sub- section (b), of this Act. Suc. 9. (a) Nothing in this Act shall affect the applicability of the United States mining and mineral leasing laws within components of the national scenic rivers system except that- ( i ) all prospecting, mining operations, and other activities on mining claims which, in the case of a component of the system designated in section 3 of this Act, have not heretofore, been perfected or which, in the case of a component hereafter designated pursuant to this Act or any other Act of Congress, are not perfected before its inclusion in the system and all mining operations and other activities under a mineral lease, license, or permit issued or renewed after inclusion of a component in the system shall be subject to such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior or, in the case of national forest lands, the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this Act; (ii) the perfection of, or issuance of a patent to, any mining claim affect- Ing lands within the system shall confer or convey a right or title only to the mineral deposits and such rights only to the use of the surface and the surface resources as are reasonably required to carrying on prospecting or mining operations and are consistent with such regulations as may be pre- seribed by the Secretary of the Interior or, in the case of national forest lands, by the Secretary of Agriculture ; and (iii) subject to existing vested rights, the minerals in Federal lands which are part of the system and constitute the bed or bank or are situated within one~qnarter mile of the bank of any river designated a wild river under this Act or any subsequent Act are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appro- priation under the mining laws and from operation of the mineral leasing laws including, in both cases, amendments thereto. Regulations issued pursuant to paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subsection shall, among other things, provide safeguards against pollution of the river involved and unnecessary impairment of the scenery within the component in question. (b) The minerals in any Federal lands which constitute the bed or bank or are situated within one-quarter mile of the bank or any river which is listed in see- tion 5, subsection (a) of this Act are hereby withdrawn from all forms of ap- propriation under the mining laws during the period specified in section 7, sub- section (b), of this Act. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to forbid prospecting or the issuance of leases, licenses and permits under the mineral leasing laws subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the Interior and, in the case of national forest lands, the Secretary of Agriculture find ap- PAGENO="0021" 7 propriate to safeguard the area in the event it is subsequently included within the system. SEC. 10. (a ) Each component of the national scenic river system shall be ad- ministered in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, urn- iting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such administration primary emphasis shall be given to pro- tecting its esthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic and scientific features. Manage- ment plans for any such component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area. (b) Any portion of a component of the national scenic rivers system that is within the national wilderness preservation system, as established by the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890, 16 U.S.C., ch. 23), shall be subject to the provisions of both the Wilderness Act and this Act with respect to preservation of such river and its immediate environment, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts the more restrictive provisions shall apply. (c) Any component of the national scenic rivers system that is administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service shall become a part of the national park system, and any such component that is administered by the Secretary through the Fish and Wildlife Service shall become a part of the national wildlife refuge system. The lands involved shall be subject to the pro- visions of this Act and the Acts under which the national park system or na- tional wildlife system, as the case may be, is administered, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts the more restrictive provisions shall apply. The Secretary of the Interior, in his administration of any component of the na- tional scenic rivers system, may utilize such general statutory authorities rela- ting to areas of the natkmal park system and such general statutory authorities otherwise available to him for recreation and preservation purposes and for the conservation and management of natural resources as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. (d) The Secretary of Agriculture, in his administration of any component of the national scenic rivers system area, may utilize the general statutory an- thorities relating to the national forests in such manner as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. (e) The Federal agency charged with the administration of any component of the national scenic rivers system may enter into written cooperative agree- ments with the Governor of a State, the head of any State agency, or the ap- propriate official of a political subdivision of a State for State or local govern- mental participation in the administration of the component. The States and their political subdivisions shall be encouraged to cooperate in the planning and administration of components of the system which include or adjoin State- or county-owned lands. Suc. 12. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall encourage and assist the States to consider, in formulating and carrying out their comprehensive state- wide outdoor recreation plans and proposals for financing assistance for State and local projects submitted pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897) , needs and opportunities for establishing State and local scenic river areas. He shall also, In accordance with the authority con- tamed in the Act. of May 28, 1963 (77 Stat. 49) , provide technical assistance and advice to, and cooperate with, States, political subdivisions, and private interests, including nonprofit organizations, with respect to establishing such scenic river areas. (b) The Secretaries of Agriculture and of Health, Education, and Welfare shall likewise, in accordance with the authority vested in them, assist, advise, and cooperate with State and local agencies and priva:te interests with respect to establishing such scenic river areas. SEC. 13. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and heads of other Federal agencies shall review administrative and management policies, regulations, contracts, and plans affecting lands under their respective jurisdictions which include, border upon, or are adjacent to the rivers listed in subsection ( a ) of section 5 of this Act in order to determine what actions should be taken to protect such rivers during the' period they are being con- sidered for potential addition to the national scenic rivers system. Particular attention shall be given a scheduled timber harvest, road construction, and simi- lar activities which might be contrary to the purposes of this Act. PAGENO="0022" I 8 (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any existing rights, privileges, or contracts affec:ting Federal lands held by any private party without the consent of said party. (c) The head of any agency administering a component of the national scenic rivers system shall cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and with the appropHato State water pollution control agencies for the purpose of eliminating or diminishing the pollution of waters of the river. SEC. 14. (a) Nothing in this' Act shall affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the States with respect to' fish and wildlife. (b) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the United States with respect to the applicability to it of, or to its exemption from, State water laws, and nothing in this Act shall be con- strued to alter, amend, or repeal any interstate water compact which has here- tofore been entered into by States which contain any portion of the national scenic rivers system arid to which the consent or approval of the `Congress has been given. ` ` ~ ` ` ` (e) A State shall have such rights as may' be necessary to assure adequate ac~e5s by such State to the beds' ` of ` navigable rivers which are vested in the St~1te, in case such beds are located in a national scenic river : Provided, That no river, the bed of which is vested in a States shall be included in the national scenic ~ rivers system. pursuant ~ to section 2, subsection ( a ) ( ( ii) , of this Act without certification by'the State thatit will not permit mining or similar disrup- tiçn `of its bed. ~ ` ` ` Sno. 15. `The claim and ` allowance of the value of a conservation easement ~s a charitable contribution under section 170 of title 26, United States Code, or as a gift under section~ 2522 of said title shall constitute an agreement by the donoi~ on behalf of himself, hth heirs, ` and assigns that, if the terms of the instrument creating the easement rare vioiated,' the donee or the United States ~nay acquire the servient estate at its ~fair market value as of the time the easement was donated minus the value of the easement claimed and allowed as a charitable contributIon or gift. ` , SEC. 16. As used in this Act,' the term- ~ ` ~ ( a ) "River" means o flowing body of water or estuary er a section, portion, or tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, ` kills, small lakes, and, as provided in this Act, manmade w~'terways. (b) `Tree flowing", as aj)plied to any river or section of a river, means existing or flowing in naturalcondition without impoundment, diversion, straight- ening, ~ rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The e~i~tence,' how- ever, of low dams, diversion works', and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion: in the national scenic rivers system shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion : Provided, That this shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the national scenic rivers systems. (c) As nsed in this Act, the term "conservation easement" means a per- petual interest in land, however, created or expressed which interest ( i ) is held by or for the benefit of the United States or the people of the United States, a State or the people of a State,' or another public body or the people of such body, (ii) is specifically enforcible by its holder or beneficiaries, and (iii) limits or obligates the holder of the servient estate, his heirs, and assigns with respect o their use and management of the land and activities conducted thereon, the disturbance or modification, of the surface or subsurface thereof, the struc- tures placed or maintained thereon, or the growth, planting, removal, destruction, or damaging of vegetation thereon, or in other respects in connection therewith, all as more specifically spelled out in the document by which s:uch interest in land is created, the object of such limtations and obligations being the mainte- nance or enhancement of the natural beauty of the land in question or of areas affected by it and of flora, fauna, and archeological or historic remains on it or them and the preservation' of the valties thereof for scientific study and for public enjoyment by present and future generations. Sue. 17. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary, but not more than $6,500,000, for the acquisition of lands and interests in land under the provisions of this Act. PAGENO="0023" 9 [H.R~ 90, 90th Cong., firit sess.] A ~3ILL To reserve certain public laiidg for a National Seenic Rivers System, to provide a prolcedure for adding addItional public lands and other lands to the systei~ and for other purposes Be it enc&oted by the Senate and House of Represe~iatatives of the Un~ited States of America in (Jongress asseinb~ed, SHOEP PITLII S~ECTON 1. This Act may be cited as the "Scenic Rivers Act." STATEMENT OF POLICY SEC. 2. (a) The Oongi~esis finds that some ef the free-flowing rivers of the United States possess unique water conservation, scenic, fish, wildlife, a~nd out- door recreation values of presient and potantial benefit to the American people. The ~ Congress also ~ finds t'ha:t our established national policy of dam and other coustruction at appropriate sectiOns of the rivers ~ of the United States n~eds tQ be eoinpiè~nented by a i~ policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereQf `in their natural and free-flowing condition, to protect the `water q~ality and shore environment o~ such rivers ~tnd to fulfill other vital national consdrvation p~fl~poses. ~ is the p.~1lcy of ~Jongress to preserve, reclaim, aud mi~ke `ava4làible for the i~ane~1t of all of the Anierician people selected parts of the N'a- tlOll's diminishing resources of fi~ee-flow~ng rivers. For this purpose the~'e is h~reby esta~lished a National Scenic Rivers Systei~a to be composed of the ai~eas that are designated as "scenic river areas" in this Act, and the additional areas that may be design~ted in subseitient Acts of Congress. It is not the intent of this Act tO requ4re or to authorize acquisition of all lands within the exterior bound- aries of schrdc river. areas but to ~sure preservation and pr~per management * of the land, water, wildlife, outdoor recreational ValueS, and scenic resources. Areas designated as "~ceuic ~iver areas" by `subsequent Acts of Congress shall be classified and administered in accordance with the provisions of this Act unless the subsequent Acts proVide otherwise. CLASSES OF SCENIC RIVER AREAS (b) A `scenic river `area eligible to lie `included in the system is a free~fiowing stream, tributary; river, or Section thereof and the related adjacent land drea lihait possesses unique water conservation, scenic, fish,. wildlife, and outdoor rec- reattion values. Every scenic river in its free-flowing condition, or upon reutora- tion to this condition, shall be considered eligible for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system and shall be classified, designated, and administered as one of `the following : ( 1 ) Oias~ I scenic river area~s-Thos:e rivers or sections of rivers that `are free of impoundments and inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive, `and waters unpolluted. These would rep- resent vestige,s of primitive America. (2) Olass II scenic river areas-Those rivers or section's of rivers free of impoundments, with s'horel'ines or watershed still largely `primitive, and ishorlines ]ia'rgely undeveloped, hnt accessible to places by roads. (3 ) Class III scenic river `areas-Those rivers or sections of `rivers which are readily accessible by road, or railroad, with some development along shorelines and which may haVe undergone some impoundment or diver- sion `in the past NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM SEC. 3. (a) The following rivers, or segments thereof, and related, adjacent lands, most of which are public lands, as depicted in maps numbered "NSR-SAL-. 1000, NSR-CLE-1000, NSR-ROG-1000, NSR-RIO-1000, NSR-ELE-1000, NSR- CAP-1000, NSR-SHE-1000, NSR-GRE-1000, NSR-KLA-1000, NSR-MIS-1000, NSR-SKA-1000, NSR-FLA--1000, NSR-HUDA000, NSR-WOL-1000, NSR-StC- 1000, NSR-SUW-1000," are hereby designated as "scenic river areas": (1) Salmon, Idaho, ~ the Salmon from town of North Fork downstream to its confluence with the Snake River and the entire Middle Fork. ~ (2) Clearwater, Middle Fork, Idaho,. the Middle Fork from the town of Kooshia upstream to the town of Lowell ; the Lochsa River from its junction with the Sd- PAGENO="0024" y at Lowell forming the W - -- v River from head, ~ ee with ~ and Soul dson New York iO source inclu ing - £, Wisconsin, the segment reaching from the confluence of the Hunt- )wnstream to the town of Keshena. Minnesota and Wisconsin, beginning at the dam near Tayic upstream to the dam near Gordon, Wisc mgon t nwannee, Georgia and Florida, entire river f"~ Swamp in Georgia to the gulf and the oi 1 be on file and a--~ Department of rther S FEDERAL-STATE PLANNING~F (b) The Secretary of t - national forest lands agencies, are directed to c in which the rivers listed Th State plan is feasible and of these rivers. They shall s effective date of this Act, their recc them in the National SceE ~c Rivers ~ Congress his recommenda.. (1) Buffalo, Tennessee, County to its confluence with the (2) Saint Croix, Minnesota, Taylors Falls, Minnesota, to its (3) At Niobrara, Nebraska, of Antelope Creek dowr'~~ ervoir east of the town Of I tributary. e segments ~ars of the or all of *~t to the .te: awrence I 10 near i Point, Missouri, dow stream Powell Ranger .- - n. legate River ti ning, ~e 5E nding from the Lost Riv r located in th in the Briciger Wil- Scott River down- tending from Fort Peck Reservoir up- lontana, the town of Fo thington, the ~ ~ powerhc ~othe ~ PAGENO="0025" 11 (4) Susquehanna, New York and Pennsylvania, the segment of the Susque- hanna River from a dam at C~operstown, New York, downstream to the town of Pittston, Pennsylvania. (5) Allegheny, Pennsylvania and New York, the segment extending from the Allegheny Reservoir upstream to its source. (6) Big Blue, Indiana, the segment extending from its `confluence with the Ohio River east of the town of Leavenworth upstream to near the town of Salem. (7) Little Miami, Ohio, the segment of the Little Miami River in Clark, Greene, Warren, and Clermont Counties from a point in the vicinity of Clifton, Ohio, downstream to a point in the vicinity of Morrow, Ohio. (8) Little Beaver, Ohio, the segment of the north and middle forks of the Litle Beaver River, in Oolumbiana county, from a point in the vicinity of Negly and Elkton, Ohio, downstream to a point in the vicinity of East Liverpool, Ohio. (9) Pine Creek, Pennsylvania, the segment from Ansonia, Pennsylvania, to Waterville, Pennsylvania. ( 10) Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York, the segment from Hancock, New York, to Matamoras, Pennsylvania. (11) Clarion, Pennsylvania, the segment from where it enters the Allegheny River to Ridgway, Pennsylvania. (12) West Branch Susequehanna, Pennsylvania, the segment of the West Branch Susquehanna from Clearfield, Pennsylvania, to Lock Haven, Penn- sylvania. ( Th ) Little Tennesee, Tennessee, the segment from Chilhowee Dam to its confluence with the Tennessee River near Lenoir City. (14) Buffalo, Arkansas, the entire river from its source in Newton County to its confluence with the White River. (15) Colorado, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, California, the entire river from its headwaters to its outlet in the Pacific Ocean. (16) Columbia, Montana, Washington, Idaho and Oregon, the segment of river from the Canadian River to its outlet in the Pacific Ocean. nivun BASIN PLANNING FOR ADDITIONS TO SYSTEM (c) Similar reviews and recommendationS for preservation of the following rivers shall be made to the President within ten years of enactment of thiS Act. Recommendations on one-third of these rivers shall be made within five years of the enactment of this Act ; recommendations shall be made on not less than two-thirds of these rivers within seven years after the enactment of this Act, and on the remaining rivers within ten years after the enactment of this Act. Animas, Colorado. Ausable, New York. Big Fork, Minnesota Big Hole, Montana. Black Warrior, Alabama. Blackfoot, Montana. Cache 1~a Poudre, Colorado. Cheat, West Virginia. Connecticut, New Hampshire. Cumberland, Tennesee and Kentucky. Deschutes, Oregon. Feather, middle fork, California. French Broad, North Carolina and Tennessee. Gasconade, Missouri. Gila, New Mexico. Greenbrier, West Virginia. Gros Ventre, Wyoming. Guadalupe, Texas. Hoh, Washington. James, Virginia. Kern, north fork, California. Linville, North Carolina. Little Wabash, Illinois. Madison, Montana. PAGENO="0026" 12 Manistee, Michigan. Methow, Washington. Mullica, New Jersey. Namekagon, Wisconsin. Okiawaha, Florida. Penobscott,east and west branches, Maine. Pere Marquette, Michigan. Potomac, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia. Quetts, Washington. Sacramento, California. Saint Joe, Idaho. Salt, Arizona. San Juan, Utah and New Mexico. Savannah headwaters, Georgia and North Carolina. Shenandoah, Virginia. Smith, California. Snake, north fork, Idaho. Tangipahoa, Louisiana. Teton, Idaho and Wyoming. Upper Iowa, Iowa. Wacissa, Florida. Wapsipinicon, Iowa. White, north and south forks, Colorado. Wind, Wyoming. Yellowstone, Montana and Wyoming. Youghiogheny, Maryland and Pennsylvania. (d) In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential scenic river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall discuss any such potentials. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and investigation to determine which additional scenic river areas within tho United States shall be evaluated in planning reports as potential additions to the scenic rivers system. OTHER ADDITIONS TO THE SYSTEM (e) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the President from time to time their recommendations ~ for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system of any other river or segment thereof. The President shall submit to the Congress his recommendations for such legislation as he deems appropriate. (f) Recommendations made under this section shall be developed in consulta- tion with the States, those Federal agencies which normally participate in the development of recreation plans and comprehensive river basin plans, any com- missions established pursuant to interstate compacts the assigned responsibilities of which would be affected, and commissions or otbor bodies which may be established for the purpose of developing a comprehensive plan for the river basin within which the contemplated scenic river area would be located, Each such recommendation shall be accompanied by ~ ( 1 ) expressions of any views which the Federal agencies and States and Interstate commissions cotisulted pursuant to the foregoing may submit within ninety days after having been notified of the proposed recommendation, (2) a statement setting forth the probable effect of the recommended action on any comprehensive river basin plan that may have been adopted by Congress or * that is serving as a guide for coordinating Federal or Federal and State programs in the basin, and (3) in the absence of such plan, a statement indicating the probable effect of the recom~ mended action on alternative beneficial uses of the resources of the basin. (g) Whenever it is proposed to add a river or segment hereof to the National Scenic Rivers System, and the river or segment runs through non-Federal land, recommendations with respect to its addition and with re5~ect to wh~ther It should be wholly or partly acquired, protected, and managed pursuant to ox- elusive State authority shall be made to the President by the Governor of each State concerned. Such recommendation to the President shall be accompanied by or based upon a general State plan which assures the effectuation of the purposes of this Act in perpetuity. The President shall submit to the Congress PAGENO="0027" 13 tiis recommendations with respect to the designation of such river or segment thereof as a part of the National Scenic Rivers System and the administration of such area by State authority, together with such draft legislation that he deems appropriate. NEED FOR LAND ACQUISITION (h) Any recommendation for an addition to the National Scenic Rivers System shall indicate the extent to which land will need to be acquired by the State and by the Federal Government, and the extent to which the acquisition of scenic ease~ ments or `other Interests in land may be an adequate substitute for the acquisi- tion ofa fee title. ADMINISTRATION OF SYSTEM SEC. 4. (a) After classification and designation ~f the scenic river areas de- scribed in section 3(a) and (b), they shall be administered in a manner agreed upon between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, or as `determined `by the President. (b ) Scenic river areas designated by subsequent Acts of Congress shall be classified and administered by the Secretary of the Interior, except that when the scenic river area is wholly within, partly within, `or closely adjacent to, a national forest such `area shall `be classified and administered by the Secretary of Agriculture unless it is also partly within, or closely adjacent to, an area administered by the Secretary of the Interior, in which event the scenic river area shall `be classified and administered in such manner as may be agreed upon by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, or as directed by the President. The Secretary charged with `the administration of a scenic river area or portion thereof designated by this Act or by subsequent Acts may agree with the Governor of the State for State or local governmental agency participation in the administration of the area. Phe States shall be encouraged to cooperate in the planning and to assuwe the administration of `such scenic river areas where they include State~owned or county-owned iands. Any Federal land located within a scenic river area may, with the consent of the head of the agency having jurisdiction thereof, be `transferred to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Secretary for administration as part of the scenic river area. Any land transferred hereunder to the ` jurisdiction of the Secretary of ` Agriculture for administration as part of a scenic river area in connectiOn with the national forest system shall become national forest land. ( e) Within the exterior boundaries of a `scenic river area or portion thereof under his administration the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretay of Agri- culture may acquire lands or interests therein by, donation, purchase with 4o- nated or appropriated funds, e~change; or ` otherwise : Provided, That `lands owned by an Indian tribe may `be `acquired only with ` the consent Of the tribal governing body. In the exercise `of his eYchange' authority the Secretary of the Interior may accept title to any non-Federal property within `a scenic river area, `and in exchange therefor he may `convey to `the grantor of ~uc'h prOjerty any federally owned prbperty under his jurisdiction within the `State' in which the river or segment thereof flows, except `lands within the national park system; or the national wildlife ` refuge system, which he classifies as suitable for `ex- change or other disposal. The properties so exéhanged shall be of `approxithately equal fair market value. If they are not o,f approximately equal fair market value, the Secretary of the Interior may accept cash from, `or `pay cash to, the grantor in order to equalize the values `of the properties exchanged. Phe Sec- retary of Agriculture, in the exercise of his exchange authority, `may utilize au- thoritie's and procedures available to him in connection with exchanges of na- tiona'l forest lands. Any such lands acquired by the Secretary of. Agrici~'ltur~ within or adjacent to a national forest shall upon acquisitioii become national forest lands. Money `a1~propriated for Federal or State `pnrposes frori the lanl and water conservation fund shall be available for th~ , acquisition of property for the `purposes of this Act. As used in this Act the term "scenic easement" means the right to control the use of `land (including the air space above such `land) for the purpose of protecting and preserving the scenic ~ view from the ` riv~r and the shore environment for the purposes of this Act. ` , , , (d) Neither the Secretary `of the Interior nor the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands ~y condemnation, for the purpose of including si~ch lands in any scenic river area, if such lands `are located within any incorporated city, village, or borough within such area, when such entities shall have in force PAGENO="0028" ~e to such lands a duly adopted, valid zoning 9ecretary. of the Interior nor ~ county-o ~id county as ong as the iing, and protection of si (t) the Secretary ~e Interior s in fee title by condemnation one mile on either side of ~ essential to the purp ~nation for scenic easements, or area which extends no more than ry, or river. river mile of ic with the n No new ro~ Lation has been conf retary of Agriculture I I 14 the any author the eoi S 0 pat no ne thous~ river ~ (3) Public road access through new road construction shall be allowed only within class II and class III scenic river areas, as well as landings and other structures related to recreational use of these scenic river areas. (4) Grazing shall not be allowed within class I scenic river areas ; grazing and improvements necessarily related to it, shall be allowed subject to regulation by the administering agency, In class II and class III scenic river areas. The Secretary of the Interior, in administering such areas, may utilize such statutory authorities relating to areas of the national park system and such statutory authorities otherwise available to him for recreation and preservation purposes, and the conservation and management of natural resources, as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. The Secretary of Agri- culture, in administering such areas, shall utilize the statutory authorities relat- ing to the national forests in such manner as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. (h) Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture a scenic river area previously administered as class II or class III has been sufficiently restored and enhanced in its natural scenic, and recreational qualities, such area may be classified to a higher status (class II to class I, or class III to class II or class I ) , and thereafter administered accordingly. STATE AND LOCAL WILD RIVEES SEC. 5. (a ) The Secretary of the Interior is directed to encourage and assist States to consider, in their comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans and proposals for financial assistance for State and local projects submitted pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, needs and opportunities for establishing scenic rivers. He is further directed, in accordance with the authority contained in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Organic Act (77 Stat. 49) , to provide technical assistance and advice to, and cooperate with, States, political subdivisions, and private interests, including nonprofit organizations, with respect to establishing scenic rivers. (~) The Secretary of Agriculture is directed in accordance to the authority vested in him to assist, advise, and cooperate with State and local agencies and private interests with respect to establishing scenic rivers. PAGENO="0029" 15 SPECIAL PROVISIONS SEC. 6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no dam or other project shall be constructed, operated, or maintained, or authorized to be con- structed, operated, or maintained, ( 1 ) in any scenic river area, (2 ) in any of the scenic river areas subject to review under section 3 (b) and (c ) , or (3) in any wild river area established in accordance with State law by a State or political subdivision, thereof, by (A) the Federal Power Commission, (B) the Secretary of the Army, (0) the Secretary of the Interior, or (D) the Tennessee Valley Authority, unless the Oongress shall, by law enacted after this Act, specifically authorize such dam or other project. (b) Nothiug in this Act shall affect the applicability of the United States mining and mineral leasing laws within the national scenic rivers system, except that all prospecting, all mining operations, and all other activties on a mining claim perfected after the date of this Act, either before or after the issuance of patent, and all mining operations and other activities under a mineral lease, license, or permit hereafter issued, shall be subject to such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of national forest lands, may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this Act : Provided, Phat any mining claim affecting lands within the scenic rivers system hereafter perfected under the United States mining laws~ and any patent issued for such claim, shall convey title only to the mineral deposits and shall confer upon the holder of the claim only such rights to the use of the surface and surface resources as are reasonably required for carrying on prospecting or mining, sub- ject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; and the patent for any such mining claim hereafter perfected shall reserve to the Un&ted States all title to the surface of the claim and the products of the surface, subject only to the patentee's rights to use the surface of the claim and the surface resources to the extent reasonably required for carrying on prospect- iiig and mining consistent with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary. Any patent so issued shall recite these limitations. All such regulations shall provide among other things for safeguards against pollution of the river. (c) Any portion of a scenic river area that is within the national wilderness I,reservation system, as established by the Act of September 3, 1964 (Public Law SS-577) , shall be subject to the provisions of both the Wildnerness Act and this Act with respect to the preservation of such scenic riVer area, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts the more restrictive provisions shall apply. ( d) The head of any Federal or State agency administering a scenic river area shall cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior, and with the appropriate State water pollution control agencies, for the purpose of eliminating or dimin- ishing the pollution of waters within a scenic river area. (e) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption fron~ State water laws. (f) Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the States under other provisions of law with respect to fish and wildlife. (g) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to alter, amend, repeal, construe, interpret, modify or be in conflict with any interstate compact made by any States which contain any portion of the national scenic rivers system. (h) A State shall have such rights as may be necessary to: assure adequate accesis by such State to the beds of navigable streams, tributaries, or rivers (or segments thereof) which are vested in the State, in case such beds are lo- eated in a scenic river area. (i ) Designation of any stream~ or portion thereof shall not be construed as a reservation of the waters of such streams for purposes other than. those specified in this Act, or in quantities greater than necessary to accomplish these purposes. (j ) The jurisdiction of the States over waters of any stream including a scenic river area shall be unaffected by this Act to: the extent that such jurisdiction may be exercised without impairing the purposes of this Act or its administra- tion. SEC. 7. In order to provide basic ecological information needed for manage- ment purposes, trends and changes in river resourses; and in order to provide scientific and up~to~date information for the preservation and management of the national scenic rivers system, a systematic evaluation of scenic river recreational resources will be conducted periodically by the Secretary of the PAGENO="0030" 16 Interior. Such evaluation shall in~lu~e the gathering and analysis of data on water quality, pollution, the status of fish populations and aquatic organisms, fish habitat, * game po~i1lâtions and shore habitats~ recreation use, receration im- paet, appropriateness of ac~ss~ management prc~cedures, developments, water- shed cendition and trei~d, and other data needed to evaluate the resources. The method used shall b~ sufficiently uniform as to permit comparisons of the same threr area from time to time and~ to be of value in comparing one river area with nnother. The information gathered for evaluation should be &dlected with a view to utilizing it in long range management of the various class of scenic rivers. The evaluation methods should be prepared by trainined fishery and wildlife biologists, ecologists, and other appropriately trained scientists. Sno. 8. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. [S. 119, 9Oth Cong., first s~s.] AN ACT To reserve certain pub'ic lands for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, to trovide a procedure for adding additional pu1~lic lands and other lands to the system, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE SECTIoN 1. This Act may be cited as the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act". STATEMENT OF POLICY SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds that some of the free-flowing rivers of the United States and related adjacent land areas po~sess outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values of present and potential benefit to the American people. The Congress also finds that our established national policy of dam and other constr~ctlon at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their * free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation pur- posea It is the policy of Congress to preserve, develop, reclaim, and make acces- sible for the benefit of all of the American people, selected parts of th,e Nation's diminishing resource of free-flowing rivers. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to be compo~ed Qf (a) the areas designated ~r this Act or subsequent Acts as "national wild river areas" and "national scenic river areas," and (b) those State or locally adminis- tered wild or scenic river areas designated by the Secretary of Interior as part of the system. Areas designated as. national "wild" or "scenic" ~ river areas by subsequent Acts of Congress shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this Act unless the subsequent Acts provide otherwise. DEFINITION OF WILD RIVER AREA (b) `A wild river area eligible to be included in the System is a stream or section of a stream, tributary, or river-and the related adjacent landa-located in a sparsely populated, natural, and rugged environment where the river is free flowing and unpolluted, or where the river should be restored to such condition, in order to promote sound water conservation, and promote the public use and enjoyment of "the scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation va1ue~. DEFII~ITION OF SCENIC RIVER AREA (c) A scenic river area eligible to be included in the System is a stream or section of a stream, tributary, or river-and the related adjacent lando-that is unpolluted and should be left `in its pastoral or scenic attractiveness, or that should be restored to such condition, in order to protect, develop, and make accessible its significant national outdoor recreational resources for public use and enjoyment. PAGENO="0031" 17 NATIONAL WILD RIVERS ~ SEC. ~. (a) The following * rivers, o~ segments therexf, and related adjacent lands, are hereby designated as "national wild rivei~ areas": (1) Salmon, Midd1e~ Fprk, ~claho~-from its origin to its confluence with the mair~ Salmon River. ~ ~ (2) Clearwater, Middle J~ork, Idaho-the Middle 1~~rk fro~xi the town of Kooskia upstream to the town of Lowell ; the Locl~sa River from its junction with the Seiway at Lowell forming the Middle Fork, upstream to the Powell Ranger Statiou ; and the Seiway River from Lowell upstream to it~ origin. ~ (3) Rio Grande, New Mexic~~-the segment extending from the Colorado State line downstream to the State Highway 96 crossing, and the lower four miles of the Red River. ~ . (4) Saint Croix, Minnesota and Wisconsin-the segment between the dam near Taylo'rs Falls, MinneSota, and the dam near Gordon, Wisconsin, and its tributary, the Namekagon~ from its confluence upstream with the Saint Croix to the dam near Trego, Wisconsin. ~ (5) Wolf, Wisconsin-From Langlade-Menominee County Line down- stream to Kesbena Falls. (6) Rogue, Oregon-The segment of the river extending front the mouth of Gra~es Creek downstream to river mile 38, ielow Flea Creek. (7) Illinois, Oregon-The segment of the river extending from Briggs Creek downstream to Lawson Creek. NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS (b) The following rivers or segments thereof, and related, adjacent lands, are hereby designated as "national scenic river areas": (1 ) Saint Croix, Wisconsin and Minnesota-downstream from the dam near Taylors Falls, Minnesota, to its confluence With the Mississippi River. (2) Eleven Point, Missouri-the segment of the river extending down- stream from Thom'asviille to State Righ~vay 142. (3) Rogue, Oregon-The segment of the river extending from the mouth of the Applegate River, downstreaxn 4o the mouth of Graves Creek ; and that segment of the river extending from river mile 38 below Flea Creek down- stream to the Lobster Creek Bridge. (4) Illinois, Oregon-That segment of the river extending from the mouth of Deer Creek, downstream to Briggs Creek ; and that segment of the river extending from Lawson Creek downstream to its confluence with the Rogue. (~) Namekagon, Wisconsin-that section of the river extending from Lake Nainekagon downstream to the dam near Trego, Wisconsin. FEDERAL-STATE PLANNINO ~OR ADDITIONS TO SYSTITh{ SEC. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Tnterior and the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands, are invoived, after consultation with interested Fed- eral agencies, are directed tQ, consult with the Governors and officials of the States in which the rivers, listed below are located to ascertain whether a joint Federal-State plan is feasible and desirable in the public interest to conserve segments of these rivers. Th~ appropriate Secretary shall submit to the President I within five years from the date of enactment of this Act his recommieridations for inclusion of any or all of them in the National Wildlife and Scenic Rivers System, and , the President shall submit to the Congress his recommendations for such legislation as he deems appropriate: (1) Salmon, Idaho-frOin the town of North Fork downstream to its con- flueuce With the' Snake River. ~ (2) Buffalo, Tennessee-the entire river from its beginning in Lawrence ~ County to its cpnflu~ence wilh the t~uck River. (3) Big Fork,, Miunesot~-the eiitir1~ river. (4) Hudson, NewYork-the segment of the main stem extending from its origin hi the Adiroi~d~ck Park downstream to the vicinity of the town of Luzerne: Boreas River fr~~n its mouth to Durgin Brook; Indian River from its mouth to Abanakee Dam; and Cedar River from its mouth to Cedar IUv~r flow.. (5) Missouri, Montana-the segment upstream from Fort Peck Reservoir toward the town of Fort Benton. PAGENO="0032" my, Maryland a ~biogheny Reser wn of ConneIls~ o-~the se ~rmont C~ Seam to a poin Ohio-the se ,, dow fteam ,-from Perrysbm ennsylvania-the s a. [vania and New .n.i.a. ~ment of t1~ wnstream submitted t retary of ti and the Ui poteut (e) S - r~ aectrd F~tfromt~_ Wild ~nd Scenic L~ e segm ~nited ~ -t and W( jan-~the e: wa-the entire r! rnta-the V~ -~the a use ball be gli river shall. ~ c~ tie Canad the Middle ~; and the South I ~ra, Nebraska-the maini Creek, downstrear ~e town of .y. -the S ~neart conti tence Elliott Creek: Miami Riv gheny (18) Branch Susqueha sylvania. (19) - Chattanooga, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia-the ~rom where it enters the Alle- - Montana-th~ ience River downstream to a sg. it thereof PAGENO="0033" 19 President ~ìaJ~L submit to~ the Congre$s bis recommendations for such legislatlm a~ be deenais appropr~ate~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (d) Recommendations made under this section shall be developed in eo~su~ta- tion With the States, those ~ederaJ agen~i~s which uoi~mfLi13r partie~pate in the devek~pment of recreation plans and ~mp~hen~ive ~1ver b~in p1an~, any eorn- mi~si~ns e~ta'bJi~heU pursuwnt to hiterstate ~mpacts the a~s1g~ied responstibiities o~ which w~u1d be affected, conim~ssttons or other bodies which may be estab- lisbeci for the purpose of deireloping a comprehensive plan ~or the river basin within which the. contemplated national Wild or sce~iic tive~ area would. be 10- cated, anU the public througb~ io~a1 pubiic hearings. U~ach ~ueh teconunendation shall be accompanied by (1) exp~esSions of any. views which the agencies az~d States consuLted purstuant to the foregoing may submit : Proi~ded, That no river or portion 4Y1~ any river shall be added to the ~ationaI Wild and Seeni~ Rivers S~rstern suh~equent to enactment of this Act until the ~1ose of `the next full session of the State legislature,. or legislatures in case more than one State is involved, which begins following the submission of any recommendation to the President with respect to such addition as herein provided, (2) a Statement setting forth the probable effect of the recommended action on any comprehensive river basin plan that may have been adopted by Oongress or that is serv1n~ as a guide for co- ordinating Federal or Federal and State programs in the basin, and (3), in the absence of such plan, a statement indicating the probable effect of the recom- mended action on alternative beneficial uses of the resources ot the basin. REPORT ON LAND ACQUISITION (e) An~~ recommendatiot~ ~or an addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall indicate the extent to which land will need to be acquired by the State and by the Federal Government, and the extent to which the acqui- sition of scenic easements or other interests in land may be an adequate substi- tute for the acquisition of a fee title. ADMINISTRATION or SYSTEM SEC. 5. (a) The Secretary charged with the administration of each national wild or scenic river area, or portion the~eof, shall establish detailed boundaries for such areas, within the limits set by this Act. Such boundaries may be revised from timO to timO, but may not Include on both sides of the stream, tributar!, or river `a total of more than three hundred and twenty acres p~r mile. The appro- priate Se~retary shall publish notice o1~ detailed boundaries in the Federal Regis- ter, together with appropriate descriptions, `and shall make such officiitl b0und~r3r description available to the poblic through appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. (b) National wild and scenic river areas designated b~r Act oi~ Congress shall be administered by the Secretary oi~ the Interior, except that when the national wild or scenic river area is wholly within, partly within, or closely adjacent to, ~ national forest such area shall be `administered by the Secretary of Agriculture uhless is is also partly within, or closely adjacent to an area administered by the Secretary of the Interioi~, lh w'hi~h event administration over the river area shall be determIned as a~'ree~i upoi~ b~v the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, or as `directed by the Pi~etident. The Secretary charged with the administation of a national wild or scenic river area or portion thereof, may enter into written cooperative agreements with the Governor of the State, or other aj~proj~riatè lOcal ofildal, for State or l~eal go~eftmental participation in the administration of the area. The States shall be encouraged to coo~erate in the planning and administratioti Of such areas where they Include State-owned lands. Any Federal land located within a national wild or ~~en1c river area may, with the consent of the agency having jurisdictioh tberèof, be transferred to the jurisdic- tion of the appropriate ~e~retary or State for admibistration as part of the area. (c) Each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rl~ers System shall be administered in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be * iticluded hi said ~yste~n, ~vfthont prohibiting thO construction of roads or bridges, t1~ber harvestilhg and litesiock graEihg, an~t other uses that do not substantially interfere With ptibllc use aild enjoyment of these values. In such administration, priority emphasis shall be given to protecting Its esthetic, scenic, historic, fish and wildlife, archeologic, scientific, and recreational features, based on the special attributes of the area. In order to accomplish these purposes, the 92-~6O--68---3 PAGENO="0034" 20 Se~rethry of the Interior may utilize any authority h~ has under other provisions of law with respect to rights-of-way, easements, and enforcement of rules and regulations. ~ The Secretary of Agriculture, in administering a national wild or scenic river area, shall utilize the statutory authorities relating to the national forests in such manner as he deems appi~oprtate ~ to carry- out the purposes of this Act. (d) Within theexteriorboundarles of a national wild or seeiilic river area, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire la~ads or interests therein by donation, purchase; with donated Or appropriated funds, exchange, or otherwise : Provided, That on both sides of the stream, tributary, or river a total of not more than one hundred acres per mile may be aeqi~ired in fee under authority of this ~Act, except that the appropriate Secretary may acquire the portion of any individual tract of land which lies outside o~ the boundaries of a national wild or scenic river area, with the con~sent of the owner, in order to avoid the payment of severance costs : Provided further, That neither Secre tary may acquire lands, waters, or interesis therein by condemnation without the owner's consent when 50 per centum or more of the acreage within the entire national wild or scenic river area is owned ~by Federal, State, or local govern- mental agencies; but this limitation shall not apply to the acquisition of scenic easements. Lands owned by a State may be acquired only with the consent of the owner. Lands owned by an Indian tribe may be acquired only with the con- sent of the tribal governing body. In the exercise of his exchange authority, the Secretary of the Interior may accept title to any non-Federal property within a national wild or scenic river area, and in exchange th~refor he may convey to the grantor of such property any federally owned property under his jurisdiction within the State in which the river or segment thereof runs, except lands within the national park system, the national wildlife refuge system, or revested Oregon and Ca1tfo~rnia Railroad and reconveyed Coos Eay Wagon Road grant lands, which he classifies as suitable for exchange or other disposal. The properties so exchanged shall be of approximately equal fair market value. If they are not of approximately equal fair market value, the Secretary of the Interior shall accept cash from, or pay cash to, the grantor in order to equalize the values of the properties exchanged. The Secretary of Agriculture, in the exercise of his ex- change authority, may utilize authorities and procedures available to him in connection with exchanges of national forest lands. Any such lands acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture within or adjacent to a national forest shall upon acquisition become national forest lands,. Money appropriated for Federal or State purpc~es from the land and water conservation fund shall be available for the acquisition of property for the purposes of this Act. (e) As useti in this Act the term "scenic easement" means the right to control the use of land (including the air space above such land) for the purpose of protecting the scenic view from the river, but such control shall not affect, with- out the owner's consent, any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement. (f) Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by condemnation, for the purpose of including such lands in any national wild or scenic river area, if such lands are located within any incorporated city, village, or borough when such entities shall have in force and applicable to snch lands a duly adopted, valid zoning ordinance that conforms with the purposes of this Act. (g) Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Secretary of Agriculture may exercise any authority to acquire county-owned lands within any national wild or scenic river area without the consent of said county as long as the county is following a plan for the management, zoning, and protection of such lands that conforms with the purposes of this Act. (h) (1) In order to carry out the provisions of subsections (f) and (g), the appropriate Secretary shall issue guidelines, specifying standards for local zon- ing ordinances, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act. (2) The standards specified in such guidelines shall have the object of (A) prohibiting new commercial or industrial uses other than commercial or indus~ trial uses which are consistent with the purposes of this Act, and (B) the protec- tion of the bank lands by means of acreage, frontage, and setback requirements on development. PAGENO="0035" 21 (1) (1) Any owner or owners (hereinafter in thIS ~ubsectio:n referred l~o ais ~`owner") of improved property on the date of its acquisition, may retain for themselves and their successors or a~signs a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial residen~ia1 purposes for a definite term not to exceed twenty-five years, or, in lieu thereof, for a term ending at the death of the owner, or the death of his spouse, or the death of either of them. The owner shall elect the `term to be reserved. The appropriate Secretary shall pay to the owner the fair market value of the property on the date of such acquisition less the . fair market value on such date of the right retained by the owner. (2) A right of use `and occupancy retained pursuant to this subsection shall be subject `to termination whenever the Secretary `is given reasonable cause to find that such use and. occupancy is being exercised in amaniier which conflicts with the purposes of this Act. In the event of such a fitiding, ~ the Secretary shall tender to the holder of that , right an amount equal to the fair market value of that portion of the right which remains unexpired , on the date of termination. Such right of use or occupancy shall terminate by operation of law upon tender of the fair market price. (3 ) The term "improved property", as used in this Act, `shall mean a detached, one-family dwelling (hereinafter referred to as "dwelling" ) , the construction of which was begun before January 1, 1967, together with so much of the land on which the dwelling is situated, the said land being in the same ownership as the dwelling, as the appropriate Secretary shall designate to be reasonably nec- essary for the enjoyment of the dwelling for the sole purpose of noncommercial residential use, together with any structures accessory to the dwelling which ` are situated on the land so designated. (j ) No lands, waters, or interests therein other than scenic easements may be administered under this Act as a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Sys- tern if such land's, waters, or interests were acquired by a State under its power of condemnation for the specific purpose of making such lands, water, or interests therein a part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under this Act. SPECIAL PROVISIONS SEC. 6. (a ) Except as specifically authorized by `the Congress, the Federal Power Oomrnission shall not authorize the construction, operation, or main- tenance in any national wild or scenic river area of any dam ir other project work und~r the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 10G3) , as amended (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) : Provided, That the provisions of that Act `shall continue to apply to any project, as defined in that Act, already constructed or under license to be constructed. (b) Except as specifically authorized by the Congress, the Federal Power Oommissio.n shall not authorize the construction, operation, or maintenance of any dam or `other project work under the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1063) , as amended (16 U.S.C. 791a ct seq.) ; on any river, or segment thereof, listed in section 4, subsection ( a) , during the five-year period following enactment of this Act unless, prior to the expiration of said period, the Seereta ry `of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, on the basis of study, concludes that `such river should not be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and publishes notice to that effect in the Federal Register : Provided, That the provi- sion~s of that Act shall continue to apply to any project, as defined in that Act, already constructed or under license to be constructed. (c) Nothing in this Act shall affect the applicability `of the United' States mm- ing and mineral leasing laws within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, except that all mining claims located after the effective date of this Act shall be subject to such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of national forest lands, may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this Act. Any patent issued shall recite this limitation. All such regulations shall provide `among other things for safeguards against pollution of the river. (d) Any portion of a national wild or scenic river area that is within the national wilderness preservation system, as established by the Act of Septem- ber 3, 19G4 (Public. Law 88-577), shall be subject to the provisions of both the Wilderness Act and this `Act with respect to the preservation of such a national PAGENO="0036" wild or sceilic river area, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts the more restrictive provisions shall apply. (e) The head of any Federal, State, or local agency administering a national wild or scenic river area shall cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior, and with the appropriate State water pollution control agencies, for the purpose of eliminating or diminishing the pollution of waters within a national wild or scenic river area. (f) The jurisdiction of the States and the United States over waters of any stream included in a national wild or scenic river area shall be determined by established principles of law. Under the provisions of this Act, any taking by the United States of a water right which is vested under either State or Federal law at the time such river Is included in he National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall entitle the owner thereof to just compensation. Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws. (g) Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the States under other provisions of law with respect to fish and wildlife. (h) Nothing contained In this Act shall be construed to alter, amend, repeal, Interpret, modify, or be in conflict with any interstate compact made by any States which contain any portion of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. (I) Nothing in this Act shall affect existing rights of any State, including the right of access, with respect to the beds of navigable streams, tributaries, or rivers (or segments thereof) located in a national wild or scenic river area. (j ) Designation of any stream or portion thereof as a national wild or scenic ~~iver area shall not be construed as a reservation of the waters of such streams -for purposes other than those -specified in this Act, or in quantities greater than inecessary to accomplish these purposes. (k) The jurisdiction of the States over waters of any stream included in a `national wild or scenic river area shall be unaffected by this Act to the extent that such jurisdiction may be exercised without Impairing the purposes of this Act or Its administration. STATE AND LOCAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Snc. 7. (a) The Secretary of the Interior is directed to encourage and assist States to consider, in their comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans and proposals for financing assistance for State and local projects submitted pur- suant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897) , needs and opportunities -for establishing State, interstate, and local wild and scenic river areas. He is further directed, in accordance with the authority contained iii the Act of May 28, 1963 (77 Stat. 49), to provide technical assistance and advice to, and cooperate with, States, interstate agencies, political subdivisions, and non- profit private organizations, with respect to establishing such wild or scenic river areas. (b) The Secretary of Agriculture is directed in accordance with the authority vested in him to assist, advise, and cooperate with State and local agencies arid private interests with respect to establishing such wild or scenic river areas. (c) Upon application of the Governor of the State for the designation of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in Maine or the segment of -the Wolf River in Langlade County, Wisconsin, as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the Secretary of the Interior may make such designation if the State or local agency administering the area agrees to manage and protect it in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary. (d) Upon application of the Governor of a State for the designation of any additional State or local wild or scenic river area as part of tIie National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the Secretary may make such designation, after co-n- sultation with interested Federal agencies, if the State, interstate, or local agency administering the area agrees to manage and protect it in a manuier satisfactory to the Secretary. SEC. 8. In recognition of the fact that changes may occur in the circumstances of national wild or scenic river areas included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System or in the needs for the resources associated with such areas, which will require future Congresses to make changes in the system, and in order to assure that the Congress is kept informed of such changes in circumstaiices or 22 PAGENO="0037" 23 needs, there is created a NatiOnal Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Board, to make review and furnish reports to the Congress as hereinafter provided. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Board shall consist of the See- retary of the Interior, who shall be its Chairman, th~ Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Ohairman of the Federal Power Commission, and the Governors of the several States for the purpose of consideration of the status of any national wild or scenic river area included within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System which lies within their States. Within sixty days after the convening of a new Congress, commencing with the second Congress after the enactment of this Act, the National Wild and Scenie~ Rivers Review Board shall file a report and recommendations with the President of the Senate and with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Such report shall contain a discussion of any significant developments since the date of enactment of the Act, or since the last report, including but not limIted to the following subjects : Technology of passage of fish over dams ; status and trends of anadromous fish runs ; activities by way of construction or otherwise pursuant to international agreements relating to any basin in which national wild or scenic rivers areas are designated ; projected national, regional, or local demand for additional electrical generating capacity, particularly as related to existence or possibility of declarations of national emergency ; and Federal or State legisla- tive changes which affect the financing of river or reclamation development projects, including basin account authorizations relative to any basin in which national wild or scenic rivers areas are designated. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Board is authorized and directed to conduct continuing comparative studies which would measure the balance of benefits and detriments of each national wild or scenic river area to the State in which it is located, and to report to Congress, as appropriate, recommendations to assure that, Wherever it is found that the reclamation of arid land would better serve the public in- terest of such State, the same shall not be prejudiced by the national wild or scenic rivers status of any stream. SEC. 9. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. Mr. TAYLOR. Also in the absence of objection the following depart- mental reports will be made a part ~f the record at this point. The letter from the Secretary of February 18, 1967, which submitted the administration bill. The report of the Department of the Interior addressed to Congressman Aspinall dated August 14, 1967, signed by Secretary TJdall. Another report from the Department of the Interior dated Secptem- her 18, 1967, addressed to Mr. Aspinall, signed by Assistant Secretary Anderson. A further report on the Department of the Interior dated March 6, 1968, addressed to Mr. Aspinall, and signed by Assistant Secretary Stanley Cain. Anothex~ report from the Department of the Interior dated March 6, 1968, addressed to Mr. Aspinall, signed by Assistant Secretary Ander- son. A report from the Department of Agriculture dated August 11, 1967, addressed to Mr. Aspinall, and signed by Secretary Freeman. Report from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare dated July 20, 1967, addressed to Mr. Aspinall, signed by the Under Secretary. Report from the Department of the Army dated August 11, 1967, addressed to Mr. Aspinall, signed by Acting Secretary MoGiffert. Report from the Tennessee Valley Authority dated June 9, 1967, addressed to Mr. Aspinall, signed by Aubrey J. Wagner, Chairman of the Board of Directors. PAGENO="0038" 24 A report from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Deve1op~ ment, dated August 21, 1967, addressed to Mr. Aspinall, signed by Secretary Robert C. Weaver. In the a)bsence of objection, all these will be made a part of the record in the order. ( The reports and letters referred to follow:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTFRIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washin~ton, D.C., Feb'ru~c~ry 18, 1.967. Hon. JOHN W. M000RMACK, speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SPEAKER : The President, in his January 30, 1967 message to the Congress on protecting our natural heritage renewed his recommendation for legislation to estublish a Nationwide System of Scenic Rivers similar to legis- lation the Department suhmitted to the 89th Congress. The need to act in order to preserve portions of our free-flowing rivers for the benefit of the American people is urgent. Unless we act promptly, growth and development will soon make the beauty of the unspoiled stretches of our scenic waterways merely a memory. While river flows have been harnessed to aid navigation, control floods, increase farm productivity and hydroelectric power, too little attention has been given to the importance of protecting the very water we drink and the values of fish and wildlife, scenic and outdoor recreation resources. These values, although often measureless in commercial terms, should be preserved by a program that will guarantee America her heritage of unspoiled, unpolluted free-flowing rivers. Our belief is ~hared by a wide range of public and private authorities, and the time to act is now, before it is too late. In 1962, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission endorsed ef- forts to preserve certain rivers because of unique natural values they provide. Also in 19G2, the President upon recommendation of the Secretary of the Inte. nor, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, approved for application by them and by the Bureau of the Budget a policy statement concerning the use and development of water and related land resources. This policy statement provides, among other things, that in particular instances wild areas of rivers should be maintained and used for recreational purposes. In 1963, this Department and the Department of Agriculture initiated a coor~ clinated, broad-scale study of `the need to preserve a nationwide system of scenic or wild rivers. This study revealed that a total of approximately 100,000 miles of rivers and tributaries in the United States averaging a flow of at least 550 cubic feet per second, only a few of the rivers could still be classified as relatively unspoiled. In a strict sense, a pristine river is a rare thing today in the United States. There are, however, many free-flowing rivers, or segments thereof, which still retain enough of their original character to provide the distinctive type of enjoyment and inspiration that `increasing numbers of people are seeking. The sheer natural beauty of such river areas is' a source of physical and spiritual refreshmer~t. The enclosed bill, which would establish `a Nationwide System of Scenic Rivers, is similar `to `the proposal which the Department submitted to the 8~th Congress. We urge that it `receive early consideration. A detailed analysis of its provisions is set forth in `an enclosure to this report. Pertinent data with respect to the initial nine `areas included by this bill in `the System is enclosed. The proposed legislation has been prepared in collaboration with the Secretary of Agriculture and has his `approval. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that this proposed legislation is in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, HARRY R. ANDERSON, Assistant $eeretary of the Interior. Enclosures. PAGENO="0039" 25 A BILL To reserve certain public lands and other lands for a Nationwid~e System of Scenic Rivers, to provide a procedure for adding additional lands to the system, and for other pur~poses Be it en~~ted by the ~Senate a~n,d Hov~se of Repre$enta~tives of the Un~ited State8 of Americo~ in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Scenic Rivers Act", STATEMENT OF POLICY Sno. 2. The Congress finds that some of the free-flowing rivers of the United States and related adjacent land areas possess outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values of present and potential benefit to the American people. The Congress also finds that our est~b1lshed national policy of dam and other construction on appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their natural and free-flowing con4ition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. I~t is the policy of Congress that selected parts of the Nation's diminishing re- source of free-flowing rivers, and their related adjacent lands should be pre- served, reclaimed, and appropriately developed for the benefit of all the American people. For this purpose there is hereby established a Nationwide System of Scenic Rivers to be composed of (a) the areas designated by this Act or suise- quent Acts as "national scenic river areas", and (b) the State and local scenic river areas designated by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the System. Areas designated as "national scenic river areas" by subsequent Acts of Con- gres's shall be adniinister~d in accordance with the provisions of this Act unless the subsequent Acts provide otherwise. DEFINITION OF NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER AREA SEC. 3. A national scenic river area eligible to be included in the System is a stream or any section of a stream, tributary, or river-and the related adjacent land area-that possesses outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoOr recrea- tion values, that is essentiaily free-flowing and unpolluted, and that should be preserved in such condition, or restored thereto, in order `to promote public use and enjoyment. NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER AREAS SEC. 4. (a) The following rivers~ or segments thereof, and related adjacent lands are hereby designated as "national scenic river areas": ( 1) Salmon, Idaho : the segment from the town of North Fork downstream to the town of Riggins, and the entire Middle Fork. (2) Olearwater, Middle Fork, Idaho : the Middle Fork from the town of Kooskia upstream to the town of Lowell ; the Lochsa River from its junction with the `Selway River at Lowell, forming the Middle Fork, upstream to the PowelP Ranger Station ; and the Seiway River from Lowell upstream to its origin. . ~ ` ~ (3) Rogt~e, Orego~i : `the seg~ent f~ogi the Route 101 highway bridge above Gold Beach upstream to the Applegate River. (4) Rio~ Grande~ New MexicQ : The segment from the State Highway 96 crossing upstream `to the colorauo State line, and the lower four miles of the Red River. . ` ` ` . (5 ) Eleven Point, Arkansas and Missouri : the segment `from its confluence with the Black River in Arkansas upstream to Thomasville in Missouri. (6) Cacapon, West Virginia : the Cacapon from its mouth to its source, the entire Lost River, and the North River upstream to the U.S. 50 highway bridge. (7) Shenandoah, We~t Virginia : the `segment of the river located in the State of West Virginia. (8) Saint Croix, Minnesota `and Wisconsin : the segment `beginning at St. Croix Falls and extending upstream to the dam near Gordon, Wisconsin, and its Nameka~o'n tributary. (9) Wolf, Wisconsin: `the segment beginning at Keshena Falls and extend- ing u'psti~eam `to the Lang1ade-Menomin~e County line. PAGENO="0040" 26 (b) Tue Secretary of the `Jiiterior shalil administer the national scenic river areas designated by subsection (a) of this section, paragraphs (4) , (8) , and (a), and the Secretary of Agrieuiture shall administer the a reas designed by para- graphs (2) and (5), except that lands under the administrative jurisdiction o~ another Federal agency that are included in any such area shall be administered in such manner as may be agreed upon by the appropriate Secretary and the head of that agency, or as directed by the President. The areas designated by para- graphs (1), (3) , (6) , and (7) shall be administered in a manner agreed upon by the two Secretaries, or as directed by the President. The Secretary charged with the administration of each national scenic river area or portion thereof shall estab- lish detailed boundaries for such area as soon as practicable after the date of en- actment of this Act. Such boundaries m~y be revised from time to time, but may not include on both sides of the stream, tvibutary, or river a total of more than 320 acres per mile. The appropriate Secretary shall publish notice of such `detailed boi~nd~ries to the Federal Regi8ter, together with appropriate descriptions. (c) Within the arterior boundaries of a ziational scenic river area ~is estab- lisbed pursuant to subsectlç~p (a) of this section, the Secretary `of `the Interior or th'e Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands or interests tbrrein by dona- tion, pnr~hase w1t~ don'~te4 or appropr~ated funds, or exehauge ; Provi4ed, That on both sides bf the stream, tributary, `or river a total of i~ot more t1~an 100 acres per mjle ~nay `be acquired in fee under authority of this Act, except that the appropriate Soernt~ry may acq~4re in fee such `addi'tiopal acreage per `mile as he deter~nines is needed (1) to provide public use facilities and public access or (2) to acquire the portb~n of any indiviidual traet of land which lies outside of the ho~n'~aries of a nhUoixal scenic river area, with the consent of the owner, in order to avoid the payment of severance costs. Land acquired outside of the boundaries of a national seenic river `ar~a under `authority o~ this subsection may be ex- c1~auged by the `appropriate Seci~etgry for any r~io'n-Pederal property within such boundaries. Lands owned by a State may be acqizired only with the consent of the own~r. Lands owned `by an Indian tribo m'ay be acquired only with the consent of the tribal gov~rTthig body. Lands acquired by the Secretary `of Agriculture within or adjacent to a national forest shall upon acquiaition `become national forest lands. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the Land and Water Con- servatiori Fund shall be available for the acquisition of property for the purposes of this Act. (d) In the exercise o~f his exchange authority, the Secretary of the Interior may accept title to any non~Federal property within a national scenic river area, and in exchange therefor he `may convey `to the grantor of such pro'p~rty any federally `owned property under his jurisdiction Within `the States in which the national scenic river area is located which he classifies as suitable for exchange or other disposaL The values of the prope~ties so exchanged either shall be `approxi- mately equal, or, If they are not approximately equal the values shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor `or to `the Secretary `as the circumstances require. Pbo Secretary of Agriculture, in the ex~reise of his exchange authority, may utilize `authorlUes `and procedures available to him in connection with ex- changes of national forest lands. . (e) Neither the * Secretary of the Interior nor the Secretary of A~r1culture niay ~ acquire by condemnation proceedings lands within any natlbnal scenic river area that are located In an Incorporated city, village, or borough as long as suth entitles shall have in force and applicable to such lands a duly adopted, valid enforced zoning ordinance that is satisfactory to the apptoprlate Secretary. (f) Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Secretary of Agriculture ma~v exercise any authority to acquire county-owned lands within any national scenic river area, without the consent of the county, as long as the county Is fol- lowing a plan for the management and protection of such lands that Is satis- factory to the appropriate Secretary. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER AREAS SEe, 5. (a) A national scenic river area shall be administered for the purposes of protecting its outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values, or restoring such values to the area, for public use and enjoyment, but without limitation on other uses that do not substantially interfere with these purposes. The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall give primary management emphasis to protecting the aesthetic and scenic features of such PAGENO="0041" 27 areas. The appropriate Secretary may, in developing management plans, estab~ lish for a national scenic river area, or portion thereof, varying intensities o~ protection or development, based on the special attributes of the river. The ~ecre tary of the Interior, in administering such areas, may utilize such statutory authorities relating to areas of the National Park System and such statutory authorities otherwise available to him for recreation and preservation purposes, and the conservation and management of natural resources, as he deems appro~ priate to carry out the purposes of this Act. The Secretary of Agriculture, in ad- ministering such areas, shall utilize the statutory authorities relating to the national forests in such manner as he deems appropriate to carry out the pur~ poses of this Act. (b) The Secretary charged with the administration of a national scenic river area or pori~ion thereof may enter into written cooperative agreements with the Governor of a State or appropriate local official for State or local govenmental agency participation in the administration of the area. The states shall be encouraged to cooperate in the planuing and administration of a na- tional scenic river area where it includes State-owned or county-owned lands. Any Federal land located within a national scenic river area may, with the con~ sent of the head of the agency having jurisdiction thereof, be transferred to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Secretary for administratiOn as part o~ the area. Any land transferred hereunder to the jurisdiction of the secretary' of Agriculture for administration as part of a national scenic river area in connection with the National 1~orest System shall become national forest land. SPECIAL PROVISIONS SEC. ~3. (a) Except as speciflcally authorized by the Congress, the Federal Power Com~iission shatl not authorize the construction, operation, or maln~ tenance 0± any new dam ~r any project work unrelated to an existing project under the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1O~8~ , as amended (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), in any national scenic river area established pursuant to sectiotis 4 and 7 of this Act. (b) Nothing in this Act shall affect the applicability of the United States mm- ing laws and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing within national scenic river areas, except that all prospectng and mining operations, and all other acttvities on mining claims located after the effective date of this Act, and all mining operations and other activities under a mineral lease, permit, or license Issued after the ef1~ective date of this Act shall be subject to such regulations as the Secretray of the Interior, or the Sec±etary of Agriculture in the ease of national forest lands, may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this Act. All such regu- lations shall provide, among other things, for safeguards against pollution of the stream, tributary, or river. After the effective date of this Act, subject to, valid existing rights, ~ll patents Issued under the tinited States mining ~aws affecting lands within imtional scenic river areas shall convey title only to the niineral deposits within the claim, together with the right to use so much of the surface and surface resources as are reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospecting Operations and uses reasonably incident thereto, subject to the regulations prescribed by' the appropriate Secretary to effectuate the purposes Of this Act, and each such patent shall reserve to the United States all title in or to the surface of the lands and products thereof, and no use of the surface of the lands or the products thereof not required for carrying on activities reasonably Incident to mining or prospecting shall be allowed. Mining claims located after the effective date of this Act within national scenic river areas shall create no rights Ip excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of this subsection. (c) Any portion of a national scenic river area that is within the National Wilderness Preservation System, as established by the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat, 890) , shall be subject tq theprovisions of both the Wilderness Act and this Act with respect to the preservation of such national scenic river area, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts the more restrictive provisions shall apply. (d) Any portion of a nattonal, scenic, river area tl~t is admini~tered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service shall become a part of the National Park System, and any such portion administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service shall become a part of the PAGENO="0042" 28 Nátioilal Wildlife Refuge Ssrstem. Such lands shall be subject to the provisions 4~f this Act and the Acts under which the re~p~ctive system is administered, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts the more restrictive provisions shall apply. (e) The head Of any Federal or State agency administering a national scenic rh-er area shall cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior, and with the ap- propriate State water pollutiOn control agencies, for the purpose of eliminating or diminishing the pollution of waters within a national scenic river area. (f) The designation of any stream or portion thereof as a national scenic river area in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall have the effect of re- serving, subject to rights vested under either State or Federal law at the time of such designation which are compensable under the next following sentence, the waters of such stream for the purposes of this Act, but in quantities no greater than necessary to accomplish such purposes. Any taking by the United States, under the provisions of this Act, of a water right that is vested under State or Federal law, that is beneficially used at the time a national scenic river area is established, and that prior to the date of this Act would have been compensable if taken or interfered with by the United States for purposes not related to the exercise of the commerce power, shall entitle the owner of such right to just compensation. (g) Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the States under other provisions of law with respect to fish and wildlife. PLANNING FOR ADDITIONAL NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER AREAS SEC. 7. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands are involved, after consultation with interested Federal agencies, are directed to consult with the Governors and officials of the States in which the rivers listed below are located to ascertain whether a joint Federal-State plan is feasible and desirable in the public interest to conserve segments of these rivers. They shall submit to the President their recommenda- tion's for or against designation of any or all of them as national scenic river areas, and the President shall submit to the Congress such recommendations, in- eluding draft legislation, as he deems appropriate. Recommendations with respect to not less than one-half of such rivers shall be submitted to the President within five years after the date of enactment of this Act, and the recommendations with respect to the remaining rivers shall he submitted to the President within ten years after the date of enactment of this Act: (1) Animas, Colorado. (2) Big Fork, Minnesota. (3) Big Hole, Montana. (4) Buffalo, Tennessee. (5) Qhattooga, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. (6) Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania. (7) Deschntes, Oregon. (8) Feather, California. (ti) Flathead, Montana. (10) Gasconade, Missouri, (11) GIla, New Mexico. (12) Green,. Wyoming. (13) Gros Ventre, Wyoming. (14) Guadalupe, Texas. (15) Kiamath, California. (16) Madison, Montana. (17) Manistee, Michigan. (18) Mullica, New Jersey. (19) Niobrara, Nebraska. (20) Penobscot, East `and West Branches, Maine. (21) Pore Marquette, Michigan. (22) Pine Creek, Pennsylvania. (23) Potomac, South Branch, West Virginia. (24) Salmon, Idaho: the segment from the town of Riggins downstream to its confluence with the Snake River. (2~) Salt, Arizona. (26) Shenandoah, Virginia. PAGENO="0043" 29 (27) Skagit, Washington. (28) Snake, North Fork, Idaho. (29) Susquebanna, New York and Pennsylvania. (30) Suwannee, Georgia and Florida. (31) Upper Iowa, Iowa. (32) Wacissa, Florida. (33) White, Colorado. (34) Wind, Wyoming. (35 ) Yellowstone, Montana. (b) In all planning for the nse and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential national scenic river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall discuss any such potentials. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and in- vestigations to determine which additional areas within the United States shalt be evaluated in planning reports as potential national scenic river areas. (c) The Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture where na- tional forest lands are involved, shall also submit to the President from time to time their recommendations for designation of any other river or segment thereof as a national scenic river area. The President shall submit to the Congress such recommendations, including draft legislation, as he deems appropriate. (d) Recommendations submitted to the President under this section shall be developed in consultation with the States, those Federal agencies which nor- mally participate in the development of recreation plans and comprehensive river basin plans, any commissions established pursuant to interstate compacts the assigned responsibilities of which would be affected, and commissions or other bodies which may be established for the purpose of developing a comprehensive plan for the river basin within which the contemplated national scenic river area would be located. Each such recommendation shall be accompanied by (1) expressions of any views which the agencies and States consulted pursuant to the foregoing may submit within ninety days after having been notified of the proposed recommendation, (2) a statement setting forth the probable effect of the recommended action on any comprehensive river basin plan that may have been adopted by Congress or that is serving as a guide for coordinating Federal or Federal and State programs in the basin, and (3) in the absence of such plan, a statement indicating the probable effect of the recommended action on alternative beneficial uses of the resources of the basin. ( e) Whenever it is proposed to designate a river or segment thereof as a na- tional scenic river area, and the river or segment runs through predominantly non-Federal land, the appropriate Secretary shall include in his recommenda- tions to the President the view-s of the Governor of each State concerned with respect to its addition, and with respect to whether it should be wholly or partly acquired, protected, and managed pursuant to exclusive State authority. The views of the Governor should be accompanied by or based upon a general State pian which assure the effectuation of the purpose of this Act in perpetuity. The President shall include in his recommendations to the Congress, with respect to the designation of such river or segment thereof as a national scenic river area, spdcifie recommendations on the adminisfration of such arek by State authority. (f) Any reconimsdation for desigflation of an area as a national scenic river area shall indicate the extent to which land will need to he ivectuired by the State and by the Federal Government, arid the extent to which the a!cquisition of scenic easements or other Interests in land may be used In lieu of acquisition of a fee title. ADMINI5TRATION OF ADDITIONAL NATIONAL 5CENIC RIVER AREA5 SEC. 8. National scenic river areas designated by subsequent Acts of Congress shaU be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, extept that when the national scenic river area is wholly within, parti~ withIn, or closely kdjacent to, a national forest such art shall be administered by the `Secretary of Agri~ culture unless it is also partly within, or closely adjacent to, `an at'S sidmin- istered by the `Secretary of the Interior, in which event the n'ational scenic river area shall be administered in such manner as agreed upon `by the `Seicretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, or as directed by the President. PAGENO="0044" 30 a I STATE AND LOCAL SCENIC RIVERS SEC. 9. (a ) The Secretary of the Interior is directed to encourage and assist States to consider, in their comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans and proposals for financing assistance for State and local projects submitted pur- suant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897) , needs and opportunities for establishing State and local scenic river areas. I-Ic is further directed, in accordance with the authority contained In the Act of May 28, 1963 ( 77 Stat. 49) , to provide technical assistance and advice to, and cooperate with, States, political subdivisions, and private interests, including nonprofit organizations, with respect to establishing such scenic river areas. (I) ) The Secretary of Agriculture Is directed in accordance with the authority vested in him to assist, advise, and cooperate with State and local agencies and private interests with respect to establishing such scenic river areas. (c) Upon application of the Governor of the State for the designation of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in Maine or the segment of the WTolf River in Langlade County, Wisconsin, as part of the Nationwide System of Scenic Rivers, the Secretary of the Interior may make such designation if the State or local agency administering the area agrees to manage and protect it in a manner satis- factory to the Secretary. Such designation shall preclude the Federal Power Commission from authorizing within such areas the construction, operation, or maintenance of any new dam or any project work unrelated to an existing project under the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1063) , as amended (1O.U.S.C. 791a et seq.), except as specifically authorized by the Congress. ( d) Upon application of the Governor of a State for the designation of any additional State or local scenic river area as part of the Nationwide System of Scenic Rivers, the Secretary may make such designation, after consultation with interested Federal agencies, if the State or local agency administering the area agrees to manage and protect it in a maiier satisfactory to the Secretary. SEC. 10. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. ANALYSIS OF BiLL The bill is patterned after the Wilderness Act of Septeniber 3, 1984 (78 Stat. 890) , which established the National Wilderness Preservation System. Section 1 provides for the Act to be cited as the "Seeiiic Rivers Act". Section 2 sets out a statement of policy to the effect that our national policy of constructing dams and other works on certain sections of rivers needs to be complemented with a policy of preserving other sections of free-flowing rivers and related adjacent lands that possess outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values. The section declares a congressional policy to preserve reclaim, and appropriately develop such se~t1ons of our free-flowing rivers, and establishes a Nationwide System of Scenic Rivers composed of (1) areas desig- nated by Congress in this Act or subsequent Acts as "national scenic river areas", and (2) State and local scenic river areas designated by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the System. Section 3 defines the term "national scenic river area" to denote those seg- ments of streams, tributa:ries, or rivers that possess outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor r~ereatlon values aM are essentially free-flowing and Un- polluted, and that should be preserved in such condition, or restored thereto, for public use and ~njoymen1t. The definition of "iiational scenic river area" is not limited to relatively unspoiled or wilderness types of rivers because there are only a few such rivers remaining in the United States. There are, however, many free-flowing rivers, or segments thereof, which still retain enough of their original character to provide the distinctive type of enjoyment and inspiration that in- creasing numbers of ~ople are seeking. Section 4~a) designates as the initial national sceiiic river areas nine rivers or segments thereof, sonie of which are already mostly in Federal ownership. Each of these rivers has been carefully studied by this Department and the Department of Agriculture, and is considered to be an outstanding example of the values a Nationwide System of Sceiiic Rivers seeks to preserve. The seg- I PAGENO="0045" 31 ments of the Salmon (Idaho), C1earwater~ (IdahG), Rogue (Oregon), Rio Grande (New Mexico) , i~lleven Point (Missouri and Arkansas) , Oacapon (West Virginia), and Shenandoah (West Virgin&a) Rivers mentioned in this section were in~ eluded in the bill that passed the Sei*te `In the 89th Congress (S. 1446) . The segment of the 1~lieven Peint Riter, however, has `been extended `downstreani te its eo~ñfluence with the Black River-a distance o~ appro~1thateiy 50 miles. This has been mad~ possible by a rncent decision of the Secretary of the Army to recom~ mend deauthor1~athn of the Water' Valley Dam pro3ect on the lower pottion o~ the 1~1e~en Point River. . The segments of the Saint Croix (Wisconsin and ;Minnes ` ota) and Wolf (Wis~ `cousin) Rivers `described in this section have' also been proposed for preserva~ tion as free-flowing rivers in previous bills 1nt~oduced in the 89th Gongress. The Saint Croix River Is widely acclaimed as one o~f the most scenic and . relatively unpolluted large rivers in the United `States. The Wolf River has long been the subject of intensive efforts to protect its recreational qualities. On January 4, 1967, the Secretary of the Interior announced that a grant had been made to the State of Wisconsin out of funds appropriated from the Land ` and Water Oonservation Fund for the State to acquire and develop the portion of the Wolf River in Langlade Cbunty for scenic river purposes. The. Secretary of the In~ tenor also announced that he planned to recommend the downstream portion of the Wolf River in Menominee County for national scenic river status. The nine rivers designated as the initial national scenic river areas are scat~ tered across the face of America. Three of them-the Clearwater, Salmon, and Rogue-are in the far West. Four others- the Ri~ Grande, Eleven Point, Saint Croix, `and Wolf-are In the middle section of the country. The remaining `two, the Cacapon and Shenandoah, are located in the East. These rivers contain an in. triguing variety of recreational opportunity. There are whitewater rivers such as sections of the Salmon and Rogue, and more leisurely, forested rivers such as the Saint Croix and Eleven Point. All of them afford outstanding opportunities for a wide variety of outdoor recreation experiences. Each is regarded as one of the finest examples of the remaining free~flowing rivers in this country. The national scenic river areas listed in this section do not include the Mis- souri in Montana or the Buffalo in Arkansas because these areas are now under consideration for administration in connection with the National Park System. They might, for example, be authorized as National Scenic Riverways corn- parable to the Ozark National Scenic Riverway. The upper reaches of the Hudson River in New York and the Connecticut River in Vermont (and New Hampshire also are not Included at this time because of studies now underway. Section 4(b) provide~ for the administration of the Rio Grande, Saint Croix, and Wolf National Scenic River Areas by the Secretary o~ the Ii~terior, and for the administration of the Clearwater and Eleven Point National Scenic River Areas by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Salmon, Rogue, Cacapon, and Shenan- doah National Scenic River Areas are to be administered in a manner agreed upon by two Secretaries, or as directed by the President. The rivers to be admin- istered by the Secretary of Agriculture are closely associated with natior~a1 forests. Section 4 (b) also requires that detailed boundaries for each national scenic river area be established as soon as practicable after the enactment of the bill, and provides that such boundaries may not include on both sides of the river a total of more than 320 acres per mile. This provision will enable the a mount of land included in a national scenic river area to vary in width at different points along the river segment. Some portions of a national scenic river area will extend only a short distance beyond the riverbanks. Other portions will include a wider strip of land along the river that will vary in width depending upon such factors as the terrain, vegetative cover, existing development, and the need for public use facilities and administrative sites. This provision envisions that the boundaries of a national scenic river area generally will not extend to a width of more than 1,320 feet from either side of the river. Sections 4 (c) and (d) set forth general authority of each Secretary to acquire property within the boundaries of national scenic river areas, but restrict each Secretary's authority to acquire a fee title on both sides of the river to a total of not more than 100 acres per mile. This envisions the fee acquisition of a strip of land generally not more than 400 feet from either side of the river. This limita- tion does not apply, however, where additional lands need to be acquired in fee to PAGENO="0046" 32 provide public use facilities and p~b1ic ~cce~s, and to ~void the payment ef severance costs. The bill ~onternpiates t1u~t the acquisition of scenic ea~ements or other interests in land wflibe adequate to protect the remaining lnnds included in the boundaries of a national scenic river area. ~ Sections 4 (c), (e), and (f) provide that the appropriate Secretary may ~iiOt acquire (1) lands owned by a State withoUt its consent ; (2) lands owned by an Indian tribe without the consent of the tribal governing body ; (3) lauds within an inéorporated city, village, or borough by condemnation proceedings as long as satisfactory zoning ordinances are in effect with respect to much lands ; and (4) county-owned lands by any method, without the consent of the county, as long as It is following a satisfactory management plan for such lands. Section 5 (a) sets forth the purposes for which the national scenic river areas are to be administered. It directs the two Secretaries ot give primary management emphasis to protecting the aesthetic and scenic features of such areas. This see- tion recognizes that management plans for national scenic river areas may vary, depending upon the special attributes of each such area. The intention of this section is to maintain the status quo with respect to the character of the river and related adjacent lands at the time of its designation as a national scenic river area. It is recognized, however, that additional highways may unavoidably be routed across national scenic river areas. Section 5(b) provides that the States will be encouraged to cooperate in the administration of a national scenic river area where it includes State-owned or ~country-owned lands. This section also authorizes the transfer of any Federal land located within a national scenic river area, with the consent of the agency having jurisdiction thereof, to the appropriate Secretary for administration as part of the national scenic river area. Section 6(a) restricts the authority of the Federal Power Commissoin to license the building of any new dam or any project work unrelated to an existing ~project within a segment of a river designated as a national scenic river area. It provides that the Federal Power Oomnhission may not issue such licenses unless the. Congress enacts legislation approving their issuance. The purposes of desig- nating an area as a national scenic river area are to maintain the free-flowing character of the stream and the natural character of the related adjacent lands. The building of dams or other structures would destroy these conditions. Section 6(b) expressly continues the applicability of the United States mining and mineral leasing laws to the areas designated as national scenic river areas. All mining operations, however, will be subject to regulations needed to safeguard the national scenic river values. In addition, after the effective date of this Act, a mining claim perfected within a national scenic river area will give the mining claimant title only to the mineral deposits in the claim, together with the right to make any use of the land surface of such a claim as is reasonably required for his mining operations. We believe that mineral activity within a national scenic river area should not be precluded, but that it should be subject to sufficient controls to prevent minin.g from defeating the purpose of this bill. This section provides such controls. Sections 6 (c) and (d) provide that when a portion of a national scenic river area is also located within the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Park System, or the National Wildlife Refuge System, the provisions of this bill and the Act or Acts governing the respective system will apply to such area, and if there should be a conflict the more restrictive provisions will apply. The provisions of the Wilderness Act governing mining in the national forest areas designated by that Act as wilderness areas are, for example, more restric- five than the comparable provisions of this bill. When a portion of a scenic river area, therefore, is also within a portion of a national forest designated by the Wilderness Act as a wilderness area, it would be withdrawn on January 1, 1984, from further appropriation under the mining laws and from further disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing. Section 6(e) requires the Federal or State agency which has responsibility for a national scenic river area to cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and with appropriate State water pollution control agencies for the purpose of con- trolling the pollution of waters in su~h area. PAGENO="0047" 33 The mair~terLtu~ce o~ ~ high-qu~ity water yield in a scenic river area is affected by ups1~ream developments. T1~s section requires the appropriate Federal and State ofticiaTs to t~çe actiofl to~ control upstream pollution under their existing authority. Section 6(f) preserves ~be status q~e with respect to the law of water rig]~ts, and makes clear that the designation of a stream or portion theveo~ as a national scenic river area is not to be considered a reservation of waters for pui~poses other than those specified in the bill, or in quantities greater than necessary to accomplish these purposes. ~ * Section ~(g) preserves the jurisdiction which the States have over fish and wildlife. Section 7 establishes the procedures for other areas to be designated as national scenic river areas by subsequent 1e~islation. As a basis for subsequent legislation, this section provides for studies and the development ~f detailed information and for the submission of reports and recommendations to the Congress on poten- tial national scenic river areas in three ways : * (1) I~ directs the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture ~~here national forest lands are involved, to consult with other Federal agencies and with the States ix~ which the 3~$ rivers named in the section are located for joint Federal-State plans to preserve them, and to submit recommendations to' the President, who In turn will submit recommendations to the Congress with respect to their designation as national scenic river areas. The section requires that one- half ~f the 35 rivers be studied within five years after enactment of the bill, and the balance within ten years. The 35 rivers have been the subject of preliminary investigation and have been identified as prime candidates for national scenic river status. (2) It requires all river basin and project planning reports submitted to the Congress to discuss the alternative use of a river or portion thereof as a national scenic river area, and to consider specifically for this purpose any river segment designated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. (3) It requires the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands are involved, to submit from time to time to the President, and for the President to submit to the Congress, recommendations for additional national scenic river areas. Section 8 provides that a national scenic river area added to the Sysiteirt by subsequent legislation will be administered by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, depending on the location of the area and its' relation to the other programs of the two departments. Section 9 directs the Secretary of the Interior to encourage the States to con- sider needs and opportunities for establishing State and local scenic river areas in the comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans and project proposals submitted to the Secretary under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897) . Upon the approval by the Secretary of the Interior of scenic river area projects proposed by the States for financial assistance under the Fund Act, funds would be available for the acquisition and development of such scenic river areas from the monies allocated to the States out of the Fund. This section also directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture under the authorities vested in them, to assist, advise, and co- operate with States, local agencies, and private interests in the establishment of such scenic river areas. The Secretary of the Interior may designate a State or local scenic river arela as part of the Nationwide System of Scenic Rivers if the State or local agency administering the area agrees to manage and protect it in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary. Section 10 authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the bilL Cost data for the nine areas designated as national scenic' river areas in this bill are presently being developed. Precise cost estimates for land acquisition and development will not be available until surveys are made on the ground to establish the detailed boundaries of the proposed areas. At the present time we estimate that approximately $3.~ million will be needed per year over a ten- year period for acquisition of property for the nine areas initially designated as national scenic river areas in this bill. PAGENO="0048" 34 U.S. DEPAR~1~T ~ p~Ii~ . ~ ~ O~ioE OP ~ ~`i~tfl~ ~ SJ~RE~L~AI~, ~ ~ ~ W~~1ti~it4~n, D.O., Aug~s~ 14, 1967. Hon. ~ WAYNE N. ASPINALL, ~ ChaArma,n, Uommit~ee On Interior an& I~u~tr Affair, Jiou~e of Repre8ei~k~tive'$; . ~ Wa~hinyton~ D~O. ~ ~ ~ ~ . DEAR MR. ASPINA~L TIltS respoilds to the ret~ue~t ~t your Committee for a report ~n ~ iI.R. 90 and JLR. 493, identi4~a1 bflls relating to the establishment of a national scenic rivers system, and on similar bills, ILR. 3~6, 1iT~. 6166 (which we underst~n4 supersedes H.R. 3996),, H.R, 6588, anti ILR. 8416. We recommend t~e enactment of 11 1~ 841~ with the e1arifyin~ and perfecting ~n~nd~nients ~~dieated be1~w. Pile ~ ur~ei~t need ~ legislation to esthblish a liational scenic rivers system has been set tdrth in our ~reviotts executive corn- municatlons (to the Congre~s en this sttbj~ct.. ~ ~ We are sympathetic with the objec'tives of ~tI1 of the Scenic or Wild Rivers bills which have been iiitrodiiced in the 90th Congress. Basically, fouv different proposals are pencjing before the Congress, illustrated by HE. ~166 (which is Identical to tl~e bill the Departnient subn4tted to the Congress by an executive communicatk~n of Febru~try 18, 1967) , H.R. 9Owhik~h was Introduced by Congress~ man Saylor, Rfl. 8416 which you lntrodttcecl, ~nd S. I1~ which was iptroduced by ~enatoi~ Church. We have considered these biUs very carefu1i~. We believe it would be appropriate to sta~t ~]~é system either with the four rivers mentio~ied in Hit. .8416, as a minimuu~,, or any combination of the adcli- tional rIvers designated as the initial units of the system in HR. 6166 or S. 119. Attached to this report Is a summary of `the principal differences between the pending bills. IT.E~ 8416 declares a policy of the TJnited States to preserve in a free-flowing condition certain selected rivers which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, and to protect such rivers and their immediate environments for the benefit and enjoyment of future gei~ierations. To carry out this policy the bill establishes a national scenic rivers system composed of rivers authorized for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress, and rivers designated as scenic rivers by or pursuant to an act of the leg- islatures of the States through which they flow. In order for the rivers so designated by State legislatures to be included in the system, however, they must be (1) permanently administered as scenic rivers by an agency or politi- cal subdivision of the States involved without expense to the Federal Govern- ment ; (2) found by the Secretary of the Interior to meet the criteria established in the bill and such criteria supplementary thereto as he may prescribe ; and (3) approved by the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the system. Thebfll recognizes four types of rivers as eligible for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system : ( 1 ) wild rivers-free-flowing rivers located within clesig- nated units of the national wilderness preservation system or de fa~cto wilder- ness areas ; (2) natural environment rivers-free flowing rivers the valleys of which have been little changed by man but to which public access is facilitated and along which compatible resource uses may be permitted ; (3) pastoral rivers-free-flowing rivers the valleys of which are predominantly used for agriculture and other dispersed human activities which do not substantially interfere with public use of the rivers and enjoyment of th~eir surroundings; and (4) historic and cultural rivers-rivers, including reservoirs, canals, and other man-made structures, which have great historic or cultural significance. In addition, the bill recognizes two types of areas as eligible for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system ordinarily, but not necessarily, as supplements to the above river types. Such areas are (1) unique natural and historic river areas-specific sites along rivers which sb~uld be preserved intact because of their scientific, natural beauty, archeological or historic value ; and (2) high- density use areas-sites along or not far removed from rivers which, in order to serve outdoor recreation needs, may Involve substantial alteration of the environment. As the initial components of the national scenic rivers system authorized by the Congress, the bill designates segments or tributaries of four rivers and adja- cent lands-the Rio Grande (New Mexico), the Rogue (Oregon), the Salmon PAGENO="0049" 35 Udaho) , and the Clearwater (Idaho). Each of these rivers has been carefully stuthéd by this Department and the Department of Agriculture, and is co~isIdered te be ar~ outst~ding example of the values a national scenic rivers system seeks to ~ preserve. The bill provides ~r t11~ adiii1nIstra~io~n of the rivers as ~oii~s: the ~gn~ents of the Rio G~ande by the ~~etary of the interiOr; the tributaries Of the Clearwater by the S~eretary of ~ Agriculture ; and the segments of the Rogue and Salmon as agreed upon ~ b~ the t'Wo Secretaries, or as directed by the President. . ! ~ ~ ` ~ The bill establishes . procedures for other rivers ~ and areas to be added to the national scenic rivers syste~i. It req~iires the Secretary of the Tnterior (1) to stiidy any rivers and areas which he determines are of the types specified ir~ the bill as eligible for incl1i~1on in th~ sytt~m, and te submit to the President and the Oongress, from time to timS, proposals for adding them to the system; and (2) to proceed as expeditiously as poSsible to study 20 rivers and segments thereof listed in' the bill, unless the Governor of the State inw~ived certifies that the State or one of its agencies or political subdivisions will make such study and does in fact pursue the * study with diligence. ~ The bill gives the Secretary of the Interior and the' Secretary of Agriculture authority to acquire lands and interests therein within the' authorized bound~ aries of any c4~mpoi~ent of the system which is Included in the system b~ this bill or a Subsequent Act of Congress and which is under his administra- tion. This authority is subject to certain restrictions, however, in the case of lands owned by Indians or a State, and in the case of lands owned by or within the boundaries of any political subdivision of a State. AU basic scenic river values are dependent upon appropriate stream condi- tions. In order to maintain an adequate stream flow, the bill provides that the Federal Power Commission will not have authority to license the construction of any darn or other structure on or directly affecting any rivur included in the system or any of the 20 rivers listed in the bill for future study. The suspen- sion of `the Federal Power 4Jommission~s licensing authority on the 20 rivers to be studied will be for the 5-year period after the date of enactment of the bill (unless during that time the Secretary determines they are not to be included in the system)' and for an additional period in order that the Congress or the Secretary of the Interior may consider adding them to the system. The bill also prohibits Federal agencies from assisting by loan grant, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project on or directly affecting any river included in the system. This prohibition does not apply, however, to grants made under the Land and Water Conser~rati'on Fund Act of 1965. In addition, the Federal agencies may not recommend authorization of any water resources project on or directly affecting any such river or request appropriations to begin construction of any such project, whether heretofore or hereafter `authorized, without giving the Secretary of the Interior advance notice and without reporting to the Cotigress that such construction would con- filet with the purposes of this bill. The bill places similar restrictions on Federal agencies in the case of the 20 rivers listed In the bill for future study, and such restrictions continue for the same periods of time as the restrictions on the licensing authority of the Federal Power Commission over such rivers. The bill expressly continuOs the applicability of the United States mining and mineral leasing laws to the lands in~luded in the system, but makes mining operations stud activities on mining claims perfected after the date of enact- ment of the bill, as well as such operations and activities under mineral leases, licenses, or permits issued or renewed `after inclusion of the lands in the system, subject to regulations needed to safeguard scenic river values. A mining claim perfected after the lands are included in the system, however, will give the mining claimant title only to the mineral deposits, together with the right to make any use of the land surface of such claim as is reasonably required for his mining operations. Subject to "existing vested rights", the bill withdraws the minerals in Federal lands, which are included in the system and which constitute the bed or bank of a river ` or are situated within one~quarter mile of a river that is designated a wild river by this bill or subsequent Act of Con- gress, from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from the operation of the mineral leasing laws. In addition, the bill withdraws the minerals in the Federal lands which constitute the bed or bank, or within one-quarter mile of the bank, of the 20 rivers listed in the bill for study from 92-560-68-----4 PAGENO="0050" 36 all forms of ~ppropriatkn under the mining laws for the same periods Qf time a~ the licensing authority o1~ the Federal Power Commisshn is ~ suspended over such rivers~ ~ ~ ~ A~n~ ~omponent of the national sce~jic rivers system that is also located within the ~National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Park System, or th~ National Wildlife Refuge System~ will be subject to both the provisions of this bill and the Act or Acts governing ~ the ~ respective system, and if there should be a conflict the more restrictive provisions will apply. The States and local governments will be encouraged , to cooperate in the administration of any components of the national scenic rivers system which include or adjoin State or county-owned lands. The maintenance of a high-quajity water yield In a river included in the national scenic rivers system is affected by upstream developments. The bill therefore requires the head of any agency administering a component of the national scenic rivers system to cooperate with the Secretary of the Interioi~ and with appropriate State water pollution control agencies for the purpose of eliminating or diminishing the pollution of waters of the river. Cost estimates lor land acquisition for and development of the four rivers and adjacent lands designated by the bill as the initial components of the system will not be available until surveys are made on the ground to establish precise boundaries for these components. We are unable, therefore, to estimate whether the $6,500,000 appropriation authorization in the bill for property ac~ quisition is adequate for these four rivers. We recommend the following clarifying and perfecting amendments to HR. 8416: 1. On page 5, line 6, change "SEC. 3." to "SEC. 3(a) " ; on line 7, delete "as depicted on the maps hereinafter identified, and" ; on lines 12, 20-21, and 25 and on page 6, line 9, delete " (map numbered ) " ; and on page 6, after line 10, insert the following new subsection : " (b) The agency charged with the administration of each component of the national scenic rivers system designated by subsection (a ) of this section shall establish detailed boundaries therefor as soon as practicable after the inclusion of such component in the system. Such boundaries may be revised from time to time, but may include on both sides of the river a total of not more than three hundred and twenty acres per mile. Such agency shall publish notice of such detailed boundaries in the Federal Register, together with appropriate descriptions." There are no maps in existence to identify the boundaries of the four river areas designated by the bill as the initial components of the national scenic rivers system. We do not believe it is feasible to identify detailed boundaries for such areas until surveys are made on the ground. The amendment therefore deletes the references in the bill to maps, and provides for the boundaries of the four river areas to be established after the surveys have been made. The amendment envisions that the boundaries generally will not extend to a width of more than 1,320 feet from either side of the river. 2. On pages 5-6, each of the four rivers designated in section 3 of the bill as the initial components of the system is classified according to the types referred to in section 2(b) of the bill. We believe, however, that it is premature for the bill to make such classification in the absence of detailed knowledge of each segment of the rivers. We recommend, therefore, that section 3 of the bill be revised by deleting the reference to the river types and providing that the administering agency will classify the rivers in accordance with section 2(b) of the bill as soon as practicable after they are included in the system. In any event, the reference to "scenic" on page 5, line 14, must be deleted since this is not one of the four types of rivers referred to in section 2 (b) of the bill, 3. On page 6, line 16, change "(c) and (d)" to "(b) and (c)". 4. On page 12, line 6, delete the sentence beginning on this line and ending on line 20, and substitute the following sentences: "Lands owned by an Indian Tribe may be acquired only with the consent of the tribal governing body, and lands owned by a State may be acquired only with its consent. Lands owned by any political subdivision of a State may not be acquired, without the consent of the political subdivision, as long as the political subdivision is following a plan for the management and protection of the lands that the Secretary finds protects the land and assures its us~ for purposes con- sistent with this Act. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the land and PAGENO="0051" 37 water conservation fund shall be avai1ab~e to Federal departments and agencies for the acquisition of property for the purposes of this Act." ~ The amendment clarifies the Secretary's land acquisition authority. It deletes the provisions of the printed bill which prevent the Secretary from acquiring lands within the boundaries o~' any political subdivision of a State, without the consent of the political subdivision, if approved zoning is in effect with respect to such lands. Since all lands would be within the boundaries of counties, the provision could preclude the acquisition of any lands by the administering~ency and defeat the ~ purpos~e~ ~ of. the bill. The amendment a1~o pi~ovides thal ntouey appropriated `for 1~eder~1 pt~rposes from the Land and Water ConserVath~n ~und may be utilized by the Federal Government for the acquisition of lands for a scenic rivers program, in addition to the programs named in the Fund Act. 5. On page 13, line 5, delete the sentence beginning on this line and ending on line 9, and substitute the following sentence: "The values of the properties so exchanged either shall be approximately equal, or, if they are not approximately equal the values shall be equalized by the pay- ment of cash to the grantor or to the Secretary as the circumstances require." The amendment conforms the exchange provisions of the bill to those used in all recent national recreation area and seashore bills. 6. On page 14, line 6, change " (49 Stat. 863) " to " (41 Stat. 1063)", and on line 13, delete "on or directly affecting any such river" and substitute "that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which any such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its administration. or approval". The language of the printed bill precludes all federally assisted water resources projects constructed on or directly affecting a river designated in section 3 of the bill as part of the National Scenic Rivers System or hereafter designated for inclusion in that System. Water resources project is a very broad term which includes sewage treatment plants and all of those should not be precluded. The amendment will permit such projects to proceed if the appropriate Secretary finds they would not have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river was included in the System. 7. On page 14, line 13, delete the sentence beginning on this line and ending on line 23, and substitute the following sentence: "At the time any department or agency of the United States recommends au- thorization of, or requests appropriations to begin construction of, any water resources project that would affect a component of the national scenic rivers system, such department or agency shall report in writing to the Secretary charged with the administration or approval of such component and to the Congress indicating how the project would affect the component and the values to be protected by this Act." We believe the report of the agency recommending authorization of a water resources project or requesting appropriations for construction thereof should be submitted to the Congress and the appropriate Secretary at the same time, and that such report should discuss the effect of the project on the river and the ~values to be protected by this bill. The amendment so provides. 8. On page 15, lInes 6 and 7, delete "on or directly affecting any such river" and substitute "that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river might be designated, as determined by the Secretary responsi- ble for its study or approval". The reason for `the amendment is the same as given for amendment number 6. 9. On page 15, line 10, after "Interior," insert "or the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands are involved~". 10. On page 15, lines 18 to 24, delete "or, in the case of any river recommended to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system, under section 2 (a) (ii) of this Act, is necessary for the Secretary's considera- tion thereof, which additional period, however, shall not exceed three years in the first case and one year in the second" and insert "but not exceed three years". The amendment deletes the reference to an additional period for rivers rec- ommended to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the System under section 2(a) (ii) of the Act since the initial 5-year period does not apply to such riverS. 11. On page 15, line 25, preceding "No" insert the following sentence: "Upon notification by the Federal Power Commission that an application has beeii received for a license on or directly affecting any river listed in see- PAGENO="0052" 38 tion 5, subsection (a), of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior or the Se~re- tary . of Agriculture where national threst lands are invoWed shall p~oee~d to con~p1ete the. stt~dy within two years after the i,eceipt ef such notice." The ~n~nthtient will enabl~ the Federal Power Co~mm1ss1on to process ii- c~se ap~llcations filed under the Federal Power Act, *s amended, concern~ ii~g th~.j.'1vers listed in~ect1on 5(a) of the bill without an~ undue delay. 12. Oh page 15, line 25, delete the sentence beginning oii this line and end- in~ on line 10, page 16, and substitute the following sentence: "At the time any department or agency of the United States during the periods Specified in this subsection recommendS authorization of, or requests ~ppropria;tions to begin construction of, any water resources project that would. affect any river listed in section 5, subsection (a) , of this Act, such department or agency shall report in writing to the Secretary charged with Its study or approval and to the Congress indicat~ffig how the Project would affect the ralues to be protected by this Act." * . The rçs~sthi for the ameóclment is the same as given for amendment number 7. `. :13: On page 16, line 13, after "Int~rior" insert ", or the Secretary of Agri~ c~iltur~ where national forest lands are in~lved,". 14. On page 18, line 4, after "(ii) " insert "subject to valid existing rights"; and on lihe 13, change "existing vested rights" to "valid existing rights". u;. On page 20, line 1, after "by" insert "or pursuant to". 16. On page 21, line 15, change "SEC. 12" to "SEC. 11" and appropriately renumber the succeeding sections of the bill. :17. On page 22, after line 2, insert the following subsection, and on line 3, change "(b)" to "(c)". " (b) Upon application by the Governor of the State for the designation of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in Maine or the segment of the Wolf River in Langlade County, Wisconsin, as part of the national scenic rivers system, the Secretary of the Interior may make such designation if the State or local agency administering the area agrees to manage and protect it in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary. Such designation shall preclude the Federal Power Commis- sion from licensing the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, pow- erhouse, transmission line, or other project works under the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1O~3) , as amended (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), on or directly affecting such rivers." The States of Maine and Wisconsin are acquiring the lands along these two rivers and developing them for scenic river purposes. We believe they should be given the protection provided by this amet~dment. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report, and that enactment of legislation along the lines recommended herein would be in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, STnWART L. UDALL, secretary of the Interior. Enclosure. PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HR. 841~3, S. 119, HR. 90, AND HR. 6166 1. Types of river$ eligible for inclusion in National scenic or Wild Rivers system FIR. 8416 recognizes four types of national rivers-wild, natural environ- ment, pastoral, and historic and cu~Itural-as well as two types of areas ad- jacent to the national rivers, namely, unique natural and historic, and high- density use. S. 119 and H.R. 6166 recognize only wild or scenic national river areas. H.R. 90 recognizes three classes of national scenic river areas, and directs that each river shall be classified and managed according to the degree of wilder- ness, accessibility by roads, and amount of shoreline development. H.R. 8416 and HR. 6166 also permit State or local scenic rivers to be added to the system under certain conditions. 2. Rivers designated as initiaZ units of system IT.R. 8416 designates segments of four rivers-Rogue, Oregon; Rio Grande, New Mexico; Salmon, Idaho; and Clearwater, Idaho. S. 119 designated segments of seven rivers-the four designated by HR. 8410 and three additional ones-Eleven Point, Missouri; Cacapon, West Virginia; and Shenandoah, West Virginia. PAGENO="0053" 39 HR. 6166 designates segments of nine rivers-the seven designated by S. 119 and two additional ones-Wolf, Wisconsin ; and St. Oroix, Minnesota and Wisconsin. H.R. 90 designates segments of sixteen rivers-the nine designated by Hit. 6166 and seven additional ones-Kiamath, California ; Skagit, Washington; Hudson, New York ; Green, Wyoming ; Missouri, Montana ; Flatbead, Montana; and Suwannee, Georgia and Florida. ~,. Method of designO~tiofl of bouncUi~ries H.R. 8416, H.R. 90, and S. 119 designate the boundaries of the national scenic river areas by reference to certain maps referred to in the bills. HR. 6166 u~es the concept of a narrow ribbon for the national scenic river areas, i.e., it provides that such areas may include not more than a total of 320 acres per mile, with detailed boundaries to be established as soon as practicable after the enactment of the bill. -~. Rivers specifically mentioned for study as potential additions to system HR. 8416 lists 20 rivers; S. 119 lists 17 rivers; H.R. 6166 lists 35 rivers; and HR. 90 lists 66 rivers. (See page 40 for listing of rivers.) H.R. 8416 requires detailed studies of the rivers to be considered for addition to the system, including potential alternative uses of the rivers. It also requires the preparation of comprehensive study reports similar to those prepared for Corps of Engineer projects, and for the printing of such reports as Senate or House documents. S. 119, H.R. 90, and HIt. 6166 contain similar provisions-each provides for Federal-State planning for additions to the system. 5. Restrictions on acquisition of lands by condemnation proceed'inijs HR. 8416 precludes the condemnation of lands within the boundaries of any political su~division of a State, without the consent of the political subdivision, if the lands are subject to approved zoning, whereas the remaining bills only preclude the condemnation of lands subject to approved zoning that are within incorporated cities, villages, or boroughs. S. 119 precludes condemnation of lands or interests therein (other than scenic easements) , without the owner's consent, where 50 percent or more of the wild river area is in public ownership ; none of the other bills contains such a provision. Where less than 50 percent of the area is in public ownership, S. 119 limits condemnation of a fee title to not more than 300 feet on either side of the river, and condemnation of less than fee title to not more than 1,320 feet on either side of the river. HR. 90 limits condemnation of a fee title to not more than one mile on either side of the river, and condemnation of a less than fee title to not more than two miles on either side of the river. HR. 6166 generally limits the acquisition of a fee title, by condemnation or any other method, on both sides of the river to a total of not more than 100 acres per mile. ~l. Applioabil4ty of U.$. nvining and minerai teasing laws All of the bills continue the applicability of such laws, except that mining activi- ties on mining claims perfected after the date of the Act and on mineral leases issued after the date of the Act will be subject to appropriate regulations. Ift addition, all of the bills except S. 119 provide that mining claims perfected after the date of the Act will give the mining claimant title only to the mineral de- posits in the claim, together with the right to use the land surface. HR. 8416 is the only bill which withdraws the minerals in Federal land~, which constitute the bed or bank of a river included in the system by Act of Congress or which are within one-quarter mile of such river, from the oporatiOti of the mining and mindral leasing laws. Hit. 8416 is also the oni~t bill which withdraws, for not more than an8-year period, the minerals in the Federal lands adjacent to the rivers specifically listed in the bill for further study. 7. Restrictions on authority of the Federal Power Commission Unless specifically authorized by Congress, H.R. 6166 precludes the Federal Power Commission from licensing new dams or project works unrelated to an existing project in any national scenic river area. PAGENO="0054" Cacapon, WVa Chattooga,NO, SO & Ga Delaware, Pa & NY Eleven Point, Ark & Mo Flathead, Mont Gasconade, Mo Green, Wyo Guadalupe, Texas Illinois, Oregon Kiamath, Calif Buffalo, Tenn Green, Wyo Hudson, NY Missouri, Mont Niobrara, Nebr Skagit, Wash Susquebanna, NY & Pa Wolf, Wise Suwannee, Ga & Fla Animas, Cob Big Fork, Minn Big Hole, Mont Buffalo, Tenn C~ttQoga,. NC, SC, & Ga Delaware, NY & Pa Desehutes, Oregon Feather, Calif Flathead, Mont Gasconade, Mo Gila, NMex Green, Wyo Gros Ventre, Wyo Guadalupe, Tex Kiamath, Calif Madison, Mont Manistee, Mich Mullica, NJ Niobrara, Nebr Penobscot, Maine Pere Marquette, Mich Pine Creek, Pa St. Croix, Mum & Wise Shenandoah, WVa Skagit, Wash Susquehanna, NY & Pa Suwannee, Ga & Fla Upper Iowa, Iowa S. 119 Youghiogheny, Md & Pa Little Miami, Ohio Little Beaver, Ohio Pine Creek, Pa Delaware, Pa & NY Allegheny, Pa Clarion, Pa W. Branch Susquehanna, Pa Niobrara, Nebr Penobscot, East & West Branches,. hEaine Pere Marquette, Mich Pine Creek, Pa Potomac, South Branch, WVa Salmon (Riggins to mouth), Idaho Salt, Ariz Shenandoah, Va Skagit, Wash Snake, North Fork, Idaho Susquehanna, NY & Pa Suwannee, Ga & Fla Upper Iowa, Iowa Wacissa, Fla White, Cob Wind, Wyo Yellowstone, Mont 40 HR. 90 provides that no dam or other project works shall be constructed, op- erated, or maintained in any designated national scenic river area or in certain river areas to be studied for such designation, unless specifically authorized by the Congress. HR. 8416 would prevent the licensing of dams or other project works on or directly affecting any rivers designated as part of the system. Additionally, H.R. 8416 precludes Federal agencies from assisting by loan, grant, or otherwise any water resource projects on or directly affecting any such river. HR. 8416 also provides similar protection for the rivers specifically listed in the bill for future study. 8. Appropriation authorization for acquisition of property H.R. 6166, HR. 90, and S. 119 authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary. HR. 8416 authorizes the appropriation of not more than $6,- 500,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests therein. 9. National Wild or Scenic Rivers Review Board S. 119 creates a national wild rivers review board to conduct studies and fur- nish reports to the Congress on the developments on each wild river. The board cotisists of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Army, the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, and involved State Governors. None of the other bills contains such a provision. H.R. 8416 H.R. 6166 PAGENO="0055" Buffalo, Tenn St. Croix (Lower) Wise & Minn Niobrara, Nebr Susquehanna, NY & Pa Allegheny, Pa & NY Big Blue, md Little Miami, Ohio Little Beaver, Ohio Pine Creek, Pa Delaware, Pa & N~Y Clarion, Pa W. Branch Susquehanna, Pa Little Tennessee, Tenn Buffalo, Ark Colorado, Utah, Cob, Ariz, Nev, & Calif Columbia, Mont, Wash, Idaho, & Oregon Animas, Cob Ausable, NY Big Fork, Minn Big Hole, Mont Black Warrior, Ala Blackfoot, Mont Cache la Poudre, Cob Cheat, WVa Connecticut, NH Cumberland, Tenn & Ky Deschutes, Oregon Feather, Calif French Broad, NC & Penn Gasconade, Mo Gila, NMex Greenbrier, WVa Gros Ventre, Wyo 41 H.R. 90 Guadalupe, Tex Hoh, Wash James, Va Kern, North Fork, Cabif Linvilbe, NC Little Wabash, Ill Madison, Mont Manistee, Mich Methow, Wash Mullica, NJ Namekagon, Wise Oklawaha, Fla Penobscot, East & West Branches, Maine Pere Marquette, Mich Potomac, Md, Pa, WVa, & Va Queets, Wash Sacramento, Calif Saint Joe, Idaho Salt, Ariz San Juan, Utah & NMex Savannah headwaters, Ga & NC Shenandoah, Va Smith, Calif Snake, North Fork, Idaho Tangipahoa, La Teton, Idaho & Wyo Upper Iowa, Iowa Wacissa, Fla Wapsipinicon, Iowa White, Cob Wind, Wyo Yellowstone, Mont & Wyo Youghiogheny, Md & Pa 15.5. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIoR, Orvxcn or THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., September 18, 1967. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chaiirma~iv, Committee on Interior and Insu'ar Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ASPINALL : We are forwarding a revision of the enclosure which accompanied the Department's report of August 14, 1967, to the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on H.R. 8416 and similar wild or scenic river bills. The enclosure, which summarized the principal differences between H.R. 8416, S. 119, H.R. 90, and H.R. 6166, as they were introduced in the Congress, has been revised to summarize the principal differences between S. 119 as passed by the Senate and the above House bills. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. HARRY R. ANDERSON, Assistant secretary of the Interior. PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN H.R. 8416, S. 119 (AS PASSED BY THE SENATE), H.R. 90, AND H.R. 6166 1. Types of rivers eligible for inclusion in National ~cenie or Wild Rivers S~ystein H.R. 8416 recognizes four types of national rivers-wild, natural environment, pastoral, and historic and cultural-as well as two types of areas adjacent to the national rivers, namely, unique natural and historic, and high-density use. 5. 119 recognizes only wild ;and scenic national rivers, and HR. 6166 recog- nizes only scenic national rivers. PAGENO="0056" 42 H.R. 90 recognizes three classes of national scenic river areas, and directs that each river shall be classified and managed according to the degree of wilderness, accessibility by roads, and amount of shoreline development. S. 119, H.R. 8416, and HR. 616~3 also permit State or local wild or scenic rivers to be added to the system under certain conditions. 2. RiDers Zesignated as initiaI~units of system H.R. 8416 designates segments of four rivers-Rogue, Oregon ; Rio Grande, New Mexico ; Salmon, Idaho ; and Clearwater, Idaho. S. 119 designates segments of nine rivers-~the four designated by HR. 841~, and five additional ones-Eleven Point, Missouri ; Wolf, Wisconsin ; Narnekagon, Wisconsin : Saint Croix, Minnesota and Wisconsin ; and Illinois, Oregon. HR. 6166 designates segments of nine rivers-the four designated by HR. 8416 and five additional ones-Eleven Point, Arkansas and Missouri ; lacavon, West Virginia ; Shenandoah, West Virginia ; Saint Croix, Minnesota and Wis- consin ; and Wolf, Wisconsin. H.R. 90 designates segments of sixteen rivers-tile nine designated by HR.. 6166 and seven additional ones-Kiamath, california ; Skagit, Washington ; I-mci- son, New York ; Green, Wyoming ; Missouri, Montana ; Flathead, Mont~ma ; and Suwannee, Georgia and Florida. 3. Mct1i~od of designation of bo~indarie8 H.R. 8416 and H.R. 90 designate the boundaries of the national scenic river areas by reference to certain maps referred to in the bills. S. 119 and 11.11. ~ktG6 use the concept of a narrow ribbon for the national wild or scenic river areas, i.e., they provide that such areas may include not more than a total of 320 acres per mile. with detailed boundaries to be established after enactment of the legislation. 4. Rivers specifically mentioned for study as potentiaZ additio~7s to system H.R. 8416 lists 20 rivers ; S. 119 lists 28 rivers ; H.R. 6166 lists 35 rivers ; and HR. 90 lists 66 rivers. ( See page 43 for listing of rivers.) H.R. 8416 requires detailed studies of the rivers to be considered for addition to the system, including potential alternative uses of the rivers. It also requires the preparation of comprehensive study reports similar to those prepared for Corps of Engineer projects, and for the printing of such reports: as Senate or House documents. S. 119, H.R. 90, and H.R. 6166 contain similar provisions-each provides for Federal-State planning for additions to the system. .5. Restrictions on acq~isit~on of lands by condemnation proceedings HR. 8416 precludes the condemnation of lands within the boundaries of any political subdivision of a State, without the consent of the political subdivision, if the lands are subject to approved zoning, whereas the remaining bills only' preclude the condemnation of lands subject to approved zoning that are within incorporated. cities, villages, or boroughs. S. 119 precludes condemnation of lands or Interests therein (other than scenic easements) , without the owner's consent, where 50 percent or more of the wild or scenic river area is in public ownership ; none of the other bills contains si~ch a provision. Where less than 50 percent of the area is in public ownership. S. 119 limits the acquisition of a fee title, by condemnation or any other method, on both sides of tile riv~r to a total of not more than 100 acres per mile. HR.. 9() limits condemnation of a fee title to not more than one mile on either side of the river, and condemnation of a less than fee title to flot more than two miles on either side of the river. H.R. 6166 generally limits the acquisition of a fee title, by condemnation or any other method, on both sides of the river to a total of not more than 100 acres per mile. 6. Applicability of U.s. mining and numeral leasing laws All of the bills continue the applicability of such laws, except that mining activities on mining claims perfected after the date of the Act and on mineral leases issued after the date of the Act will be subject to appropriate regulations. H.R. 8416, HR. 90, and HR. 6166 also provide that mining claims perfected after the date of the Act will give tile mining claimant title only to the mineral deposits in the claim, together with the right to use the land surface. PAGENO="0057" 4~ H.R. 8416 is the only bill which withdraws the minerals in Federal lands, which constitute the bed or bank of a river included in the system by Act of Congress or which are within ~ne-quarter mile of such river, from the op~ratiou Of the mining and mineral leasing laws. ILR. 8416 is also the only bill which withdraws, for not more than a~i S~year period, the minerals in the Federal lands adjacent to the rivers specifically listed in the bill for further study. 7. Restrictions on at~tho~rity of the Federal Power Commission Unless specifically authorized by Congress, S. 119 and H.R. 6166 preclude the Federal Power Commission from licensing new dams or project works in any national wild or scenic river area. S. 119 also provides similar protection for the rivers listed in the bill for future study. H.R. 90 provides that no dam or other project works shall be constructed, operated, or maintained in any designated national scenic river area or in cer- tam river areas to be studied for such designation, unless specifically authorized by the Congress. H.R. 8416 would prevent the licensing of dams or other project works on or directly affecting any rivers designated as part of the system. Additionally, H.R. 8416 precludes Federal agencies from assisting by loan, grant, or otherwise any water resource projects on or directly affecting any such river. H.R. 8416 also provides similar protection for the rivers specifically listed in the bill for future study. 8. Appropriation authorization for acquisition of property H.R. 6166, H.R. 90, and S. 119 authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary. H.R. 8416 authorlze~ the appropriation of not more than $~,- 500,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests therein. 9. National Wild and ~cenio Rivers Review Board S. 119 creates a national wild and scenic rivers review board to conduct studies and furnish reports to the Congress on the developments on each na- tional wild or scenic river area. The board consists of the Secretaries of Inte- rior, Agriculture, Army, the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, and involved State Governors. None of the other bills contains such a provision. H.R. 8416 Cacapon, WVa Chattooga, NC, SC, & Ga Delaware, Pa & NY Eleven Point, Ark & Mo Flathead, Mont Gasconade, Mo Green, Wyo Guadalupe, Texas Illinois, Oregon Kiamath, Calif Niobrara, Nebr Penobscot, Maine Pere Marquette, Mich Pine Creek, Pa St. Croix, Minn & Wise Shenandoah, WVa Skagit, Wash Susquehanna, N! & Pa Suwannee, Ga & Fla Upper Iowa, Iowa S. 119 (as passed by the Senate) Salmon, Idaho Buffalo, Tenn Big Fork, Minn Hudson, NY Missouri, Mont Niobrara, Nebr Skagit, Wash Susquehanna, NY & Pa Suwannee, Ga & Fia Youghiogheny, Md & Pa Little Miami, Ohio Little Beaver, Ohio Maumee, Ohio Pine Creek, Pa Delaware, Pa & NY Allegheny, Pa Clarion, Pa W. Branch Susquehanna, Pa Chattooga, NC, SC, & Ga Flathead, Mont Gasconde, Mo Guadalupe, Texas Klamath, Calif Penobscot, Maine Pere Marquette, Mich Upper Iowa, Iowa Feather, Calif Rio Grande, Texas PAGENO="0058" .44 Niobrara, Nebr Penobscot, East & West Branches, Maine Pere Marquette, Mich Pine Creek, Pa Potomac, South Branch, WVa Salmon (Riggins to mouth), Idaho Salt, Ariz Shenandoah, Va Skagit, Wash Snake, North Fork, Idaho Susquehanna, NY & Pa Suwannee, Ga & Fla Upper Iowa, Iowa Wacissa, Fla White, Cob Wind, Wyo Yellowstone, Mont U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECEETAR~, Washington, D.C., Marclv 6, 1968. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. A5PINALL: Your Committee has requested a report from this Depart~ ment on H.R. 753 and H.R. 6289, identical bills providing for the establishment of the Saint Croix NatiOnal Scenic Riverway in the States of Minnesota and U.R. 6166 Animas, Cob Big Fork, Minn Big Hole, Mont Buffalo, Tenn Chattooga, NC, SC, & Ga Delaware, NY & Pa Deschutes, Oregon Feather, Calif Flathead, Mont Gasconade, Mo Giba, NMex Green, Wyo Gros Ventre, Wyo Guadalupe, Texas Klamath, Calif Madison, Mont Manistee, Mich Mullica, NJ H.R. 90 Bufl~abo, Penn St. CroiR (Lower) , Wise & Minn Niobrara, Nebr Susquehanna, NY & Pa Allegheny, EPa & NY Big Blue, Ind Little Miami, Ohio Little Beaver, Ohio Pine ~ireek, Pa Delaware, Pa & NY Clarion, Pa W. Branch Susquehanna, Pa Little Tennessee, Tenn Buffalo, Ark Colorado, Utah, Cob, Ariz, Nev, & Calif Columbia, Mont, Wash, Idaho & Oregon Animas, Cob Ausable, NY Big Fork, Minn Big Hole, Mont Black Warrior, Ala Blackfoot, Mont Cache ba Poudre, Cob Cheat, WVa Connecticut, Nil Cumberland, Tenn & Ky Deschutes, Oregon Feather, Calif French Broad, NO & Tenu Gasconade, Mo Gila, NMex Greenbrier, WVa Gros Ventre, Wyo Guadalupe, Texas Hoh, Wash James, Va Kern, North Fork, Calif Linville, NC Littbe Wabash, Ill Madison, Mont Man.istee, Mich Methow, Wash Mullica, NJ Namekagon, Wise Okiawaha, Fla Penobscott, East & West Branches, Maine Pere Marquette, Mich Potomac, Md, Pa, WVa, & Va Queets, Wash Sacramento, Calif Saint Joe, Idaho Salt, Ariz San Juan, Utah & NMex Savannah headwaters, Ga & NC Shenandoah, Va Smith, Calif Snake, North Fork, Idaho Pangipahoa, La Teton, Idaho & Wyo Upper Iowa, Iowa Wacissa, Fla Wapsipinicon, Iowa White, Cob Wind, Wyo Yellowstone, Mont & Wyo Youghiogheny, Md & Pa PAGENO="0059" 45 Wisconsin, and three similar bills, H.R. 752, H.R. 3389, and HR. 3983. Your Committee has also requested a report on H.R 6373, a bill to reserve certain lands along a segment of the Wolf River, Wisconsin, for designation as a scenic river area. We favor the purposes of the bills, i.e., the preservation and protection of the unique scenic and other natural values of the Saint Croix River in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the Namekagon tributnry of the Saint Croix River, and a certain segment of the Wolf River in Menominee County, Wisconsin. These purposes can be accomplished, however, under the bills pending before your Committee which would establish a national system of wild or scenic rivers. Basically, four different proposals for a national wild or scenic rivers system are pending before your committee, namely, HR. 61& (which is identical to the bill the Department submitted to the Congress by an executive communication of February 18, 1967) , H.R. 90 introduced by Congressman Saylor, H.R. 841~ which you introduced, and S. 119, as passed by the Senate on August 8, 1967. H.R 90 designates the segment of the Wolf River reaching from the confluence of the Hunting River downstream to the town of Keshena as a scenic river area, while HR. 6164E~ and S. 119 designate the segment from the Langlade-Menominee County Line downstream to Keshena Falls as a national scenic river area and a national wild river area, respectively. H.R. 8416 does not designate any segment of the Wolf River as one of the initial units of the naUonal system. H.R. 90 and H.R. 8166 designate the segment of the Saint Croix River beginning at Taylors Falls, Minnesota, and extending upstream to the dam near Gordon, Wisconsin, and its Namekagon tributary as a scenic river area and a national scenic river area, respectively. S. 119 designates as a national wild river area the segment of the Saint Croix between the dam near Taylors Falls and the darn near Gordon, Wisconsin, and its Namekagon tributary from its confluence upstream with the Saint Croix to the dam near Trego, Wisconsin. S. 119 designates as a national scenic river area the segment of the Saint Croix River downstream from the dam near Taylors Falls to its confluence with the Mississippi River. H.R. 8416 does not designate any segment of the Saint Croix River as one of the initial units of the national system, but designates the Saint Croix and its Namekagon tributary for study as a potential addition to the system. In our report of August 14, 1967, to your Committee on the national wild or scenic river bills, we recommended the enactment of H.R. 8416 with certain clarifying and perfecting amendments. We believe it would be appropriate, however, to start the system either with the four rivers mentioned in H.R. 8416, as a minimum, or any combination of the additional rivers designated as the initial units of the system in H.R. 6166 or S. 119. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, STANLEY A. CAIN, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., March 6, 1968. Hon. WAYNE N. A5PINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Wishington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This responds to your request for a ~ report from this Department on FIR. 14180, a bill "To provide for the establishment of the Lewis and Clark National Scenic Riverway, and for other purposes." The purpose of the bill is to preserve and interpret a significant segment of the Missouri River in Montana and adjacent lands for their scenic, recreational, and other natural values. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of this Department, in cooperation with interested Federal and State agencies, is presently conducting a study of the rec~ reational resources of the Missouri River from Yankton, South Dakota, to Fort Benton, Montana, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on February 17, 1966. We recommend, therefore, that action on the bill be deferred until this study is completed, and the bill can be evaluated in light of the recommendations resulting therefrom. We expect the study to be completed within the next few months. PAGENO="0060" 46 The Bureau of the Budget has adv4se~ that there would be no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.. . Sincerely yours, HARRY R. ANDEESON, Assistant Secretary of th~ Interior~ Th~PARTMENT 0]? AGRICULTURE, W~8Mngton, D.C., August 11, 1967.. ~Ion. WAYNR. N. 4~SFIN~LL, Cha~irmc~n, Committee on Interior and Insular 4ff airs, R~ouse of Representatives. . DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : As you asked, here i~ our report on HR. 90, H.R. 493;. H.R. 3996, HR. 6166, and HR. 6588, "To reserve certain public lands for a National Scenic Rivers System, to provide a procedure for adding additional public lands and other lands to the system, and for other purposes", and on HR.. 841~3, "To provide for a national scenic rIvers system, and for other purposes." In 1963, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior Initiated a joint study of the Nation's scenic rivers. As an outgrowth of that study, the Secretary of the Interior sent to the 89th Congress, in 1965, a proposed bill to establish a National Wild Rivers system. HR. 3996 is similar to that proposed bilL After the close of the 89th Congress, we worked with the Department of the Interior in developing modified draft legislation to establish a Nationwide Sys- tern of Scenic Rivers. On February 18, 1967, the . Secretary of the Interior trans- mitted this modified proposal to the 90th Congress with the concurrence of this. Department. HR. 6166 Is identical to the Administration's proposal. HR. 6588 Is nearly identical to HR. 6166. HR. 90 and HR. 493 are Identical bills having a pattern similar to the Ad- ministration's proposal. However, they contain additional provisions that woulct recognized three classes o~' national scenic river areas, and would direct that each river be classified and managed according to the degree of accessibility, shore~ line development, and freedom from impoundments. H.R. 8416 Is similar in principle to the Administration proposal. It also con- tains provisions that would classify the river areas according to their character. The bills vary regarding rivers that would be designated for inclusion in an initial scenic rivers system, and that would b~ designated for future study. . HR. 8416 has several desirable features. We recommend enactment of HR.. 8416, with the amendments referred to herein. On page 2, line 20, we suggest that "or river segments" be inserted between "riv~rs" and "are". This makes It clear that different portions of designated scenic rivers may have different characteristics, and be classified accordingly. We suggest that subsection 2 (b) (i) be amended to read as follows: "(i) WILD RIVERS.-Freè-fiowlng rivers located within designated units of the national wilderness preservation system and free-flowing rivers the valleys of which have been little changed by man and to which public access is limited~ except by trails." The present language of H.R. 8416 would include in the Wild River type free- flowing rivers within "de facto" wilderness areas, and provides that such rivers should be managed in accordance with the concepts embodied in the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890). "De facto" wilderness is not defined by the bill. We are con- cerned that the use of this term would be construed as an inference of classifi- cation of large areas of undeveloped lands in the National Forests as "de facto wilderness" for management under the same restrictions on resource use as: apply to wilderness areas designated under the Wilderness Act. Many of these areas are undeveloped simply because planned development has not reached them. In most cases they do not have the attributes of areas presently a part of or being reviewed for recommendation for Inclusion in the Wilderness System. The Wilderness Act provides appropriate machinery to consider the possible inclusion of lands having wilderness character In the National Wilderness Preser- vation Syntem. Subsection 2(c) (ii) of the bill provides that lands in High-Density Use Areas should be acquired in fee by the administering agency unless in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior other methods of control are sufficient. Since this Department and other agencies will also be administering such areas, we recom- mend that the last sentence In this subsection be amended to read: PAGENO="0061" 47 "The lands involved in such areas sho~1d be a~quired iii fee un1e~s, in the judgment of. the head. of the ad~in1stering agency, other methods of public. con- trol are sufficient to assure their us~ for the purpose for which they are created." We éoncur in the amendments to section 3 of the bill suggested In the report of the Department of the interior relating to designation and classification of the components of the National Scerdc Rivers System. These amendments would provide that the boundaries of components of the national scenic rivers system could include no more than 320 acres per mile on both sides of a ~ Rivers would be classified in accordance to the types referred to In subsection 2(b) of BR. 8416 as soon as practicable after they are included in the system. Subsection 3(3) of the bill outlines the administrative arrangements for the Salmon River. The river segment described lies almost entirely within or adjacent to national forests, and would be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. Accordingly, we recommend that subsection 3 (3) be amended to provide that the Salmon River would be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. Sections 4 and 5 of H.R. 8416 relate to the procedures to be followed and the ~cope of studies to be made in connection with addition of rivers to the initial scenic rivers system. Section 4 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to make needed studies and from time to time submit proposals to the President and the Congress for additions to the system of river areas and sites which, in the judg- ment of the Secretary of the Interior, qualify for such designation. Copies of the Secretary of the Interior's proposed reports would be submitted to affected Fed- oral agencies for review and comment. Section 5 lists rivers which are designated, without prejudice to others, as candidates for potential addition to the system. It would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study these rivers In cooperation with the States and their political subdivisions. However, no study could be undertaken in the case of any stream which the Governor of the appropriate State certifies the State is prepared to and does study to determine its suitability for inclusion in the system. The bill transmitted by the Secretary of the Interier on February 18, 1967, with the concurrence of this Department, provides that where National Forest lands are involved the Secretary of Agriculture would be responsible for studies of river areas to be proposed for additions to the system. That provision gave recog- nition to the responsibility of this Department for managing the National Forests. We believe that the language in this respect jointly developed by our two Departments should be retained. We recommend that sections 4 and 5 (other than the identification of the river segments lieted for study) be amended to read as follows: "Sno. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands are involved, after consultation with interested Fed- eral agencies, are directed to consult with the Governors and officials of the States in which the rivers or river segments listed below are located to ascertain whether a joint Federal-State plan is feasible and desirable In the public interest to conserve these rivers and segments thereof. They shall submit to the President their recommendations for or against designation of any or all of them as com~ ponents of the national scenic rivers system, and the President shall submit to the Congress such recommendations, including draft legislation, as he deems appropriate. Recommendations with respect to not less than one-half of such rivers shall be submitted to the President within five years after the date of enactment of `this Act, and the recommendations with respect to the remaining rivers shall be submited to the President within ten years after the date of enacment of this act: * * * . * * S " (b) In all planning for the use and development of water and related land reseurces, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to poten- tial components of the national scenic rivers system and all river basin and project plan reports suhmitted to the Congress shall discuss any such poten- tials. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and investigations to determine which additional rivers within the United States shall he evaluated in planning reports as potential components of the national scenic rivers system. "(c) The Secretary of the Interio~r, and the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands are involved, shall also submit to the President from time PAGENO="0062" 48 to time their recommendations for designation of any other river or segment thereof as a component of the national scenic rivers system. The Preslilent shall submit `tO~ the Oongress such r~eornmenc1ations, including draft legislation, as he deems appropriate. " (d) R~commendations submitted to the President under this section shall be developed in consultation with `the States, those Federal agencies which normally partiei~ate in the deve1opme~t ofrecreation plans and comprehensive river basin plans, any commissions established pursuant to interstate compacts the a~sigtied responsibilities of which would be affected, and commissions or other bodies which may be established for the purpose of developing a comprehensive plan for the rive~r basin within which the contemplated component of the national scenic rivers system would be located. Each such recommendation shall be accompanied by (1) expressions of any views which the agencies and States consulted pur- stiant to the foregoing may submit within ninety days after having been notified of the proposed `recommenda~ion, (2) a statement setting forth the probable effect of the recommended action on any comprehensive river basin plan that may have been adopted `by Congress or that is serving as a guide for coordinating Federal or Federal and State programs in the basin, and (3) in the absence of such plan, a statement indicating the probable effect of the recommended action on alternative beneficial uses of the resources of the basin. "(e) Whenever it is proposed to designate a river or segment thereof as a component of `the national scenic rivers system, and the river or segment runs through predominantly non-Federal land, the appropriate Secretary shall include in his recommendations to the President the views of the Governor of each State concerned with respect to its addition, and with respect to whether it should be wholly or partly acquired, protected, and managed pursuant to exclu- sive State authority. The views of the Governor shall be accompanied by or based upon a general State plan which assures `the effectuation of the purposes of this Act in perpetuity. The President shall include in his recommendations to the Congress, with respect to the designation of such river or segment thereof as a component of `the national scenic rivers system, specific recommendations on the adm'in~stration of such component by State authority. " (f) Any recommendation for designation of a river as a component of the national scenic rivers system shall indicate `the extent to which land will need to be `acquired by the State and by the Federal Government, and the extent to which the acquisition of scenic easements or other interests in land may be used in lieu of acquisition of a fee title. "SEC. 5. Components of the national scenic rivers system designated by sub- sequent Acts of Congress' shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, except `that when the component is wholly within, partly within, or closely adjacent to, a national forest such area shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture unless it is also partly within, or closely adjacent to, an area administered by the Secretary of the Interior, in which event the component shall be administered in such manner as agreed upon by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, or as directed by the President." The above suggested amendment to subsection 4 (a) does not specify the rivers to be studied under section 4. We would have no objectioii to the list of "study" rivers presently contained in section 5 `of HR. 8416. On page 12, line 24, the word "designed" s~hould be "designated." To clarify the status of land's within the National Forests acquired by or trans- ferred to the Secretary of Agriculture for scenic river purposes, we recommend the following sentence be added at the end of subsection 6(e) of the bill. "Lands acquired by or transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture for the pur- poses of tM1s Act within or adjacent `to a national forest shall upon acquisition or transfer become national forest lands." Section 7 of the bill would `prohibit Federal agencies from licensing or assisting water resource projects "on or dt'rectly affecting" design~ated components `of the national scenic rivers system. This restriction would be' permanent a's to com- ponents designated by section 3 of the bill and temporary as to rivers designated for study by `section 5. These provisions would seriously affect the important small watershed pro- gram administered by the Soil C~n'servat'ion Service of this Department. It would preclude construction of some projects outside the boundaries of a scenic river system component which are needed to provide watershed protection, prevent floods, benefit fish and wildlife, provide recreation, and provide water storage PAGENO="0063" 49 for ~arms, rura~[ communities, * and iax~ustries. Many ~tf~ U~ese `projectn can "ciLreet- ly affect" scenic rFvers and ntil be compatthle with the purposes of the Scenic Rivers Act. In many cases they will ~urther these purpo~ses by protecting water quality through preventhrn o~ erosion ar~d ~dimèntation. They can extend the seasons scenic rivers can be i~sred and enjo~ed by helping to ~tabi1lze river flows. ~ We theretore recommend that section 7be t~mended as follows: (1) On page 14 line 13 delete the words "on or directly affecting any such river" and substitute the following : `~that wouLd have a direct and adverse affect on the values 1~or Which any suth river was ~stab1is~edas deternilneci by the See- retary charged wll~h'its administration or approval." ~ (2) On page 14 delete thèsentenee beginning on line 13 and suhstitute the fol- lowing : "At the time any Depar~ment or agency of the United States recommends authorization of Or requ~sts appropriations to begin construction of any water resources project that would affect a component of the national scerUc rivers system such Department or agenèy shall report in writing to the Secr~tary charged with the a~1ministration or approval of such component and to the Congress Indicating how the projc~t would affect the component and the values ~ to be protected by this Act." ~ (3) On page 15 lines 8~and 7 delete the words "on or directly affecting any such rFVer'~ and su~bstitute the foik'wing : "that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river ikiight be designated as determined by the Secretary responsible for its study or approval." (4) On page 15 line 10 insert. after the comma following the word "Interior" the following : "or the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands are involved." (5) On page 15, line 25, preceding "No" iusert the following sentence, "Upon notification by the Federal Power Commission that an application has. been re- ceived for a license on or direc~tl~' affecting any river listed in section 5, subsec- tion (a) , of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands are involved, shall proceed to complete the study within two years after the receipt of such notice. (6) On pages 15 and 16 delete the sentence beginning on line 25 on page 15 and substitute the following sentence : "At the time any Department or agency of the United States during the period specified in this su~section recommends authori- zation of or requests appropriations to begin construction of any water resources project that would affect any river listed in `section 5, `subsection (a ) of this Act, `such Department or agency shall report in writing to the Secretary charged with its study or approval and to the Congress indicating how the project would affect the values to be protected by this Act." (7) On page 1~3 line 13 following the word "Interior" insert a comma and the following : "or the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest lands are involved,". In his report to your Committee, the Secretary of the Interior is recommending additional amendments to HR. 8416. We concur in these recommendations. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the pres- entation of this report an dthat enactment of legislation along the lines rec- ommended herein would be in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, 1S~ecretary. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Jvly2O, 1967. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Uha4rma~n, Uommitttee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Re~resentatives, WaslUngton, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This letter is in response to your requests of April 17, 1~67, for a report on H.R. 90, H.R. 493, H.R. 3996, H.B. 6166, and H.R. $588, bills `that would be enacted as the "5~enic Rivers Act"; H.R. 6373 and H.R. 8416, bills that would be enacted as the "National Scenic Rivers Act"; and H.R. 7020, a bill "To provide for the estahlishme~ of the Buffalo National River in the State of Arkansas, and for other purposes." PAGENO="0064" 50 TI~ese Wils are qulite similar, except fGr ILR. 7020, and wou1~1 pro~ide ft~r the establishment ot a National Scenic 1~ivers System 1~or the pre~ei vation an4 res toration of selecteU rivers or sections of rivers in their free flowing condjtion to ~ water quality arid oi*l'oor reore~vtk~al values. iLt~. 7020 woiil4 pro- ~4de for t1~e con~eryation and ~a4tn~ra~Ion~ of the i3tiffalo River iii Arka~as, It ~ noted that thIs river is alSo viaxh~d hi J~LR. ~O awl RIL 498 ~or thic1~iS~on hi the National Scenic 1~ivetrs System. ~ ~ ~ This De~pantrnen4 endoreed the establishment of a Natloani, Scemtc Rivers Sys- tern for the .pre~erva~jon and restoration o~ Selected rivers or sect!o~is ~f ri~etj~ hi their free-f!Owtng eondit1on~ ~u~h a scenile rivers system wo~ild, we believe, enhance the Nation's health and ~ wélIare through the conservation of r~sOurces and the ~Ovts1on of recreational areas in vario~is parts of the country. 1i~ach of these bills, with the exception of iL1~. 1~O2O, would provide for con- stiltaition with other Interested rederal agencies with respect to certain aspe~ts of the N~atlona1 Scenic Rivers System. This Departazie~it through the Public Health Serv1~e would expect `to be invohred in matters relating to the health as~$eets associated with the establishment and administration of the scenic r1vcr~ prograan, should this legislation be enacted. While we are in accord with the hroad objectives Ott this legislation, we defer to the views of the Secretaries ~f Agriculture and Interior conccPnling their st~ec1i1i~ previsions, as the adniithstration of the National Scenic iUvers System w~ukt be rested In these officials. We note that in section 5(c) of H.R. 8996 relating to water pollution control, reference is made to the Secrethry of Health, Edncatlon, and We1f~tre, We be- 11 eve that the secretary of Interior is intended here as the federal Water PoUu- tion Oontrol Administration was transferred from this Department to the Dc- parthient of Interior by B~eor~gan1Zation Plan No. 2 of 1~. W~ are advised by the j3nteat~ ot' the Budget that there is no objection to tire ~reseiitafion of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, WILBUR J. COHEN, Under Secretary. DEPAuTMSINP OF TflE Au~cr, Wash4ngton, D.C., August 11, 1967. Han. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Uha4rmaiv, Committee o~'t Interior and Insular Affoirs, House of Representatives Diaaii MR. CHAIRMAN : Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. ~O, 90th Congress, a bill "~t'o reserve certain public lands for a National Scienic Hivers System, to pro- vide a procedure for adding additional public lands and other lands to the system, and for other purposes," and twelve other bills for the same and related purposes. The Department Of the Army has been assigned responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense on this bill, and related bills. The general purposes of these bills are stated in the titles thereof. Similar pro- posals were put forth In both Houses of the 89th Oongress. The principal interest of the Department of Defense in such proposals is in their relation to the water resources activities of the Department of the Army and the Corps of Engineers. . The Department of the Army fully recognizes the desirability of preserving certain rivers in their natural state, believes that there Is a need for legislation for that purpose, and fully supports the objectives of such legislation. The basic position of the Department of the Army on the numerous bills which have been introduced with a view to setting aside certain streams as "wild", or "scenic", rivers may be stated briefly as follows : First, that the Nation can well afford to forgo the development of streams of unusual natural beauty. Second, that eliice decisiOns to set aside such streams must be based largely upon Intangible faetor~, and since the evaluation of such factors is, primarily a matter of legislative judgement, the Congress should decide wh1~h of the Nation's streams should be preserved In their natural state. Third, that if Congress is to rOach a wise d~cis1on it must have a full report and definite plan for each potential wild river, and that this plan should be PAGENO="0065" 51 developed by joint and coordinated action of all the agencies, both Federal and State, concerned with the development, utilization and conservation of the Na- tion's rivers. Only in this way is it possible to insure that the withdrawal of a particular stream will be in consonance with an optimum comprehensive plan for the river basin in which it is located. In other words, each plan should be developed in accordance with the principles of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. Fourth, that the report and plan for each proposed wild river should present both (a) the advantages of the Nation of preserving the stream in its natural state, and (b ) the economic values that would result from its development, so that before the Congress makes a decision it will know what the Nation would be giving up in the form of material wealth in order to preserve the intangible benefits of an unspoiled natural area. There are undoubtedly a number of streams in the United States for which the intangible benefits of preservation will clearly outweigh the material gains attainable through development. But for very few of these have studies been made which provide an adequate basis for a wise decision. Yet H.R. 90, for example, proposes that the Congress immediately authorize the setting aside of 16 streams. As indicated previously, we believe that Congress should authorize individual wild rivers only after it has all the facts before it, including informa- tion as to the relationship of the wild river proposal to a comprehensive river basin plan. We suggest, therefore, that bills like H.R. 90 be amended to require that reports and plans for each proposed wild river area be submitted to Congress for its consideration prior to the enactment of legislation authorizing the with- drawal of that area. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Adminis- tration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, DAvIn E. MOGIFFERT, ~tcting ~Secretary of the Army. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Knocvville, Tenn., June 9, 1967, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ASPINALL : This is in response to your letter of April 17 requesting our views with respect to a number of bills relating to the designation and man- agement of scenic rivers. Our comments are limited to those bills which would create a nationwide system of scenic rivers. Since its establishment In 1933, TVA has concerned itself with protecting and where possible enhancing scenic and related recreational resources in the Ten- nessee Valley. Accordingly, we support the broad objectives of the "scenic rivers" bills now before the Congress. However, as the federal agency with special re- sponsibility for the development of all the resources of the Tennessee Valley, we think that scenic rivers legislation should recognize TVA's regional development role and provide for its participation In the designation and management of scenic river areas within the Tennessee Basin. With reference to the Buffalo River in Tennessee (which Is specifically men- tioned in several of the bills) , we wish the Committee to know that we are cur- rently conducting an intensive staff study to determine its potential as a scenic riverway. If our study indicates the desirability and feasibility of using the Buffalo for such purpose, we propose to request funds for demonstration in the utilization of a free-flowing stream (and its adjacent land resources) for selec- tive recreation and other compatible activities. We also propose to cooperate with the State of Tennessee in planning and developing the river's scenic resources. So far as the Upper French Broad and the Little Tennessee Rivers are con- cerned (they are listed among 82 rivers or portions thereof for immediate desig- nation or future stEdy in HR. 90 and HR 493), we think that planning and construction of water control and development projects have progressed to a point which would make it inappropriate to include these streams in currently proposed "scenic rivers" legislation. Both are scenic but not uniquely so and neither Is free flowing or wild. 92-5a0-OS---5 PAGENO="0066" 52 ~rhe Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administj~ation's program. Sincerely yours, AUBREY J. WAGNER Chairman. THE SECRETARY OF HoUsING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Washington, D.C., August 21, 1967. Subject : H.R. 90, 493, 3996, G166, 6588, 8416, Scenic Rivers : HR. 752, 753, 3389, 3983, 6289, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway ; HR. 6373, Wolf River ; HR. 7020, Buffalo River. Hon WAYNE N. A5PINALL, Uhaitrman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Honse of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is In further reply to your request for the views of this Department on the above subject bills. 1~ach of these bills is concerned with either (1) establishing a nationwide system of scenic rivers or, (2) establishing portions of particular rivers as national scenic river areas. HR. 8416, a bill "To provide for a national scenic rivers system, and for other purposes" is typical of both categories mentioned above. This bill lists four types of rivers as eligible for inclusion in the national scenic rivers system : wild rivers, natural environment rivers, pastoral rivers and his- tone and cultural rivers. The bill also lists certain types of land areas which would be eligible for inclusion in the system. Ordinarily, but not necessarily, such areas would be acquired as a supplement to one of the types of "national scenic rivers" described in the bill. After a river, or a portion of a river, has been designated a component of the national rivers system, the Federal Power Commission is denied authority to license the construction of any dam or other project on or directly affecting it and no Federal department or agency may assist by loan, grant or otherwise in the construction of any "water resources project" on or directly affecting such a river. The Secretary of Interior would be required to study potential additions to the national rivers system and from time to time would submit to the President and Congress reports on any recommended additions which would be administered, wholly or partially, by an agency of the United States. Prior to their submission, such reports would be submitted for comment to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission and to any other affected Federal department or agency. Any recommendations or corn- ments made On the report, together with the Secretary of Interior's comments thereon, would also be submitted to the President and Congress. An alternative method for designating a national scenic river would be on application of the State or States involved. The Secretary of Enterior may approve for inclusion in the national system any qualified river designated a "scenic river" by a State legislature. Prior to any decision, the Secretary of Interior would be required to request and consider the comments and recommendations of the Federal de- partments and agencies mentioned above. If the Secretary of Interior approves the proposed inclusion he would publish notice thereof in the Federal Register. The differences between H.R. 8416 and the other bills listed above seem mainly to relate to (1) the procedures to be followed in designating national scenic rivers and (2) the listing of specific rivers for designation `as "scenic rivers" or for study by the Secretary of the Interior for possible later designation. This De- partment is in general accord with the goals sought to be achieved by these bills. It would, however, defer to the Departments of Agriculture and Interior as to their relative merits since these Departments would have direct responsibility for administering the scenic rivers system. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presen- tation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, ROBERT C. WEAVER. Mr. TAYLOR. At this point I recognize our chairman, Mr. Aspina]J, for a statement. PAGENO="0067" 53 STATEMENT OP HON. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP COLORADO Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, there has been a gr~at d~a1 of enthusi- asm by certain conservation groups throughout the past years for legis- lation which is very w~11 described in the titles of the various bills before this committee. There has been an attempt to handle this kind of a program by piecemeal legislation, individual bills, which largely result in a political operation. There has been a desire on the part of some to handle this sort of legislation by the approach which was finally used for the wilderness bill, setting up a formula, placing those particular units which are ready for consideration within the author- izing section of the bill and placing other units which are not ready at the present time, for study. Legislation of this kind often generates more heat than it does value as far as the American public is concerned. It will be noted by the reports which we just filed that there are many jurisdictional ques- tions involved here and that a number of departments of Government which have an interest in various proposals which are before this Congress. This committee, of course, must take into consideration the posi- tions of the various deparbments and agencies and we must give them a chance to make their position well known and, if it comes to a juris- dictional question, we musb be able to cooperate with other committees in the Congress. `Ofttimes it seems as if there is a disregard in the consideration of legislation which crosses over into other committees. We are troubled presently by a bill before the Rules Committee which has a very de- cided jurisdictional problem to it, and we must be careful of that. Also there is involved in this kind of legislation, of course, riot only the interests of the reoreationists. They seem to think that they have a right to enjoy themselves in any place possible where there is good enjoyment, and all of us must agree that there is a lot of enjoyment to be had out of the use of riverways and their attendant values. There is also a lot of interest in this legislation by business groups~- some that have used their business interests, ownership of lands, to the destruction of cert~ain values in the rivers that are involved, others that are willing to comply with up-to-date and modern programs to see that the water is kept in potable, usable condition. All of these mat~ ters must be taken into consideration as we consider this legislation. There is one other thing that has to be taken into consideration and this, too, will be a dominant matter as far as this committee is con- cerned, and that is the cost of this kind of legislation. As far as I am concerned, there is going to be no authorization of any facility what- soever under the legislation now before us unless we know what it is going to cost the Federal taxpayer. So many people in the United States think all they have to do is to go ahead and grab something whether it belongs to the United States or belongs to the States or belongs to individuals-just take it and use it without considering what the ulti- mate cost is going to be. That is one reason for the general approach rather than a special or individual approach in this legislation, and it is at least going to be considered by this committee. PAGENO="0068" 54 We have a backlog at the present time of close to $400 million in our recreation program-national parks, recreation areas, monuments, historic sites, and so forth. For anybody to come up to this committee and say this is not going to cost anything, that is just pure poppycock whether it belongs to Uncle Sam or not, because it is going to cost something. All the people of the United States have a stake in it. When you take it away from the people for a single use or for a multiple use, then you have to figure in terms of whatever the cost is going to be not only to acquire it but also to develop it and to administer it. One of the situations that is very difficult for a person in the legis- lative department of Government to understand is why we have so many people in the United States who want to use all of these facilities and they seem to do everything they can in their use of them to despoil their values. They pay no attention to their campfires, they pay no attention to the beer cans in streams, they pay no attention to cigarette containers, they pay no attention to anything except their own enjoyment. These are costs. They will be considered in every one of these pro- posals. We are starting today what I consider to be a very important program, Mr. Chairman, and with the information and knowledge and understanding that you have of these programs I know that the job that we do will be thorough. Thank you very much. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might add that this committee approved earlier this week a bill which would add a $100 million per year to the land and water con- servation fund for use in acquiring additional recreation areas and it seems to be the thinking of the subcommittee that unless action of this type can be taken by Congress, that we are about at the end of creating new recreation areas because the backlog is such that it is going to take years to pay for the ones that have already been authorized, but we are hopeful that this legislation can be enacted by Congress and then that we will be free to move forward. Our first witness is Representative E. C. Gathings. Congressman Gathings, we welcome you. STATEMENT OP RON. E. C. GATHINGS, A REPRESENTAT1VJ~ IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP ARICANS!AS Mr. GATHINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor- tunity of being with you today. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. We know of your interest in this. Mr. GATI-TINGs. This is kind of a bad note, though, for me to come in at this time, Mr. Chairman. I am not opposed to your legislation in general at all. I am just here to speak in opposition to the language contained in the first two lines on page `9 ot the bill. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you have a statement you would like to place in the record? Mr. GATHINGS. I would just like to make a statement off the cuff if I you permit, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Gathings, which bill do you have before you? Mr. GATrnNG5. I have here H.R. 8416 by Chairman Aspinall. PAGENO="0069" 55 On page 9 you will find line 1, "E'even Point, Arkansas and Mis- souri, the segmeiit between the Black River and Thomasville, Mo." Mr. Chairman, I have been representing this area only a short time. The legislature of 1965 placed five new counties in the district that I serve, the First District. These counties came from Mr. Mills' district in view of the fact that Mr. Mills' second district had taken in the city of Little Rock. In order to even up the population, they gave the First District these five fine counties. Two of them, Randolph and Lawrence are particularly involved with the Eleven Point River that is inoorpo- rated in the provisions of this bill, located just south of the Missouri line. I am most grateful for the opportunity of appearing here today and to give the views of the people that I am privileged to serve with regard to including Eleven Point River in this legislation. The people in this area `of these two counties have been encouraging people from the city of Memphis and surrounding territory to come and use the Eleven Point. They have made access roads available so that they could move their boats in and floatfish if they desired to do so. But they have taken little advantage of these streams and apparently will not. It is a very beautiful stream, this Eleven Point, but, Mr. Chairman, our problem in that area is flood control, and to try to hold the water where it falls. We have a rainfall in that particular territory of be- tween 45 and 48 inches, and it comes at a time when the farmers want to plant their crops, and it is very difficult to grow crops when you have seep waters and head waters covering the vital farmlands. Now, a survey was recently made of this Eleven Point by the Corps of Engineers. For a long, long time many of our people have been wanting to put a dam on this Eleven Point River and the resultant reservoir would encourage people from wide areas to come and use it, as a recreational area. I have supported this Water Valley dam the short time I have rep- resented this district. This survey made by the Corps of Engineers indicated that there were only a very few people, visitors, or tourists, less than 100, who have been using the Eleven Point facilities for fishing. So, it is almost insignificant, as a matter of fact. It has little value as a wild river in attracting outsiders to come there. This area has many rivers. There are five in this one county, Ran- doiph County. There is Fourche River, there is this Eleven Point, the Spring River, the Current River, ~ and the Black River in this one county. I do not know of any other county in the State of Arkansas that has five rivers. These people that want the dam project have said that out of the 166 miles of riverway in this county, they wanted "to impound only about 20 miles and build a dam and a reservoir." That is what we have been fighting for the past month that I have been serving this area. To include this river in this bill would defeat the project so many of us feel should be built. There is quite a lot of interest by the people in this area to the strik- ing out of the bill its inclusion of the Eleven Point River. Here is a letter signed by all of the county officials of Lawrence County, Ark., and I would like to furnish it for the record, signed by the county judge, the county treasurer, the circuit clerk, the county clerk, county assessor, county collector, county sheriff. PAGENO="0070" 56 Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, a copy of that letter will be made a part of the record. (The letter referred to follows:) WALNUT RIDGE, ARK., Re H.R. 8416. February 26, 1968. Oongressman E. C. "TooK" GATHINGS, Hov~se of Representatives, Washington, D.U. DEAR CONGRESSMAN : As duly elected officials of Lawrence County, Arkansas, it is our request that you represent us at the hearing on H.R. 8416 and ask that the Eleven Point River be excluded from this Bill. As you know our rich farming area needs flood control and not "wild rivers." We know of no individual in our county that wants to see the Eleven Point River in the wild river group. The poverty caused by the floods of this river and other rivers costs thousands of dollars annually. We urge that every effort be put forth to delete the Eleven Point River from this Bill. Very truly yours, BROOKS PENN, County Judge. OLEO WEIR, County Treasurer. O'NEAL KELLIM, Circuit Clerk. DON HARDAWAY, County Clerk. CLEO MOODY, County Assessor. ELTON 0. JEAN, ~ Uou~ty Collector. KENNETH GTJTHRIR, County S'herifj. Mr. ASPINALL. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. GATHINGS. I would like to read- Mr. ASPINALL. Just a minute. Reserving the right to object, is this for or against what is proposed in this section? Mr. GATHINGS. This is in opposition to the inclusion of the Eleven Point River. Mr. ASPINALL. What position does my friend from Arkansas take ? . Mr. GATETINGS. I am in full concurrence with the views of the county officials and the many other citizens of Randolph and Lawrence Counties who also oppose the inclusion of this river as a part of your Mr. ASPINALL. And, you want this stricken from the bill? Mr. GATHINGS. That part stricken from the bill, Mr. Chairman. I hope you will do so. Mr. ASPINALL. All right. All I have to say is that that is all you need to say as far as I am concerned. I am just getting a little bit tired of a lot of people trying to tell the people of a congressional district what they ought to have in that congressional district when the Rep- resentative from that district is trying to represent his people and says that they should not have it. One of the most difficult things I had once was some Member of Congress from California introducing a bill that had to do with a national park facility in my district. I thought he was out of place and if you do not want this, just say so and that is all there is to it at this time. Mr. GATmNGS. Well, I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to also incorporate here as part of my remarks with your PAGENO="0071" 57 consent, Mr. Chairman, a letter received from Tn-County Watershed Improvement Association, Lawrence County Soil and Water Con- servation District, Lawrence County Farm Bureau. If you do not want to incorporate them word for word in the record, I would like to file them. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, these letters will be made part of the file. (The letters referred to will be found in the files of the sub- committee.) Mr. GATHINGS. Thank you. And a resolution here, Mr. Chairman, signed by the chamber of commerce, Lions Club, Kiwanis, and Jaycees. (The resolution referred to will be found in the files of the sub- committee.) Mr. GATHINGS. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear this morning and will attempt to answer any questions. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Congressman, in your opinion, the majority of people in that area would be opposed to the inclusion of this part? Mr. GATHINGS. They would, Mr. Chairman. They feel that flood control is an acute problem. I would like for you to see pictures taken in January 1966, and you can see that flood control is a major problem with that river. It has caused an awful lot of trouble to the farmers, playing havoc with their crops. Mr. KUPFERMAN. May that be made a part of the file? Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, these photographs will be made a part of the file. (The photographs referred to will be found in the files of the sub- committee.) Mr. TAYLOR. I will state I concur with my chairman, Mr. Aspinail. If you want it out, we will take it out. Mr. KTJPFERMAN. Would the chairman just allow me to say that I think what the representative of the district wants is entitled to the greatest possible weight but I still think that we should hear explana- tions as to why, and, therefore, I accept the fact that you have pro- sented these explanations. Mr. GATHINGS. Mighty fine, Mr. Kupferman. I am delighted at the opportunity to give you my observat~on and views. This area here has more watershed applications than you will find in most areas. Since I have served these two counties, there has been approved-the Cooper Creek watershed is located at this point right here [indicating]. This watershed is located in the foothills of the Ozarks. That water sweeps down off of those hills and mountains and comes down into the valleys with such rapidity that children cannot get to school in many instances, and when they get to town they cannot get back home be- cause the bridges have been washed out. So, Cooper Creek watershed was the one I recall I appeared before the Public Works Committee on urging its approval. Since then, here is another watershed. The Fourche Creek has been submitted by the Department to Congress within the last few weeks. It is located in Randolph County and extends over into Missouri. They have the same problem because of the fact the water rushes off the mountain area into that flat country, agricultural region. I I PAGENO="0072" 58 Now, at the present time there is pending before the Soil Conserva- tion Service the Big Running Water Ditch project, which is located here, No. 22 on this map. That is next to be considered by the House Committee and the Senate Committee on Agriculture. So, the problem is that of flood control. The problem is to hold that water where it falls, flood protection. Everyone that has contacted me has been opposed to this river being a wild river. They are farmers and ranchers and they are interested in their crops. They want pro- tection from floodwaters. Mr. TAYLOR. Does this conclude your statement? Mr. GATHINGS. That concludes my statement. Mr. TAYLOR. Any members of the committee any questions to ask? If not, I think you have made yourself very plain and we thank you for your testimony. Mr. GATHING5. Thank you kindly. Mr. TAYLOR. Next witness, Representative Harley 0. Staggers. Mr. Chairman, we welcome you before our committee. STATEMENT OP HON. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, A RLPRESENTATI~E IN CONGRESS PROM TEE STATE OP WEST VIRGINIA Mr. STAGGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I appreciate the fact of yout giving me a minute or two here before the committee and I do not think I need to take but just a moment in light of the statement as made by the chairman of the full committee. I am here just about in the same capacity as my colleague from Ar- kansas. It has to do with No. 1, item No. 1, on page 8. At the present time, I might explain to the committee that we have organized opposition to the inclusion of this even for a study at this time and I would hope that the committee might delete it until the Congressman that represents that area has a chance to really contact all of the people and maybe to come back and ask for its inclusion at some time in the future, if this would be possible. 1 have a prepared statement to put into the record. Mr. TAYLOR. Ifi the absence of objection, the prepared statement will be made a part of the record at this point. Mr. STAGGRE5. If there are any questions I will be glad to answer them. Mr. ASPINALL. L~t me say first, Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have my fellow chairman before this committee. It is my understanding that the gentleman from West Virginia now speaking ~ would like to have this stricken from the bill as of this time. Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, sir. And, I hope without prejudice, that if the gentleman is able to come back at a future date and ask for its in- ciusion, that I be considered. Mr. TAYLOR. One additional question, Is this project in your congres- sional district? Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, it is. Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, we do not prejudice anybody as far as the future is concerned. All that we take exception to is a lot of people trying to tell the people of a congressional district what they are going to have in their district. It makes no difference who they are. If the PAGENO="0073" 59 majority of the people want to have a study made, I think this commit- tee is for it. And if the proper study has already been made and we know what the costs are, we can then pass upon the proposal. But it just is not quite according to good citizenship to have people outside of an area try to tell you how to take care of a congressional district area. That is all. Mr. TAYLOR. Any other members any questions to ask Mr. Staggers If not, Mr. Chairman, we thank you very much- Mr. STAGGERS. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR (continuing) . For giving us your position. (The statement of Mr. Staggers follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TIlE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. Chairman and memberS of the committee, again, my deep appreciation for the favorable consideration of the Oommitee in deleting from H.R. 8416, Sec. 5(a) (1), which provides for "potential addition" to the scenic rivers system "Cacapon, West Virginia : The entire river and its tributaries, the Lost River and North River." I respectfully request the additional deletion of the following which is also within my Second Congressional District of West Virginia: "SEC. 5(a) (16) , page 10, providing for `potential addition' to the scenic rivers system `Shenandoah, West Virginia : The segment in the State of West Virginia.'" As indicated in my testimony before your Committee on March 7, 1968, items (1) Sec. 5(a) and (1~3) Sec. 5(a) are highly controversial in West Virginia. I,t is my sincere `hope that these rivers may be deleted from the present measure until it has been possible to have a reading on the desires of the `local citizens. As previously indicated, I believe the proposed scenic rivers program wou~d be a fine one for the Nation. However, I do not feel it should be imposed on our people who are directly affected and have expressed strong opposition. Again, I respectfully request the deletion from the proposal at the present time of these items in their entirety until some policy may be determined by the local people themselves as to their desires. After they have been contacted, I should hope I would `have permission to return and ask for inclusion of these rivers in the future if such development should warrant. Mr. TAYLOR. Representative Clark Fisher from Texas. STATEMENT OP HON. 0. 0. FISHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I appear here today to respectfully urge this committee to amend the pending legislation by striking from section 7 (a) the Guadalupe River in Texas. That stream has no place in this bill and was evidently inadvertently inserted in it by the Senate committee. I have made some inquiries about it- Mr. A5PINALI4. Just a minute. What bill are you referring to? Mr. FISHER, I think they are all alike, are they not? Mr. ASPINALL. No. Mr. TAYLOR. On 1I.R. 8416, this would beline 12, page 9. Mr. FISHER. That is right. It is in the third category so called. Mr. TAYLOR. It is in the study category. Mr. FIShER. Am I correct in `saying that that is section 7(a)? The bill- Mr. TAYLOR. Section 5(a) of this bill. PAGENO="0074" 60 Mr. FISHER. All right. Wc will change that, then, to 5 (a) , Mr. Chairman. I think I was looking at the Senate bill when I prepared the statement. As I was saying, this stream was inserted in the Senate bill-for whwt reason we have been unable to find out-but in any event w~ feel very strongly down in the area affected `that the Guadalupe has no place in this bill. It dbes not lend itself to the scope and purposes of this bill at all. It is a highly developed area. I have considerable amount of supporting information that would be apropos `of `the point I am making but in view of `the chairman's statement about the deference that will be given to the views of the members affected and the chairman of the subcommittee having joined in that, I think I will save the time of the committee and insert my statement at this point and ask permission- Mr. TAYLOR. In the `absence of objection, your entire statement will be made a part `of the record at this point. Mr. FISHER. We want this ` river stricken from this bill. Mr. TAYLQR. Is this river iii your congressional district? Mr. FISHER. Well, it originates in it, runs through two counties and then eastward. Mr. Kazen has more than I do but I think he would join me in the same request. Mr. TAYLOR. The chairman recognizes Mr. Kazen. Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly endorse the s~atement made by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fisher, and I was~going to ask at the appropriate time `that the committee give consideration `to' my request to having the Guadalupe River stricken from this bill. All of the counties that I represent are very violently opposed to the inclusion of this river in this bill, and, of course, wanting to support the will of the majority of the people down there, I would have `to' ask this committee to go along with me and with the request of both of us, Congressman Fisher and me, that `this river be stricken from this `bill. Mr. TAYLOR. Is there any `other congressional district involved except your two? Mr. KAZEN. I believe there is a segment down where it goes into the gulf that is in either Congressman Young's or Congressman Pickle's district. We are checking that. Mr. FIshER. I think it would be safe to say we represent 90 percent of it, or more than that. Mr. KAZEN. That is correct. Mr. TAYLOR. The `gentleman from Maryland has a question. Mr. MORTON. Of course, Mr. Fisher knows `the great esteem in which I hold him. I would like `to' ask you, Mr. Fisher, if there `are any groups organized in your congressional district `or Mr. Kazen's dis- trict who are promoting the inclusion `of that river? Mr. FISHER. No organized opposition that I know of. Mr. MORTON. I think this is important for us for the record. Mr. FISHER. I do not know if my friend from Maryland has been to Kerrville or not, but that is the playground of Texas, beautiful hill country. More than 25,000 youngsters come to 30-some camps during the summer. Last year 6,000 Boy Scouts came. It is a highly developed area all up and down the stream. It is manicured right to the water's edge in much of the area. If all the streams of America were developed PAGENO="0075" I 61 and 1)r~tectecI with the I)ricle aiid the care that apI)lies to the Guadalupe ill 1fl~ (listlict., you would not have any point in considering this kiiid of legislation anywhere. It is that sort of a situation. So, every orga- iiized gioii~) ill that couiity where it originates, where much of this resort and recreation coiicentratioii is, is opposed to the inclusion. rllhere is no llee(l for it. Mr. MORTON. I think this is important to have in the record. Mr. AsriNAr~i~. I'Viil my colleague yield ? But my coliegue from ~ would not state that there are no conservatioii societies or organi- zations withiii the State of rilexas that would be favorable to imiclusion? Mr. Fisiii~i~. Oh, I would not go that far, i\lr. C1iairmai~. I can sl)eak only for those ill) in the lull country that have to live with these things and pay the taxes and make the proper use of the laud that lies along the Guadalupe. A~ few people in Comal County have favored including the Guadalupe. I will explain that Comal County adjoins Kerr. The Guadalupe originates in heir County, ruins through Comal, thence i)1l\Vttl~(i tOW~tr(1 the gulf. A few 1)eople who live in Cornal Coumity have lllCljCate(l they would Plefer that their county be kept in the scenic rivers ~)rOgrarn. In response, I have informed them that if it should be the consensus of the people there that they want the Guadalupe and its tributaries in that county kept in the bill, an effort will be made to have that (lone. iMr. 1\ion'I'oN. I thank the chairman very much. I have iio further questions. IMIr. rf\YLoI~ Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher. (The full statement of iMr. Fisher follows:) STATEMENT OF' HON. 0. 0. FIST-lEn, A REPRESENTATIVE iN CoNc1~Ess FRoi~r TIlE STATE 01? TEXAS Mr. Chairman, I appear here today to respeetfully urge this committee to anlell(l the ~)*M1c1ing legislation by striking from Sec. 5 ( a ) the Guadalupe river in Texa s. That stream has no place in this bill. I kao*w that is true of the upper stretches of the stream-for which I ani authorized to speak. I have flla(le some inquiries ilbOUt it but no one seems to know why this river was ineFucled in t1~e Senate versioii. And I am sure you will agree-after you have examined the facts-tlatt this stream (Toes not fit iiito this legislation at all. There is nothing ill the pen(lmg legislation which could enhance the preservation of the natural beauty and the recreational qualities of this river basin-nothing that is not now l)emg (bile 1)~ local interests or which hiss not already been done. The Guadalupe-particularly the upper stretches with which I am more familiar-is already highly developed. It is already widely known as the play- ground of Texas. All the land along the meaiid*erings of the stream is highly valued and carefully I)reserved. There is no iollutioii and no dringer of 1)OhlutiOfl in the Kerr County area. The I)eOI)le \VOUl(i iiot stand for it. And so Proud are the 1eoile O~ the appearance of their resort areas and countryside that I suspect if a litterbug were apl)rehellded there he WOU1(l be treated rather harshly. Ill Kerr County alone-wh1er(-~ the river originates--there are some 30 summer camps, patronized by more thami 25,000 youngsters each year who go there, under careful supervision, to enjoy tile pure air and the rugged mountain scemiery arni l)articiP~lte ill outdoor ports such as fishing, boating, swillimning. mountain climb- ing, horseback riding. and the like. \\Thmit I am tryiiig to do is to impress this committee with the fact that tile valley of the Guadalupe--that portion with wrhichi I am familiar-is too highly develope(l to lend itself to any government program such as is emmvisioned iii the ~xnding legisiat:ion. Iii fact, for more than half a century the i~eople there have left fl() St()fleS uiituriiecl in their efforts to i)reserve the natural beauty (:)f the terrain aimcl time water resources of that river basin. In other words. if all streams in America were so treated, there would be no excuse for this legislation as applied to any of them. PAGENO="0076" 62 Mr. Chairman, the people of Kerr County simply do not want to be covered by this legislation, and obviously there is no sound reason or justification for its being done. Federal or State iiitervention, with authority to condemn a maximum of 100 acres per mile on both sides of the stream, in fee simple, along with rights of coudemr~ation for purposes of easements related to use and control, would disrupt the livelihood of thousands and jeopardize the continued develop~ ment and `best use of the affected area. By subjecting the riverside areas to such oppressive actions, land values would decline, investments and developments would become hazardous, and irreparable damake would thereby be wrought. Just the possibility of such actions being taken by the government would of itself create a depressing air of uncertainty. The Guadalupe in Kerr County is now dotted by a series of small dams- incidentally, all built e~xcusively with local non-federal funds. The mountain reservoirs thus created add immeasurably to the natural attractiveness and enchantment of the rugged hillsides and the pastoral landscapes of the valleys. If this legislation is enacted there would be a prohibition against the con- struction af additional dams, without high-level authority-whether for rec- reational uses or in order to supplement the municipal water supply, or for flood control. Mr. Chairman the Guadalupe river is not a "wild" river, as that term is defined in this legislation. It has no place in this bill. I am speaking at the nioment in particular for Kerr County. If any other county through which the Guadulupe runs desires to be included in the legislation I am sure that can be arranged when adequate proof of the desires of the people affected is provided. I shall not belabor the issue further at this time. A number of witnesses from Kerr County have asked permission to be heard. They will be pre- pared to implement what I have said, and their testimony will throw much more light on the issue. Kerr County wants out. Mr. TAYLOR. Our next witness is our colleague, Representative Henry Reuss. STATEMENT OP HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRLSENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP WISCONSIN Mr. REtJSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Aspinall, gentle- men. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, which I should like to ofFer for the record and then proceed briefly. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, the statement will be made a part of the record at this point. Mr. RETJSS. While I appear here, Mr. Chairman, in full support of the principle of the scenic rivers bill introduced by so many members of this committee and its distinguished chairman, I want to address myself principally to the Wolf River in Wisconsin which is in- cluded in H.R. 6166, which has been favorably reported by the De- partrnent of the Interior, and it is also included in the Senate-passed version, 5. 119. The Wolf River is one of our great fresh unspoiled treasures in the Midwest. The scenic portions of it flow through two counties, Langlade and Menominee Counties. This committee is particularly familiar with Menominee County because this was the ancestral home of the Menominee Indians. One of the great monuments, Mr. Chair- man, to this committee is legislation passed~ by this committee a -few years ago which provides that the great forest of the Menommees, the finest remaining stand between the Rockies and the Appalachians of virgin timber, shall be preserved: under a sustained yield manage- ment program while grass grows and water flows, which is quite a long time. PAGENO="0077" 63 The proposed inclusion of 48 miles of the Wolf River, the really spectacular portion of the Wolf River, is one, I believe, that is fully supported by all groups. It is truly bi-partisan. The State of Wisconsin and its distinguished Governor, Governor Knowles, is vigorously behind this proposal. I should say right at the outset that~ these two counties are in the congressional district of our friend and colleague, Congressman Mel Laird of Wisconsin. I called Mr, Laird's office this morning to see if he could appear with me. Unfortunately, he is at an Appropriations Committee hearing but I worked very closely with Mr. Laird and I am. confident that he fully supports the inclusion of the Wolf River, too. However, since it is never proper for one member to speak for another, and in view of the very wise proviso of this committee which I have heard in the three cases that came before me, I think what I should do is to get a statement from Mr. Laird which should be perhaps inserted if there is no objection, at this point in the record to confirm what I say because only he can speak for himself. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, a statement by Congress- man Laird may be inserted at this point in the record. (The statement of Mr. Laird follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN R. LAIRD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee I wish merely to confirm at this point the statement made by my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss) that I strongly support making portions of the Wolf River part of a National Scenic River system and have introduced legislation to that effect (HR. 6373). Mr. ASPINALL. Reserving the right to object and I shall not object, of course, do I understand that you are asking that this be now deter- mined to be a scenic river or that it be studied? Mr. Riiuss. That it be now determined to be a scenic river, Mr. Chairman, because the Department of the Interior believes, the State of Wisoonsin believes, and I think the entire Wisconsin delegation in both bodies believe that it is eligible, that all the studies have been completed both by the State of Wisconsin and the Department of the Interior, and that it is now not only eligible for inclusion but, as I shall make clear in just a moment, ripe for inclusion. Mr. ASPINALL. Does this study include the support of the Menomi- nee Indians for this proposal? Mr. REuss. Yes, sir ; it does, with the important qualification which I shall make clear in a minute, the qualification having to do with the formal giving of their consent. Mr. ASPINALL. As far as you know, all of the costs of effectuating this as a scenic river and of maintaining it, operating and maintaining it, have been determined already by the Department of the Interior; is that correct? Mr. REuss. And by the State of Wisconsin, sir. The Department of the Interior has the costs. I have those costs. My understanding is that they are to be given to the committee for its internal use and thus, I will not repeat what I know is information at the committee's disposal. Suffice it to say tha't the proposal is in my judgment, a very modest one in that only 770 acres would be purchased. There would be scenic PAGENO="0078" 64 easements on some 7,000 aeres and the scenic easements device is ob- viously an inexpensive and useful device where that can be worked oult as it can here. Now, just ~ word a~bouit these 48 miles, 24 of them in Langlade Coun- ty, 24 of them in Menominee County, what used to be the Menominee Indian Reservation until it was removed from Federal jurisdiction backin 1953. The Wolf is no Rio Grande or Snake River, but, ~hou~h it is a small river, `there are those throughout the country and parlacularly in the Midwest who love it. I myself, know it well. I have canoed it. I have ~aded it. Upon occasion I have fallen into it and `there simply is nothing like it for a sheer wild fast dropping river. Now, here is what has been done `about `it. In Langl'ade County, that is the non-Indian county, the 24 mile half of the proposed scenic river i's already being acquired by the Sbate of Wisconsin. It is in the process of ;acquisitAon under a carefully worked `out proposal with the Depart- ment of the Interior whereby an allocation `of land and water conserva- ti'on funds `has been matched by State money `and the shoreline is now in the course of being bought, So this portion, the northern half, the norlhern 24 miles, would come into `the `scenic river, wild river system without `any cost whatever to the Federal `taxpayer other than, `of course, the Federal contribution through the Land and Water Con- servation. Fund. But this has all been done. It would go forward in any event. Mr. TAYLOR. What proportion `of the `total land needed is the State acquiring? Mr. REUSS. About half. Just about half. The mileage of the river is identical and the land `acquisition would be about half. I should add that in the State portion, `the State is `actually buying considerable sections rather `than merely `obtaining `a scenic easement, so that in terms of `acreage, the `state portion will be somewhat larger but `in terms of what one `sees `and what one can enjoy, `it is `about the same. Mr. TAYLOR. Do. you realize that the bill we have before us, H.R. 8416, contains provisions authorizing the State legislature, through appropriate legislation, to acquire a scenic `river provided the De- partment of the Interior * finds `th'~t it has the proper qu'al'i'ties `and accepts `it ? Mr. REUSS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, `and that i's `an e~cellen't provi- sion `and indeed, that i's precisely ttie plan that we are using in W'i'scon- sin. We have tried to keep parallel with `the thinking `of t~'is committee over the last several years on `scenic rivers `and we `are working closely with this committee, with `the Wisconsin delegation, with the State of Wisconsin and the Departmen;t of the. Interior. We `have, to a degree, gone ahead as far `as we can because the desperate danger to this `area is simply from private acquisition ~ of the shoreline, the erection of shacks or homes right on the `shoreline, pollution, `and `so on. The dan- ger to this river is not from improvident lumbering, because `all `of the lumbering interests, both private in Langiade County, and the Men'ominee Indians which have their own corporation, has been on `a sustained yield basis and there is no problem `there, nor any opposi- tion from `any lumbering interest. PAGENO="0079" 65 . Having said, then, that the northern half, the nort~hem 24 miles, 1~11 Langlade County is already in process of acquisition and fully funded and planned by the State of Wisconsin with the full coopera- tion of the Department of the Interior, I then proceed to the southern 24 miles in Menominee Oounty in the Indian country. There the State of Wisconsin about a year and a half ago decided to' undertake what I think is a very wise holding action, recognizing that this committee had to take some time with a~ basic a piece of legislation as the scenic rivers bill. The State of Wisconsin leased for $150,000 a year for 3 years starting in 1967 and running to August 31, 1969-that is a year and 4 months from today-they have leased the precise portions of the Wolf River in Menominee County from the Indians which are sought to be included in this bill. The State did so for basically two reasons. One, to preserve that land and keep it from being despoiled until Con- gress could act, and, two, to give the Menominee Indians some desper- ately needed revenue so that they could continue to make a go of it as a governmental unit and county. Now, in talking to Governor Knowles' coiiservation director, Mr. Voigt, just within the last few days, he urged me to inform this corn- mittee that the State of Wisconsin very much hopes that the committee will look favorably upon the inclusion of the Wolf River scenic rivers bill, because Wisconsin has been holding the fort, so to speak, and it very much hopes that the Federal Government will be able to take over. If the Wolf can be included in the bill, which I devoutly hope, then you will have an admirable 48-mile total, all the good sections of the river, all the wild and scenic sections, under such control, public or private, that it cannot be spoiled. Technically, that will mean that the State of Wisconsin will own and control the 24 northern miles in Langlade County and the Department of the Interior, the Federal Government, will have put up the funcLs, and I believe they are rather modest funds, required to get the scenic easements and the few acres that would be in public ownership in Menominee County. The bill, however, provides that joint administration or single ad- ministration would be proper and the State of Wisconsin is ready, willing, and eager to take over the job of managing the entire 48 miles. While, of course, we would be grateful for any disposition made by this committee, I would say that it makes sense to delegate from the Federal Government to local people as much as you can, and when you have the State of Wisconsin ready to administer the whole thing under the close control and supervision of the Secretary of the In- tenor, it seems to me a happy way to go about it and the bill H.R. 6166 fully provides for that, if that is the will of the committee, which I hope it would be. ~ . Finally, I would state one more word about the qualification that I am glad Chairman Aspinall raised, which is what about the Menomi- nee Indians ? How do they feel about it? Well, Mr. Chairman, those Menominee Indians are about the best conservationists in the United States because though their l~ve1ihood depends on this forest and those deer and those partridge and those native brook trout and the wild river, they have been truly wonderful over the years in trying to preserve it, and I have worked very closely with them, as Congressman Laird has, in working out the details of PAGENO="0080" I 66 this, and their governing board, Menorninee County, as well as Uieir corporate organization, Menoniinee Enterprises, Inc., which owns all the land and all the forest, have fully approved the Wolf scenic river proposal that w~ have before us. . However, in the interests of fair play, there is included in my bill H.R. 3996 which is before you, and this is fully søt out In my state- ment, a provision that after the Congress adopts this proposal, if it does, which I hope it will do, that the Menominee people should have a referendum conducted by their governmental organization in which the question is put to them. I am confident that such a referendum would overwhelmingly pass and indeed, as I have said, their duly elected representatives have fully approved it. But, for something as important as this, `something which goes back to our treaty back in 1854 with the Menominee Indians, I would very heartily approve of the instinct of Chairman Aspinall that we ought to make doubly sure that the Menominees do approve it, and that paragraph, carefully worked out, is contained in the bill H.R. 3996 and I would hope if the committee thinks well of the whole proposal that that would be in- clucled. I much appreciate the opportunity to take the committee's time with one river, but it Is a river that is very dear to us in Wisconsin. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Reuss, H.R. 8416, the bill that we have before us, designates only four rivers as components of the national scenic river system. It places many, many rivers in the study stage. Now, if we could not see fit to designate the Wolf River as part of the system, you would be pleased to have it placed in the study stage, would you not? Mr. REUSS. Well, I would be crestfallen if it were not included in the bill. H.R. 8416 does not even include it for study, though I am sure that is an inadvertent omission, and let me say I fully support H.IR. 8416 introduced by the chairman with the deletions which I heard about this morning, and the principle is excellent. My only quarrel with it is that it does not include the Wolf, which I think is eminently ready for immediate inclusion. Not to evade the chairman's question, if the crumb of a study were all I could get, I have learned to be grateful for small favors, but I do think that almost uniquely of our potential rivers, the Wolf should be included and everyone, the Republican Governor, the Democratic legislators, the conservation groups, the citizens groups, business, labor, everybody is for it. There is no formal group against it. And, if a stray despoiler of the land is against it, he has not told me about it or raised any hell about it. Mr. TAYLOR. I might say I commend the State of Wisconsin on their action in order to see that the stream is protected. I like to see States cooperate in that manner with these projects. Any members have further questions of Mr. Reuss? The gentleman from California? Mr. JoHNsoN. Will the chairman yield for, questions? Mr. ASPINALL. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, how much did the State and Federal Government put into the 24 miles that have been acquired, in round figures? PAGENO="0081" Mr. REtrss. The Secretary of the Interior has allocated $415,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the State of Wisconsin is putting in from its own tax resources an equivalent of $415,000. Mr. JoHNsON. I understand you have taken that land in fee, for the most part. Mr. Ri~uss. That is correct, because it turned out for that land that fee simple aquisition was about as inexpensive as scenic easement acquisition. I should give credit, incidentally, to some private interests, the Consolidated Paper & Power Co., the Wisconsin Public Service Co., a utility which owned vast sections of this land, which was willing to sell it to the State and to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a figure that I am sure was less than they could have gotten by selling it to cheap-jack developers who would have ruined the place, and they deserve a place in the pantheon for what they did. Mr. ASPINALL. Are they out of 7,000 acres within the upper 24 miles or in the Menominee 24 miles? Mr. REIJSS. They are in the Menominee portion. The State's por- tion- will supply the exact figure for the record, but I `believe it is sub- stantially similar. Mr. ASPINALL. The 700 miles will be purchased within the Me- nominee or within the State portion? Mr. ItETJSs. 700 acres? Mr. ASFINALL. Yes. Mr. RETJSS. Within the Menominee portion. Mr. ASPINALL. All right. Now, the next question I want to ask you is this, If the Menominees are receiving $150,000 annually for a lease, what will be the cost to the Federal Government if it tries to purchase the land that is involved along the river ? In other words, $150,000 a year annual rental seems to add quite a good bit of a capital value to that area. Mr. R&xss. I have already said that while I have been furnished by the Department of the Interior with its purchase figure, I was told that this was a figure which was available to the committee and unless the chairman insists, I would sooner not mention it. The chairman will shortly know it if he does not already. I know it. I believe it is a reasonable figure and I would make the point that the figure mentioned by the Department of the Interior is vastly less than the capitalized value of this rental. I can see what is in the chairman's mind. The State of Wisconsin wanted to be generous to the Menominee Indians and wanted to pay a rental for these 3 years which would enable the Menominees to run a school and a hospital and meet the costs of their tubercular patients. That is the truth of the matter and if there was an element of welfare in it, rather than a purely economic judgment as to the value of the rental, God will forgive the State of Wisconsin, I am sure. Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, while I commend it we do not want to get ourselves in a position where we continue that beneficent attitude of the State of Wisconsin under this legislation. We will have to look at this rather hard to see what the cost is going to be. One other thing. I want to have it understood that antipollution developments may be a part of this program, but this scenic rivers 67 92-560-68-e PAGENO="0082" 68 Operation is not 1)rilnal'ily for the purpose of taking care of the pol- lution or antll)ollutlon measures. If they develop from this, that is flue, but weare not trespassmg upon another committee's jurisdiction in this particular matter. Tlìat is all I have, Mr. ~Jhairmaii. . Mr. rIl~yO Any other members of the subcommittee have a ques- tion? plie gentleman from Arizona. Mr. TJDALL. Just one question which I cannot resist asking. I was soI.I..y to hear the gentleman had fallen into the Wolf River mai~y years ago, but I am among those present. who are happy that he was plucked out safely. I was niteresteci in hearing the geiit.lenian hail twice here the gen- tlein ~in from Co1or~clo's PrilleiPle that where the representative of the congressional district~ wants something done or does not want SOIfl(~tlu1l1g done. about. a natural resource in his district, that the Con- gress, other members of tho Congress, 5110111(1 follow that lead. I WOl11(i ~va1nI; to l)0Se to the gentleman a l1y~)Othe.tical question. Suppose tlieie was a State like Arizona tli~i.t had a big hole in the groun(i that one might call a G-raiid Caiiyon and the l)eol)le out there had decided they w-ant.e.d some clams ifl the cailyon. Does the gentle- i~nan think a Congressmaii froni WTisconsin should take an active interest. ~n going ~lJ)OUt the country trvin~ to tell the people of Aiizoiia whe.tl)ei.- those dams SIll)11l.l he. l)Uilt. inserting (lajly speeches against the. dan~ in the Congressional Record, or (lOes thie gentienian ~ hI!1~l( a Congressman froni WTiscoiisjn in those li\~)O*tl1Otical cii~cum- StaflCOS, 5l~T)1~ll adiieie to the. v~e.ws ot the I)e0Ple of Arizona ? This is `nt.iielv liypothetic;ii, of course. i1~'ii~. HE-LJ-ss. ~Yes ; I realize that., and I am gla(l to answer in the same hypotlietica~i vein that under such a set of cjrciunstances, the outsider, ijke the l1y~)Othetjcal gentleman from SYisconsin, should endeavor to say to the gentleman from Arizona , Coirie, let us reason together. If you can just achieve what von want without these (l;1lflS, I will l)ack von all the way, and under such a set. of circumstances, I think you ~vouicl find the llyl)Othe.t.ical gentleman from WTisc,onsin vigor- ouslv supportiiig, even though it costs his tax~)ayers soirie money, the Cci itral ~A ii Z()TlfL. l)rOI ect without the. clams. ii~lr. lTr~~rj~. I t.haiik the gentleman for this. learned exposition of an eiit.ii.e.ly hiYl)othietical issue. ~`rr. ~ 1A7ould the. gentleman yield ? I would say m~der those circumstance.s that. the. viewpoint of the. represent.ative~ of the local area is entitled to very great weight. and then you overrule! him. II~'1~i~. TAYLOIi. The gentleman from Idaho. 1~{r. ]\{CCLURE. You mentioned the fact that there. had I)een studies made by 1)0th the State. and Federal Qovermne.nt with regard to the. cost and benefits on thi.s particular ~ro~osai of the. WTo~f River. Have such studies l)een made. available. to this committee? iI~Tr. BEtTSS. I t.liink they have, informally, i)Ut has the Bureau o:f Outdoor Re(~ie.ation ? 1\Te.1l, perhal)S I should ask the chairiiian. I1~V[r. rf~.~IOR I think the. answer is, not yet.. lYe will get them. Mr. RETTSS. I have those. studies aiicl they are excellent in-depth studies. If the committee does not receive them in the normal course PAGENO="0083" 69 of its procedures, I shall be delighted to supply them because I have copies. Mr. MCCLURE. Does that include all the State studies? Mr. IREUSS. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. Do these studies encompass such things as the nat- ural resources use of the resources that are present there? Mr. RETJSS. Yes. They cover everything from the lumbering indus- try to fish to game to adjacent farming areas to the recreation poten- tial to the problems of pollution, such as the chairman mentioned, which fortunately, are not serious at the moment. Mr. MCCLURE. Is it your understanding that there will be some lum- bering permitted within the area? Mr. REUSS. Oh, yes. All along the area lumbering goes on and lum- bering is a very important part of the multiple use. Indeed, if there were not lumbering, there would not be deer, there would not be par- tridge. You would have perhaps a nice museum but you would not have the multipurpose area which we envisage here. Mr. MCCLURE. I am delighted to hear the gentleman's statement be- cause there are some people in support `of these measures that really want what you refer to as a museum. I was trying to get from you what your feeling was as to how this should be preserved and what the standards should be for the use of the river and the environment of the river. Mr. RETJSS. We need perhaps a few museums somewhere in the coun- try, but one of the greatest sights for city people are the Menominee Indian lumberjacks out in the forests conducting their sustained yield operation and incidentally, making a living for themselves rather than having Uncle Sam support them on the dole. This is an inspiring sight for city taxpayers. Mr. MCCLURE. Do you know how many scenic easements have been acquired already in this area? Mr. Riwss. In the Meno'minee area, none. That is what the bill is about. In the northern 24 miles, while I have to supply for the record the up-to-date acquisition since this is going on right now, I believe, at least half of that ha's already been acquired in fee simple. This is going on daily while we are here. Mr. MCCLURE. Do you know if the provisions in the scenic easements are uniform ? That is, that all the scenic easements that have been ob- tamed, have substantially the same provisions ? Mr. REUSs. Well, in the area that the State is acquiring, as I said a moment ago, they are doing it via the fee simple route rather than by scenic easements because it turned out they could buy the fee for about what it would cost them in a scenic easement. So there are not scenic easements now being used. But in the Menominee area, we think that scenic easements is probably the way to do it. It will be cheaper. It will, I think, make the Menominees feel a little better that they are keeping the fee `on most of it, Mr. McCLuIu~. In the Menominee area will you be dealing with a multiplicity of owners? Mr. RETJSS. No. Happily, we will be dealing with just one owner, Menominee Enterprises, Inc., which has approved the proposal, in which corporation each of the 3,100 members of the Menominee Tribe PAGENO="0084" 70 own certificates of beneficial ownership. So that happily, land trans- fers are not going to involve vast cadastral studies and endless litiga- tion. Mr. MOCLURE. Do these reports you refer to contain a reference to the language in terms of such a scenic easement? Mr. REUSS. No; they do not. But- Mr. MoCLurn~. I wonder could you furnish such a proposal or copy of such a proposal for us? Mr. RETJSS. I will be glad to. I will have to' ask the Department for its proposed form but I will be delighted to do it. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Reuss. We will give careful consideration to your recommendations. Mr. REUSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The statement of Mr. Reuss and information he was asked to supply for the record follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WIsooNsIN Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today in support of I-I.R. 6166, the proposed "Scenic Rivers Act." It is always a pleasure to appear before your subcommittee which works so diligently to provide the Nation with the finest of outdoor recreation areas and facilities. Who shall own the two or three dozen unspoiled rivers life in this vast con- tinent of ours ? Will it be the American people, or will it be the land developers, the power companies, and industries which would churn and pollute their waters and blight their shores? That is the question before this subcommittee. The Scenic Rivers bill in its House (HR. G1GG) or Senate (S. 119) versions would deed these rivers over to the American people for their enjoyment. I strongly endorse this answer. It is the only alternative to the destrttction of the beauty of this handful of remaining gems among the Nation's rivers. The cost of the preservation of these rivers is really quite small. To save the S rivers in the Senate bill some $40 million would be authorized over the next 10 years. In other words, for $4 million a year, the Nation would be preventing the destruction of eight of its remaining irreplaceable pristine rivers-waters which at this late date through luck and happenstance still run pure. Among the rivers authorized for preservation in both S. 119 and H.R. 6166 are two rivers which grace my State of Wisconsin-the Wolf River and the St. Croix River, with its Namekagon tributary. I wish to spend any time here presenting what I believe to be the excellent ease for the preservation of one of these waterways-the Wolf. In their joint testimony to be presented later today Senator Nelson and Senator Mondale will concentrate their attention on the other-the St. Croix-Namekagon. I strongly endorse what they will have to say with regard to the St. Croix. Recognizing the many claims on the time of the Subcommittee, I shall not repeat the case for preservation of the St. Croix. THS WOLF RIVER-A PREEMINENTLY SCENIC RIVER The adjactives "wild" and "scenic" naturally attach to the Wolf River. It is preeminently both a wild and a scenic waterway. While running its 220 mile course, from source to mouth, the Wolf most fully displays its beauty over a 48 mile run through Langlade and Menominee Coun- ties. Over this stretch the River drops 700 feet through granite boulders. Here is rushing white water in a beautiful green wilderness setting. By the river side grow everything from lichens and ferns to the tallest white pine, hemlock, and arbor vitae. Songbirds and waterfowl, deer and bear, muskrat and mink inhabit the banka Trout fill the waters. Eighteen to 20 inch long brown trout are the fisherman's prize; while brook trout of 12 inches or better quite commonly fill his creek. PAGENO="0085" 71 The history of Wisconsin is written in the Wolf. Along its course runs the old Military Road which served the Indian agents. Northern Wisconsin pine logs were floated down It to the sawmills at Oshkosh, and the remains of dams used to raise the water level of the rapids so that logs could pass can still be seen. In Menominee County, the Menominee Indians still inhabit its banks and fish its waters. All of this beauty, recreation, history, and lore is within a day's drive of 9 million residents of Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. The Wolf remains unspoiled, not undiscovered. The developers are threatening the WOlf. Subdivisions would at this moment dot its banks, their septic tanks seeping pollution, were it not for two recent actions of the federal government and the State of Wisconsin: 1. On January 7, 1067, the Department of the Interior and the State of Wisconsin announced a jointly-financed program for acquiring 24 miles of front- age on the upper Wolf River ( and 26 miles of frontage on its feeder streams) in Langlade County. The Secretary of the Interior has allocated $415,000 of contingency monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. ; the State of Wisconsin is match- ing this amount. The State will purchase the land and administer it. 2. On August ~1, 1966, the State of Wisconsin entered into a three year lease with Menominee County on frontage along 24 miles of the lower Wolf River from the Langlade County line to I~eshena Falls in the southern part of Menominee County. Under the lease, the State is paying the Menominees $150,000 annual rent to preserve this land. The lease expires on August 31, 1969. The lease was necessary as a stop-gap measure to prevent the spoiling of the Wolf by the parceling up of its shoreline before the Congress has an oppor- tunity to act on the Scenic Rivers legislation which is today under considera- tion. The State of Wisconsin, valuing the Wolf as it does, agreed to put its thumb in the dike for up to three years at at a cost of $450,000. In sum, gentlemen, of the 48 mile scenic stretch on the Wolf in Langiade and Menominee Counties, 24 miles in Langlade County are now permanently in the public domain, while 24 miles in Menominee County will remain temporarily in the public domain until August 31, 1969. The only action necessary to complete the preservation of the Wolf is for your Committee and the House to include the 24 mile stretch in Menominee County in the Scenic Rivers Act. I strongly urge you to do so. The cost will be entirely reasonable. Only a small portion of the river frontage need be purchased. Most of it can be preserved by scenic easements. Jusit 2 final points: 1. I am confident that under either the Senate or House versions of the bill a single identity and a single administration-either federal or state-can be worked out for the Langlade and Menominee County portions of the Wolf, even though the Langlade County portion is owned 1y the State and Menominee County portion would be owned by the federal government. Sections 9(c) of HR. 6160 and 7(c) of ~. 119 specifically provilde for inclu- sion of the state-owned Langlade County portion of the Wolf within the National Scenic Rivers System. And Sections 5 (b) of both bills provide for the administration of federal lands partly or exclusively by the state. 2. Because of the complexity of the legal structure of the Menominee Indian tribal corporation, Menominee Enterprises, Inc., which owns the land which would be purchased along the Wolf in Menominee County, and because of the understandable sensitivities of the Menominees to the alienation of their lands which they have labored so long to preserve, special arrangements for the land transaction should be worked into the Scenic Rivers bill. I have tried to provide the solution to this problem in Section 4 (i) of H.R. 3996, a predecessor bill to H.R. 6166. I hope that you will include provisions of Section 4(1) in your bill. I am sure my colleagues from Wisconsin, Congressmen Kastenmeier and Steiger of your Subcommittee, will agree with me that the citizens of Wisconsin place the greatest importance on the preservation of the Wolf and the St. Croix. Wisconsinites value conservation measures in general as highly as citizens of any state and, in particular, they are concerned with preserving the natural beauty which so handsomely blesses the State. I hope that the Committee will include the St. Croix and the Wolf Rivers in the Scenic Rivers BIlL PAGENO="0086" 72 Mr. Chairman : I would like as a sample scenic easement to insert into the record a copy of a scenhic easement deed which the Department of the Interior used in connection with the establishment of the Ozark National Sceiiic River- way in the State of Missouri. In addition Mr. Chairman, I would like to make available for the Committee's files a study of the problems of preserving recrea- tional and open space lands prepared for the Departrneiit of the Interior by the Accokeek Foundation, Inc., dated October 1967. This study which deals with scenic easenieiit.s may be of interest to the ~ominittee; SAMPLE OF SCENIC EASEMENT DEED TI-ITS INDENTURE, made this (lay of 1966 by and be- tween of the County of St. Louis. State of Missouri, parties of the first part, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., party of the second part. WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, Public Law 88-492. passed August 27, 1064, provided for the establishment of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in the State of Missouri, for the purpose of coi~serving and interpreting unique scenic and other natural values of objects of historical interest and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands and interests therein, including scenic easements ; and WHEREAS, the parties of the first part are the owners iii fee simple of the real l)rOl)ertY hereinafter described, lying, being and situate in Shannon County, State of Missouri, over which the Secretary of Interior has determined it to be necessary to acquire a scenic easement for the preservation of the scenic values of the area described in said Act. and are desirous in contributing to the development of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the sum of One and no/100 Dollars ($1.00) to them paid by said party of the second part, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties of the first part do by these presents GRANT, BARGAIN AND SELL, CONVEY AND CONFIRM, in perpetuity, subject to the considerations hereinafter set forth, unto the party of the second part and its assigfls, an estate, interest and scenic easement iii said hereinafter described real property of the nature and to the extent hereinafter described and do covenant on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns (said covenant to run with said land) with the party of the second Part and its assigns to do and refrain from doing. severally and collectively upon the said hereinafter described lands, the various acts hereinafter mentioned ; it being hereby agreed and expressed that the doing of aiid the refraining from do- ing said acts, and each thereof, upon the said lands are and will be for the benefit of the part of the second part through the preservation of the scenic and other natural values and objects of historic interest to ~ the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in accordance with Public Law 88-492 of August 27, 1064. The scenic easement restrictions hereby imposed upon the use of said lands and the acts which the parties of the first part so covenant to refrain from doing upon the said hereinafter described lands are and shall be as follows: 1. Using the said lands for mining or industrial activity or for any purpose whatsoever except for noncommercial residential purposes or for such additional 1)url)oses as niay be authorized in writing on such terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative. But the parties of the first part shall not be precluded hereby froni fariiiing the lan(l nor from grazing livestock thereon provicle(1 the same be clone in (Onforiflity with good hi~sbandry practice. The permitted use for farming and grazing shall not include the harvesting of timber, but firewood for personal use may be gathered from selected areas upon apiroval of the Park Superintendent. 2. Erecting or building any structures on said lands, including major alter- ations to existing buildings, except as may be authorized in writing by the See- retary of the Interior or his duly authorized representative. There is specifically retained by the parties of the first part, their heirs, successors and assigns the right to perform ordinary maintenance on all existing structures arni buildthg~. to- gether with the right to replace, rebuild or substitute any building or structure now existing with similar buildings or structures in substantially the same loca- tion, if all or any of such existing buildings are destroyed or damaged by fire, storm or other casualty. 3. Permitting any change in the character of the topography of said lands other than that caused by the forces of nature, except as may be authorized PAGENO="0087" 73 in writing by the Secretary of the Interior or his duly authorized representative. 4. Permitting the accumulation of any trash or foreign material which is un- sightly or offensive. 5. Cutting or permitting to be cut, destroying or removing any timber or brush, except as may be authorized in writing by the Secretary of the Interior, or his duly authorized represei~tative. Provided, however, that seedling trees or seedling shrubbery may be grubbed up or cut down in accordance with good farm J)ractice on lands presently being cultivated or for residential maintenance purposes. Cultivated crops, including orchard fruit and nut trees, may be pruned, sprayed, harvested and otherwise maintained in accordance with good farm practice. 6. No trailer shall be placed, used or maintained on said lands as a substitute for a residential building or other structure, and no sign, billboard, or advertise- iiient shall be displayed or placed upon the land, except that one sign not greater than ~4 inches by 36 inches, in size, advertising the sale of products raised thereon or sale or lease of the lands niay be displayed on appropriate occasions. The lands hereinabove referred to and to which the provisions of this instru- ment apply, are situated in the County of Shannon, State of Missouri, and are more particularlydescribed as follows : The South ~/2 of the West `/2 of Lot 1 of the Northwest 1/~ (Right bank river descending) , Section 6, TWP. 29 N, R3W, containing 10.2 acres, more or less. r1i1115 conveyance is subject to existing easements for public roads and high- ways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. By acceptance of this deed, the party of the second part specifically agrees for the purpose of the parties of the first part retaining their preseiit means and rights of ingress and egress, that the parties of the first part, their heirs, successors and assigns, or invitees, shall not be required to pay, when proceed- ing directly to and from such lands, park entrance or road fees. The parties of the first part, for the consIderation hereinabove set out, do further grant unto the party of the second part and its duly authorized repre- sentatives the right of ingress and egress upon and across said lands for the purpose of effecting emergency action with regard to the control and suppres- sion of fires and for emergency action needed for visitor protection in relation to the operation of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways as established by the hereinabove mentioned Act. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the hereindescribed scenic easement and rights unto the party of the second part and its assigns forever. The parties of the first part, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns do hereby covenant with the said uarty of the second part and its assigns that they are lawfully seized of an iiidefeasible estate in fee simple in the hereindescribed lands ; that they have the right to sell and convey the estate, interest and scenic easement herein conveyed ; and that they will warrant and defend unto the party of the second part and its assigns, forever, the quiet and peaceable use and enjoymeiit of the herein granted easement against the lawful claims and demands of all persons whomsoever. In witness whereof, the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. (SEAL) ( SEAL) I I STATE OF MISSOURI ) COUNTY OF ~ 55. On this day of 1966, before me personally appeared to me known to be the lersons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. In testimony whereof, I have hereunder set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year first above written. Notary Public My term of office as a Notary Public will expire Mr. TAYLOR. Otir next witness is the chairman of one of the im- poi~taiit suhconmiitt ees of t.1 ic Commit tee on Science and AstronautiCs, Joseph E. Karth. PAGENO="0088" 74 STATEME1~TT OP HON. JOSEPH E. KARTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PRO1VE THE STATE OP MINNESOTA Mr. KARTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure it is good to be on this side of the table from you. We have had many experiences together and I thank you very much for an opportunity to appear. Mr. TAYLOR. You have been my chairman on another subcom- mittee and doing an excellent job. Mr. KARTH. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time and brevity I am going to submit a prepared statement for the record. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, it will be placed in the record at this point. Mr. KARTH. I am exceedingly happy my colleague preceding me did the same thing because he was very brief as a result of it. I hope I shall be just as brief. Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today and share your concern about the St. Croix-Namekagon River, the St. Croix River appearing, of course, in Minnesota and the Namekagon according to this map, as you will see, in the upper reaches of Wisconsin. Mr. TAYLOR. On EI.R. 8416 on page 9, that appears on line 24, the bottom line. Mr. KARTH. What page, sir? Mr. TAYLOR. Page 9, line 24. Mr. KARTH. Yes. I would merely address myself to two important points or two points I at least consi der to be important. One, I would like to suggest if in the committee's wisdom they find it feasible, to include as a wild river immediately, that portion of the St. Croix and Namekagon that is above Taylors Falls, Minn., and to also include in the bill, that portion of the ~t. Croix between Taylors Falls and its confluence with the Mississippi River, namely the lower St. Croix, as a scenic river or at least include it for study. If I under- stand 11.11. 8416 correctly, the upper reaches of the St. Croix from the Taylors Falls area northward would be included only as a study under this legislation. I can say, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a great deal of study given to this matter both in Minnesota and Wisconsin and I am hope- ful that this committee in their wisdom, would include language simi- lar to that included in the Senate bill as it passed the Senate, which did in fact desigi~ate the upper reaches of the Sit. Croix and the Namekagon as wild river and the lower portion from there southward to its confluence as a scenic river. Mr. Chairman, one other important point I would like to make to this committee and for whatever help you can be to me, I want~ ~you to know I would be most appreciative. I was just informed the other day that the St. Paul office of the Army Corps of Engineers announced it had transmitted to higher headquarters of the Corps of Engineers for their approval, plans to erect a 100- to 120-foot-high dam above Taylors Falls, Minn. In my opinion, this would negate completely what we are attempting to do in this legislation and what the other body attempted to do in its legislation. Certainly, it would spoil the unparalleled beauty and dam- PAGENO="0089" 75 age and despoil this whole river area as a wilderness river. And so if there is any assistance that this committee can be to me and to those of us in Minnesota and Wisconsin who are interested in this project, I would hope that they could make their wishes known to the Corps of Engineers. Theoretically, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this dam is to prevent floods in the lower reaches of the St. Croix River, primarily in this area [ indicating on map] , just east of St. Paul, and from there southward to the confluence of the Mississippi, and while it is true that there have been two or three floods in the last 50 years in that area, primarily damaging some property at Stiliwater, Minn., and the immediate adjacent portion of Wisconsin across the river, I understand that the reason for those floods is because of the backup waters from the Mis- sissippi where the confluence takes place, and not because of the waters that came down the St. Croix River. Ice also was a contributing factor, but dam or not, ice will be in the St. Croix every spring. Mr. TAYI~oR. Is the upper portion of the St. Croix River in your district? Mr. KARTH. No. That is in Congressman Blatnik's district. The lower portion of St. Croix from Taylors Falls southward is part of my district. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you know what Congressman Blatnik's position is on it? Mr. KARTH. As far as I know, it is identical with mine. Mr. TAYLOR. Could you summarize the studies that have been made of this upper section, that is, on either the State level or Federal? Mr. KARTII. Both the State or local governments and the Federal Government have studied this proposition, I think for at least 2 years, Mr. Chairman. There have been similar studies made by the local communities along the riverway, particularly from the Taylors Falls area southward to the confluence with the Mississippi River. And that is the reason I have suggested that the upper reaches, that is, from Taylors Falls northward and through the Namekagon River area, be designated immediately as wild rivers because I know of no opposition to that and a great deal of support for it. Since there are some conflicts of opinion dealing primarily with zoning regulations from there south- ward, I would hope that that portion of the St. Croix River could be a scenic river or at least one of those that is studied for scenic river inclusion. `Mr. Chairman, I might say your map here is probably not accurate since we from Minnesota and Wisconsin are particularly interested in making the St. Croix-Namekagon from Taylors Falls northward part of the wild rivers and `that part southward to the confluence, a scenic river or that a study be made of the f~a~ibility of that section being included in the scenic rivers bill. Your map indicates that H.R. 8416 includes all of the St. Croix as a wild river `and it just doesn't do that. Mr. TAYLOR. Any of the members any questions? The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. SAYLOR. I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for illtroducing the legislation and for the presentation you made here this morning. I am delighted to hear your analysis of what has caused the floods and that you have probably put your finger on the cause of the floods in the area. PAGENO="0090" 76 This same situation has occurred in a number of places in Pennsyl- vania where the Army Corps Øf En~ine~rs have built res~r~oirs and the floods have been caused by the tributaries that could not flow into the stream. When we have had high water, those areas continue to have floods and people back there do not understand. Some of us have tried to~ explain that the Corps of Engineers is not in very close association with the Almighty. They did not properly estimate th~ rainfall and a f~w other things. Then it was discovered that one of the real causes of floods in many communities is the fact that there oannot be runoff from some of the tributaries. I regret to hear that this same problem is one of the things that is causing the flooding in the St. Croix River. Mr. KARTH. Yes, sir ; thank you, Mr. Saylor. I think every bit of evidence I am aware of indicates that those two or three floods that have occurred up-river from the confluence of the St. Croix and the Mississippi have in fact been caused by backup waters from the Missis- sippi River, which is a fast-flowing river in that area especially in high waiter periods `and as a result of that, a dam in my opinion, would only despoil comple~tely and irrevocably that portion of a great wild rivers area, namely, above St. Croix and in the Namekagon River area of Wisconsin, and I sincerely hope that that does not occur. Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Kyu. The gentleman speaks of the Corps proposal to `build a dam on the river. Mr. KARTH. I was notified just 3 days ago, sir, that that was a pos- sibility and they did in fact, submit tihis to higher echelons of the C'orps of Engineers, yes. Mr. Km. They have not asked for any money from the Appropria- tions Committee to initiate study of the project. Mr. KARTH. I am not aware of the fact that they have but I would not want to say they have not, either. I am just not aware of it. Mr. Kyr~. Is this proposal to build a dam of the Corps' origin or has some group or some Member of Congress asked the Corps to make such studies? Mr. KARTH. Well, I have tried to remain as knowledgeable as I can about this whole proposition and I would say to the gentleman that it came as a shocker to me and I know of no cooperative efforts be- tween the Corps of Engineers and any interested groups in that area to so construct the dam. Mr. KYL. In other words, it would seem that it is solely the idea of the Corps of Engineers, not of a local group, community, or Member of Congress? Mr. KARTH. That is my opinion ; yes, sir. Mr. Km. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. McCLuiiE. Could you tell m~ the ownership of the land through which these segments of the rivers flow? Mr. KARTH. Approximately 30,000 acres or so-maybe it is 60,000 but do not hang me on the amount-most of the adjacent lands to this river areas above Taylors Falls [indicating on map] is owned by Northern States Power qo. and they have kept it in its wild state for PAGENO="0091" 77 many, many years. In fact ever since they have owned it and they have owned it for upward of a half century. And so, all of the acreage or most of the acreage adjacent to this area has been owned and is presently owned by the Northern States Power Co. and they are inter- ested, too, incidentally, in making this land available for the purposes of a wild rivers area. Mr. MCCLURE. When you say making it available, you mean in fee? Mr. KARTH. That question has not yet been decided, as I understand it. They are somewhat undecided as to whether or not they ought to make it available at reasonable cost or whether or not they ought to just give title without cost to the Federal Government. Mr. MCCLURE. The upper portion which would be-this portion that you have identified is in the portion which you urge be put in the instant section? Mr. KAiuru. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCLimE. And the lower portion which you recommend be placed in the study section would have a different land ownership pattern? Mr. KARTH. Yes ; it would, indeed. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you. Mr. KARTH. If there are no further questions, I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman Aspinall, for your time, and the gentlemen of the committee. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you for an effective presentation. (The statement of Mr. Karth follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH E. KARTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CoNai~Ess FROM THE STATE 01? MINNESOTA I appredate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to share with you my alarm for the future of the Saint Croix-Narnekagon River systems in Minnesota and Wisconsin as a recreational resource for our country. I used "alarm" advisedly in connection with the Saint Croix because just days ago the Saint Paul Office of the Army Corps of Eflgineers announced it had transmitted to higher headquarters for approval, plans to erect a 100-120 foot high dam above Taylors Falls, Minnesota. In my opinion, this would be most unfortunate for this area of unparalleled beauty to be dammed and despoiled. In both the 89th and 90th Congresses I introduced legislation which dealt specifically with the subject of creating the Saint Croix and the Namekagon as a scenic riverway. Much of the preliminary planning and paperwork has already been completed thanks to the fine assistance of Senators Mondale and Nelson and the National Park Service. Considerable work has been done in countless hours of hearings and discussions to resolve many local problems especially involving property in the stretch of the river below Taylors Falls to its confluence with the Mississippi. The constant exchange of views between the citizens of the area and representatives of the Federal Government were indeed most gatifying and also very fruitful in writing legislation which would meet the greater need of our country to preserve the natural treasure that is the Saint Croix valley while protecting the interests of the people who live, work, and play there. While I would, therefore, prefer the enactment of my own bill, H.R. 752, which deals only with the Saint Croix-Namekagon I realize there is other legislation before you that would include these streams in an omnibus "package" with other rivers. My major concern is that time will run out for this yet largely unspoiled river system-that unregulated commercial-industrial development on the lower reaches of the Saint Croix where it separates Wisconsin and Minnesota will effectively destroy its attraction for those people from all over the nation who enjoy its beauties. PAGENO="0092" 78 If the Congress does not act to save the Saint Croix-Namekagon above Taylors Falls much of the picturesque wilderness which has been so widely hailed as one of America's natural wonders could well be on the bottom of the Corps of Engi- neers' 40 mile-long lake. t ask this Committee to give the earliest possible consideration to legislation which will save the last of the so-called wild and scenic rivers so that future Americans will have at least such examples as the Saint Croix-Namekagon rivers to be reminded of the natural greatness of their land. They will be grateful to you for your foresight. Mr. TAYLOR. Next witness is Representative Donald M. Fraser. Is Congressman Fraser here? Mr. FRASER. Yes, sir. STATEMENT OP HON. DONALD H. PEAS~R, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MINNESOTA Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I will be equally brief and submit my mimeographed state- ment for the record. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, the statement will be made a part of the record at this point. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to add my support to the position that has been taken by Congressman Karth and the position which is held by my colleague, Congressman Blatnik, and I think other members of the delegation, including the members of the Senate from our State, with respect to the proposal to include the St. Croix River and the Namekagon River in the wild rivers bill. I should tell you that my district is not contiguous to either one of these rivers, but my district is the city of Minneapolis which is adja- cent to Congressman Karth's district, which is contiguous and does embrace a part of the river. My interest in this centers on the fact that in the city of Minneapolis we havemany of the consumers of the benefits of a wild river designa- tion. I can testify to this personally because I happen to have had a summer cabin On the St. Croix River for the past 44 years and during my younger days I had occasion to take a canoe trip down the length of the Nam~kagon that would be included in this bill and the wild portions of the St. Croix River and the scenic portions of the St. Croix River. I think I took that trip some four or five times and it is one of th~ best canoe trips that I have ever had occasion to take. I have been interested in canoeing for a long time and canoed up in the border country of Minnesota and Canada, but this river really is outstanding from a recreational and canoeing point of view. Opportunity for canoe- ing in a wild area is as good here as anywhere I can think of in the United States. This matter was precipitated, as members of the committee may know, by the fact that several years ago it was proposed that a power- plant be built in the lower stretches of the St. Croix River. There was a lot of controversy about that at the time. It was finally resolved, not necessarily with everyone's support, it was resolved by the action of the Northern States Power Co. building a major coal-consuming powerplant on the lower reaches of the St. Croix River. At this point PAGENO="0093" 79 nobody who supports these proposals has any quarrel with the exist- ence of that plant. It is there. They accept it. They know it is going to be there. But what this did occasion was concern about what was going to happen to the rest of the St. Croix River. Was the building of a major coal-consuming powerplant to become the pattern for the rest of the river, the upper reaches, and then the conversion of the wild river into another dam and power producing area? I think the study by the Army Corps of Engineers perhaps had its origins somewhere in the fact that at one time the Northern States Power Co. was thinking about a dam itself in the upper reaches to generate more electric power. As I understand it, they are now pre- pared not to pursue that. They are willing, as a public service and be- cause of their own interest in the area, to see the lands that they own along the banks of the upper reaches of the St. Croix devoted to a wild river development. rfhis is one reason we are so anxious that the corn- mittee here, if in its wisdom it is willing to do so, we are so anxious that the committee act to include the St. Croix River in the wild rivers section of the bill because we have this opportunity now. We have the cooperation of the major landowner and we feel it would be a tragedy if this convergence of interest and opportunity were not taken advan- tage of through this Federal legislation. What we are interested in specifically is to have this committee con- sider following the action of the other body in including the St. Croix River from Taylors Falls on up including the Namekagon up to Trego in the wild river section of the bill, and the part from Taylors Falls on down to its confluence with the Mississippi in the scenic rivers part of the bill and if that is not possible, at least to put these under the study sections, but I would urge that they actually be included, if possible, in the two sections, the wild rivers section and scenic rivers section. It is a great opportunity for the people of that area and I think really for the Nation, because this is one of the great canoeing rivers of the Nation and I know of the deej~ interest that this committee has in preserving these kinds of opportunities for the future. Mr. TAYLOR. You are in agreement with the statements that Con- gressman Karth made. Mr. FRASER. Well, I am in agreement except I guess I would like to see the lower part of the St. Croix actually included as a scenic river which is the action that the Senate took. Mr. KARTU. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there is no disagree- ment between the gentleman and myself. Mr. TAYLOR. What is your position on the Namekagon ? I do not re- call your mentioning that. Mr. KARTH. That you will include the upper reaches of the St. Croix in the wild rivers portion and the lower portion be included iI~1 the scenic, and if not that, at least be in the study part. Mr. FRASER. I think Congressman Karth did refer to the Nameka- gon. This is this short piece here [indicating]. And then it comes into the St. Croix River and St. Croix goes down to Taylors Falls there as a wild river and then below it it is more de- veloped. It is wider, has powerboats on it and is much more suitable for a recreation are. It is a beautiful valley in the St. Croix River. PAGENO="0094" 80 That is where I happened to have my own summer cottage, so I have some knowledge about that area That is the area where the powerplant has been developed We hope that that will not become a trend and become an industrial b'isin It is a very beautiful valley now and my own cottage is right acvoss from Afton on the St. Croix, ahistoric old lumbering center. That and Still- water were the beginnings of the lumbering industry in Minnesota `tnd it has kept most of its character md can keep most of its character for generations to come if the committee will act I speak not as con tiguous representative but as one who is once iemoved in the city of Minneapolis but where many of the people live who would have the enjoyment of ~Lh~is area Mr TAYLOR Any committee members have any questions ~ The gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr SAYLOR Mr Fraser, first, I want to commend you for your state ment and tell you that it has been my pleasure to be on `t portion of this river. I have not been over all of it. But, I think it would do well for you, who know it, to describe a portion of it, particularly tho~e high cliffs that exist along both sides of the river for n'riny, m~tny miles Mr FRASER Well, Mr Saylor, I remember, if I may recount a per sonal experience, at Taylors Falls, which is about at this point, there is `1) dam and then there are what are called The Dells, and on either side of The Dells are very high cliffs, a very scenic `~rea They have excursion boats which trav~1 along this stretch I remember it so vividly becausu when I ~s `is a young boy and a group of us were portaging arotind the dam, we ~ere going to shoot The Dells in a canoe, because to portage around that as well would have meant another mile of portaging and I remember being told by the local residents what proportion of people who had tried it had made jt arid how many had drowned. ~ Finally, somebody offered to take us around free if that was neces sary to dissuade us That is perhaps the most beautiful part of the river but as it goes down here, there are these large banks where the river gradually broadens out It is not highly developed There are mostly cottage owners along there and it is just a beautiful river with green banks and it is very green It is a glacier made river, I should add The river was made by a glacier and a~ a result is substantially deeper than many of the rivers of America and that makes it un usually useful for recreational purposes But up above here it is t smaller stream, a current of some 6 miles an hour, very compatible with canoeing, lots of campsites along it and very little evidence of civilization as one cOmes down this upper reach, the wilderness area, and it is just a pleasure to be on and I would like to ask the members of the committee some day to come out and take the trip themselves Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you. Mr TAYLOR The gentleman from Iowa Mr KYL So that the legislative history might be clarified, it is not your belief, understanding, or desire that scenic wild pastor'rl river legisl'rtion will increase the opportunity for building summer cabins ~iiong the stream, is it ~ Mr FR&SER I would think the wild rivers portion would not see the growth of summer cottages. I do not think in the scenic rivers portion PAGENO="0095" 81 that this would be incompatible. I do not know if I am being respon- sive or not. Mr. Km. Well, I think you are, sir, and I thank you. Is it the goal of people supporting this legislation to preserve these rivers, these scenic values, so that they might construct summer homes near the rivers? Mr. FRASER. No. This raises another problem, to be truthful about it. The St. Croix River is such a useful river for recreational and scenic value that it is unfortunate that there has not in the past been acquired more public ownership along the beaches so that people who are boating or canoeing or sailing might have a public place to land. The problem we have today is that a person who takes his boat out for a weekend and puts it in the river is hard put to find a place where he can picnic or land for purposes of water skiing, et cetera. Mr. Km. 15 our purpose then primarily to develop it as a recrea- tion area? Mr. FRASER. No. What I would say is this. Two things. One is the character of the river still remains essentially as it is, a scenic river. I am talking about the lower stretch from Taylors Falls down, below the wild river portion. That has been fairly well developed as a sum- mer or recreational kind of environment. There are two things that need to happen. One is that the begin- nings of industrialization, which is represented by the powerplant, not lead to further industrialization along that river so as to destroy its scenic and recreational value. That is No. 1. No. 2, hopefully, some day there would be more public ownership acquired along it, so as to enhance the enjoyment that people who, do not have cabins can get from the river, because there would be a place for them to land their boats or do the things that are associated with water recreation. So those would be the two objectives that I would have in mind in this arrangement. Mr. KYL. Could we possibly achieve purpose No. 1 through State zoning or county zoning regulntions ? It would be a much simpler proposition than this whole process in which we are engaged. Mr. FRASER. Well, the problem is, frankly, related to the ways that local communities find themselves required to derive their tax rev- enues. One of the reasons that there was support generated for the powerplant that went in was that the community immediately in- volved saw this as a way to easing the burden of supporting their local schools and local governments. So they were very much for it. The farther you got from that community, the more people were interested in other aspects of the problem, namely, the scenic and recreational use. If you leave it up to each community, what they are often con- fronted with is this decision whether they should let industry locate because of its tax advantage or whether they should abstain in the larger public interest. This is a difficult decision for a local community to make. Mr. KYL. This is not simply a problem for the local community. As I remember it, one of the chief sponsors and hardnosed advocates of a PAGENO="0096" 82 60 million acre wi1d~rness area where absolutely nothing except look- inn; would be permitted is the first one to now propose that a dam be built in a wilderness area in his State. It is not just a matter of local. I do not want to put the gentleman on the spot. One of my great worries in all proposals of this kind, Mr. Fraser, is this. It is difficult to interpret the motives of an area or of an individual or a community, and so often we have had people coming in with the pure white robe of conservation who were not interested in conservation at all but in building dollar recreation business or in providing a spot where some- one might build a pleasant home for the summer or for permanent residence, and I think that this is a good point in this deliberation to point out that if we are setting up a wild river, a scenic river proposi- tion, so far as I am concerned, it is completely and totally for the pur- pose of conserving and preserving the natural values that are there and we should not even consider this business of recreational develop- ment, and so on, that must go with it. I thank the gentleman for being so kind. Mr. FRASER. If I may just comment, I do not think we have any disagreement. All I am saying is that the lower part of the St. Croix now has substanthd summer home development. I do not think that has to be reversed in order to preserve its character, but the problem is where do we go from here. Mr. Km. But, if we do acquire more land, we are going to have to acquire some places where there are industrial plants or homes, et cetera, et cetera, if we are going to improve the natural quality of the river. Mr. FRASER. Well, it may be that certain selective takings of that kind might be required in the future. I do not now imow of any that would be required but those situations may unfold. Mr. Km. Well, the bill itself, as you know, studies the matter of condemnation for acquisition, and makes certain other very strong suggestions, at least that there will have to be some private property purchased which might find the owner a pretty unwilling individual. I know we have no disagreement on this. I do thank the gentleman. Mr. FRASER. I do think the power of condemnation may be useful, because if it cannot be acquired by donation or purchase, some areas need to be acquired that will give more public access so that they do not just read about the fact that there is a scenic valley but they are actu- ally `able to go and participate in it. Mr. K~. I thank the gentleman. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you have any information as to what your proposal would cost? Mr. FRASER. I do not, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. Let me ask you this qtiestion. If you do not, do you care? Mr. KARTH. Mr. Chairman, may I respond? I think it was in the neighborhood of 20- Mr. ASPINALL. I want Mr. Fraser to answer the question because this is very pertinent at this time. It is all right to come up here and talk about what we wanL but what is the taxpayer going to have to pay for it? Pardon `me for interrupting. Mr. FRASER. Yes, sir. Well, I should have estimates for you because I think you are right in saying that anybody who recommends this PAGENO="0097" 83 ought to be prepared to go the full way and defend the cost of . it. I do not have that information ~because I was testifying from the pornt of view of the consumer of these kinds of things. I recognize it costs money. I think, however, if I may ~ say this, that the cost. of this is something that need not beiznmediate.. That is to say, the designation of these areas would be the immediate action required. ~ ~ Mr. ASJINALL. If my colleague-if the chairman-will yield, this is what we are up against all the time. This is where the prices begin to escalate. Private ~ developers go in there and the first thing you know, we are way up in the millions of dollars. I am with my friend on what he desires as far as that is concerned, but we have got to be practical about this and we have got to be able to say when we go before the House, as we will have to do . on the Land ~ and Water Conservation Fund, this is another addition to the backlog of authorizations ~nd this is what we are going to say if---- Mr. FitL~SER. I appreciate what the chairman is saying. I might say I appreciate the chairman's deep interest in the general problem of conservation. I know the committee will want this ~ information and should have it and I am sure will get it from the executive branch. These are difficult judgments to make when you are weighing scenic ~Talue, wilderness areas, against doilars and cents. The only thing is that there is a sort of a one-way process here. If these things do not go forward I know they get more expensive in the future, and wehave this opportunity now because the power company has thislarge amount of land and expressed a willingness that this wild rivers project go forward. . Mr. TA~LpL Well, thank you very much. : The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. MOCLURE., Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. The: earlier witness referred to the fact, and you have just now re- fex'red to the fact, that the power company owns this land along the upper cn~ the wild portions ~ of the river. Is there any utilization of resource values in that area now, such as lumbering? Mr. Fi~sr.i~. .1 do not believe so, at least not right on the banks of the river. If there is lumbering back some.distance I would*not know about it. I think my impression is that they had acquired this property not for exploitation but to meet the contingency that they themselves might be iiiterested in a dam development someday and they would have needed the land that would be involved in the additional flooding. Mr. McCLuiu~. What is your understanding of the difference between the terms "wild" and "scenic" ~ , ~ Mr. Fit~sER. My understanding is that the wild river is one iii which its state or condition is more.nearly the *ay it was before many arrived on thescene, that ithas the charaoter of wiiderness,.and it does nothave any important or substaiitial developn~ut alOng the banks of the river. A sc~iic river, on thepther. han~t, n~y have a relatively greater de~ gree of development but a development which is not incompatible with the scenic nature of the riverbut where you ~Qi1idhave powerboats, you would have a wider re~reatipnal use without impairing the scenic ~ alue The wil4 rivers, I should add, at least this one, is not susceptible to thii~gs li1~e water skiing or ue~ of po~verboats. It is not that large or deep ariver. It has a~ different character to it. 92-560-e8-7 PAGENO="0098" 84 Mr. MCCLURE. What wo~1d be your understaxiding, your' feeling concerning the possibility of lumbering activitie& along the banks of a wild river ? ~ ` . Mr. FRASJ~R. Well, the restrictions that I see ~ in the bill are fairly substantial so that the ownership that could be acquired by the Federal Government would not extend very far back from the banks. What I would expect might happen is, if lumbering * were an interest along there, similar to what has happened up, for example, in the boundary waters canoe area where there is a prohibition along the shoreline for a distance back, so that the character of the lakes is not altered but back 500 feet or a 1,000 feet, then the lumbering does' take place. And I would envision a simihnr situation here where you protect the char- acter of the river itself, but some distance back it might be permitted.. Mr. MCCLuliE. How about public access? Mr. FRASER. Well, public access is required, but is no problem, I think. Thereare a number of roads that haveto cross on bridges along the way, so the places to put in a canoe, for example, I think already exist. They certainly- . Mr. MCCLURE. In the wild area. Mr. FRASER. Yes. Mr. MCCLURE. There are a number of roads `down to the river, crossing the river at the present time. Mr. FRASER. Yes. The whole stretch is so long that there are roads maybe-well, I do not want to overstate it. There are `not that many but I would say every 10 to 20 miles at least `there probably is a road or a bridge across the river. Mr. MCCLURE. And in that' area if the banks, the immediate area of 500 or a 1,000 feet back from the banks are protected there is no need to worry what might be done-I should not put it that broadly-you have no direct concern at the present time as to the kind of develop- ment that might take place at 1,000 feet or more from the river bank. Mr. FRASER. Yes. Do not hold me to the figures and if 1 may say, also knowing this. is still a relatively spar~el~~ populated part of both Minnesota and Wisconsin, essentially a forested agriculteral area-the pressures are not very great for. developn~nt that wpuld be.incom- patible. . ` . ~ ` Mr. MOCLunE. And would the same thing be tr~i~ ~n `your mind if the river banks rose to high mountains so that you cou~id see quite a distance from the river ? ~ ~ . . . . , . ~ . . . . Mr. FRASER. The question is `whether I wquld hold the same vie* if back from the river banks there are mountains ? ` Mr. McCttnti~. Yes. . ` ` ` Mr. FRASER. I have trouble visualizing that in real terms. Mr. McCLum~. The thing that I am getting at is whether you are just concerned about the immediate environment or are you concerned about the total environment including what you can see from the river in this wild area?' ` ` Mr.' FRASER. Yes. Well, I am concerned about `the larger setting to the extent `that it might impair the wild nature of the riyer. But ~s I say, I do not think there are any pressures of tlnat'kind that exist. Lumbering is not the kind of activity that is really incompatible unless you were to go down and cut along the shoreline or cut very élose to PAGENO="0099" 85 the shoreline. If you are talking about the development of major in- dustries a half a mik~ back, that might raise a problem, but that is way off in the future for~ that part of the State, and I do not know what the answers would be at that point. Mr. MCCLURE. But lumbering within view of the river, if that should happen, would not disturb you if it were not In the immediate banks of the river? Mr. Fi~sER. When you say immediate view, the truth of the matter is you cannot see very far back from the river. There may be a plowed field or people farming along there but generally speaking the moment you begin encountering trees, et cetera, you cannot see back more than a few hundred feet. Mr. MCCLURE. The lower area, the area you designated scenic, how far do you think it is necessary to control back from the river in the field, for instance, of the industrialization? Mr. FRASER. Not very far. The thing that characterizes the St. Croix River below Taylors Falls are high banks. What happens back on the plateau or further back is not of much concern. The one thing that would be of concern would be, I think, if you had major industrial development that utilized the water resource, either for travel or for some other purpose. Then, you might begin to get an impairment, but industrial development that is not physically right on the river but is back some distance would not, I think, impair the basic beauty and scenic value of the river or its usability. Mr. MCCLURE. Has this area been studied? Mr. TAYLOR. I understand we have several witnesses that want to testify. Can the gentleman from Idaho limit himself to one or two more questions? Mr. McCLrm~. Has there been a study made concerning the develop- ment of the lower area as a scenic river ? Mr. FRASI~IR. There have been studies made, I think, particularly in connection with the action by the other body, by the executive branch. I am not familiar in detail with these studies. I only want to give my own personal testimony. The problem largely is to make sure that what might have been a portent for the future, the development of a rather large powerpiant which involve large numbers of barges of coal every day, that this not become the beginning of a pattern of making this an industrial basin as distinguished from. a scenic and recreational area. Mr. McCLuiu~. And to repeat, I think what you have said, you are concerned about the industrial basin, the use of the water resource itself either for travel or consumption. Mr. FRASER. Something that would be incompatible, yes. Mr. MCCLURE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser. Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much. `(Mr. Fraser's statement follows :) SThTEMENT OF HON. DONALD M. FRASER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. Ohairman and Members of the Subeemmittee, I appreci~ the opportu- nity to a~pe~r before YOU today in su'p~port of my bill, H.R. 15(J9O `the "Wild and Seente Rivers Act." This bill is identical to the one passed unanim~usiy by the Senate last August 8. I hope that this Subcommittee, the full OOmmjttee and the entire House will take similarly favorable action this seasien either on this PAGENO="0100" 86 blU or ou coinpa~ab1e 1egis1~a~ion providing a comprehensive natioiial , sys~em of wild and scen1~ rivers. My tesl~nony~ will be limited to two rivers In my State of Minnesota anid the neighboring State ~xf Wisconsin. * The first is the St. Croix. An upj~er seetio~i beitween Taylors Falls, M*inne~ota, and Gordon, Wiseo~nsin, wouid he design~ited a wild river, and the dowiistreacui section between Taylors Falls and the $ver's confluenee with the Mississippi would be ~ scenic river. The second stream is a St. Croix tributary, the Nainekagon. The section from its eonfluence upstream with the St. Croix to the clam near Trego, Wiseon~in, would be a wild river, and the section from Lake Namekagon downstream to the dam near Trego would be a ~een~e river. Other witnesses will, I know, app~ar be~fore the Subeommit- tee in support of Other proposed wild and scenic rivers, all of which are as worthy ocf ooaisidea~ation as the St. Croix and Namekagon. And when public witnesses are heiard 1aJter this month, I expect several to testify in greater detafl for the rivers in Minnesota and Wisconsin. My statement, ladles and gentlemen, will be of a general nature, beea~se I am nOt a scientist or an engineer or a professional conservntiontst. But 1 a~ deeply interested in the cause of conserving, to the best of our ability, our Nation's fast-shrinking natural resOurces. Among the cleanest and most beanti- fut rivers in the United States are the St. Croix and the Namek;agon. Cle~n1iness ~nd beauty, while increasingly rare in the mounting moi~ass of poilntksi that ~urrouinds ~s, are almost unique when found near a metropolitan ~trea. The St. Croix and its tributary only a few miles from the Twin Cities o~ ~ Minne- apolis and St. Paul. I know ~f no free-flowing and unpolluted streams anywhere else in the oo~intry : that ai~e so accessible to so many m~ajo~r ~ ci~les. Another r~asen the St.. Croix and Namekagon Should he included in this legistlatksi, I feel, is their cenitrat 1ç~eation in relation to the rest of the Unjted States. Not only are these rivers ~lose to the Twin Cities ; they are read~1y accessible, via interstate highway, railroad aud airline, to such other popula- tion centers as Chicago and Milwaukee. And, because of the' ease and speed of today's transportation systems,. they are available with only slightly more effort to all Americans. I, feel strongly that decisive ~ction Is needed to protect arOas such as tue St. Croix. I have a personal lnterest In this legislation that dates back to my childhood. N?any years ago my ~arents bought a cabin on the shores etf the St Croix near Afton, Minnesota, on the section of the river that would be d~stgt~at- ed a scenic river. I have swum, canoed, fished and shlled on the 1ow~r part ~xf the river every summer since I was a boy. Several times I have canoed down both rivers from the "white water" ~f the upper part `through the more placid Waters of the lower. Three genei~atiofis of Frasers continue to m~ake vigorous `use of the St. Croix every summer. No spot on earth means more to me and my family. The upper St. Croix and the Namekagon qualify as wild rivers because they remain in their natural state, ~ relatively unaffected by man. Large numbers of men do not take the trouble to gain access to their rugged beauty. This is ideal canoe country. The lower, scenic portion-actually a 26-mile-long lake about one mile wide in most areas-lends itself to the use of power boats of all `sizes. In a few sections there are homes and cabins. But because of the steep, heavily vegetated banks, most of these dwellings are several hundred feet from the river's edge. The water remains clear and unpolluted, and its banks remain in a natur~1 state. To go from cabin to river is almost to go from civilization to wilderness. Many Of the houses are not visible from the water. Even though there are cities along the lower river, and itidustrles within these cities, the present development has not destroyed the quality of the river. We' can and obviously should, do all we can to protect this resource. ` In order to make the river meet the needs of a growing population, more points of entry are needed. There must be more public use lands, which are available for purchase In accordance with the provisions of the bill. These provisions have been worked out carefully to protect the rights of landowners, an~ to prevent corn- mercializatlon of the area. Even on the clean and lovely St. Croix and Namekagon, time is running out. Unless Congress acts. to protect them, their high quality may start to deterioi'ate as civilization closes in on jbem. Failure to act promptly could mean ~i1ch a drop in quality that the rivers would no longer qualify for a Natio~a1' Wild and Scenic Rivers `System. Such a failure would'be a sad loss to the Nation. `Thank you. ` ` ` ` PAGENO="0101" 87 Mr. TA~rLOR. Our next witness is Eeprescntativ~ William J~. Ancier- son. I understand he can't be here, and in the ~bsence of objection, his statement will be placed in the record at this point. * ~ (The statement referred to follows :) STATEMENT OF H4~N. WILLIAM R. ANDERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON~aESS FE0M ~ . , THE STATE OF TENNI~SSEE ~ ~ Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee : I respectfully submit my state- went Qf : ~1rst, full and unconditional support for the concept of a National Scenic Rivers System ; second, preference for the plan set forth in ILR. 6588 ; and third, most earnest endorsement of the Buffalo River of Tennessee for inclusion in the National Scenic Rivers System. Risking the charge of undue presumption, I will offer my sympathetic apprecia- tion of the difficulties inherent In the venture undertaken by the Committee. There are by conservative count 141 important and eligible rivers in the United States, each with its web of substantial tributaries ; I suspect that someone sees a uniquely satisfying and irreplaceable beauty in every one of these waterways. This is doubtless, as it should be. But the Committee Is charged with the task of judging among these many rivers, tributaries and their segments to select the few areas which possess the greatest scenic and recreational value for the Nation at large. In some respects the task is akin to judging a beauty contest on the basis of medical reports, poetic testimonials and selected photographs submitted in behalf of the contestants. it has been my experience that Congressional Hearings are without exception, rich in adjectival constructions and metaphorical innovation. Nonetheless, I sus- pect that, by their nature, the Scenic Rivers Hearings will afford a remarkable opportunity to the Members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee to enjoy an unprecedented demonstration of eloquence. For my own modest con- tribution I can claim status as neither wilderness poet nor as a scientific analyst of the recreational tastes of the American people. I can only transmit the very clearly expressed views of the outdoorsmen of Tennessee and speak from my own personal observations and deep conviction. I have dwelt in cities and ships for the greater part of my life, surrounded by men and their manufactures, intensely dependent upon the accoutrements of civilization. Yet, when at last I was able to build my home I chose a sight half a mile deep in a Tennessee wilderness tract, overlooking a mile of windy water at the end ef a poor access road concerning which I would write "letters to the Editor" were it a public thoroughfare. And I count myself moi'e fortunate with each passing season to have recourse to these quiet, treeatrewn, untrimmed acres by the water. I would think it a sad commentary on the quality of American life if, with our pecuniary and natural abundance, we could not secure for our genera- tion and those to come the existence of, and reasonable access to a substantial remnant of a once great endowment of wild and seefliC rtvers;. My introduction of a Scenic Rivers Bill (H.R. 6588) is motivated by the belief that if rational governmental action is not taken very soon, vital, expansive population and ece- nonite forces will irreversibly claim these last wilderness waterways for sys- tematic exploitation in waste disposal, industrial processing and Inexpensive transportation. As a vigorous exponent of rural economic development I appre- elate very deeply the persuasive inclination to exploit any and all natural re- sources for 1~dustrial gain heedless of disfiguration wrought upon the land. The nub of the problem is that we are a people of unparalleled economic vigor striving ceaselessly for economic growth while still wishing to retain onr mag~ nificent heritage of unspoiled wilderness for enjoyment, contemplation and the Irreplaceable spiritual experience of simply wandering in the midst of a rich, undisciplined nature for a day or a week or even an hour. Somehow we must strike a balance between beneficial economic exploitation of our natural resources and our human need for reasonably accessible areas of natural beauty in which to enjoy the leisure that we earn. Where unspoiled rivers are at issue, we must move quickly or forever accept fouled, dammed or industrialized rivers as a cost of affluence. It seems that as urbanization and industrialization rapidly spread and Intensify, quickly reducing the number of fresh, lush, wilderness rivers-the human desire to see, boat on, bask and fish in such rivers growsc PAGENO="0102" 88 This legislation is an attempt to strike that balance betweet~ economic growth and the American heritage of beautiful, free-flowing rivers and stream& Among the leading cOnteliders for Selection as National Scenic Rivers, one is in my District of Middle-Tennessee. To state the matter mildly, I fully support its inclusion for preservation. as a Scenic River. It is the Buffalo o1~ Tennessee. I will leave to the very able delegations from the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association and the Tennessee citizens for Wilderness Planning the detailed presentation of the Buffalo's qualifications. Its formal credentials are impressive. Long regarded by all who have known it as the classic float stream, it was studied in detail by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and was highly recom- mended as a scenic river by that agency. The 84th General Assembly of Ten~es- see, in Senate Joint Resolution No. 24, 1965, highly recommended the Buffalo as a scenic float river and offered the assistance of various State agencies in carry- ing out a program for its development as a National Scenic River. Few rivers in America could be as deserving of preservation, and have as widespread recoin- m~ndation as the Buffalo. With head waters in Lawrence Oounty, it flows through Lewis, Wayne, Perry and Humphreys Counties before joining the Duck. I have personally inspected much of. the length of this lovely waterway which. is already popular with sportsmen, campers, canoeists and artists alike, and can make in its behalf a sincere personal recommendation. I must further commend to the attention of the Committee two other un- usually wild and beautiful streams in Tennessee for consideration in the cate- gory of rivers to be studied for possible future participation. Unlike the Buffalo both the Obed and the South Fork of Cumberland are deep gorge rivers. Both feature magnificently forested wilderness areas, outstanding fishing resources, and swift, clear waters. Due to the excellence of their qualifications, though both rivers are outside my District, I endorse their consideration for detailed study. Mr. TAYLOR. Representative Clarence J. Brown, Jr. STATEMENT OP HON. CLARENCE L BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP OHIO Mr. TAYLOR. We welcome you before our subcommittee. Mr. BROWN. It is a pleasure to be with you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee : It is a pleasure. to be able to appear before you today in support of a cause which has not only great nationwideì support, but which is so popular and extremely desirable in my own district, the Seventh of Ohio. I am here today to testify not only in support of scenic rivers leg- islation generally, but more importantly, to urge you to include the Little Miami of Ohio in any scenic rivers legislation which you may report. ~ I say that my testimony in favor of the Little Miami is more im- portant than that in favor of scenic rivers legislation only hecause I feel it has become generally recognized that legislation in this area is so desirable. I do not feel that I need spend much time on the urgency and im- portance of establishing a~ scenic rivers. system. Nor am I really here to testify in favor of any one of the legislative proposals over another, but rather to explain why we in Ohio feel that the Little Miami should be, at the very least, included in the program for study. I. WHY SCENIO RIVERS? The need for sufficient recreational areas to meet the needs of our rapidly expandihg population, largely concentrated in huge urban areas, is well chroriidled. Population estimates tell us that our rtum~ bers may double by the year 2000. PAGENO="0103" 89 P'anners and g&verninent officials at all levels tell. us that today we do n~t 1h~We. enough recreatjonal facilities. Clearly wemust make proviswns riot. :Qfl'Y to corre4~t the "recre~tiona1 gap" today, but to plan ahead so as to provide for tomorrow. ~ ~ ~ But it seems to me that the need for scenic rivers legislation goes beyond merely ~atisfy~ng our re~reationa1 needs. Our rivers are a crucial part of our : natiomd character and it `seems to be ironic that we should be willing to ruin `by our industrial and population growth one of the very significant factors in that growth-our marvelous rivers. Our few rivers which still remain in their natural state-rivers which are so much a part of our natural resources and history-should be preserved as outdoor natural museum pieces. Finally, as in all conservation or pre~ervation issues, the problem is truly "now or never." We cannot go `back, or at least not without an immeasurably greater effort and expense, to preserve what we have today. If we want to provide a recreational system more significant than crowded municipal parks, if we want to preserve a very significant factor in our American heritage, if we want to establish a national rivers system in much the same way that we have established our ad- mirable national park system, we must act now, before pollution, industrialization, and dams, have destroyed our last truly pristine river. II. WHY THE LITTLE MIAMI ? I am happy to have been able to distribute to the members of the sub- committee, in additjon to my statement, the very fine brochure entitled: "The Little Miami of Ohio-A Study of a Wild and Scenic River." The Ohio University Development Planning Institute prepared this bro- chure for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. I feel that the brochure expresses much better than I could ever do, in both words and pictures, the story of our Little Miami and why many of us in Ohio feel it should be a part of a national scenic rivers system. I hope that you will take the time to look through this brochure. ` When you do, I feel sure that you, too, will agree that the Little Miami deserves inclusion in a national scenic rivers system. The Little Miami, from its headwaters in the 7th Ohio District near South Charleston in Clark County, to its mouth at the Ohio River near Cincinnati, winds 105 miles and descends from its source elevation of 1,137 feet to `the 448-foot level. With its three primary tributaries, it drains an area of l,755~square miles on the eastern edge of an in- tensely industrialized and urbanized stretch of southwestern Ohio from Dayton to Cincinnati. In the relatively short segment proposed for inclusion in this legis- lation, the Little Miami traverses a wide variety of topography. Its floodplain varies from a few hundred feet to li~ miles. From the flat farmlands in Clark County the river plunges into a deep, narrow gorge at~ Clifton and later through steeply. wooded areas and again through gently rolling hills. Besides the many beautiful scenic areas, the river and the immedi- ately surrounding countryside is rich in historical and recreational PAGENO="0104" 90 features. Nineteen siths, from three prehistoric cultures, are located in the area near Cineinna~i, a popular tourist attraction which should be preserved. The Adena culture, mound-building Indians * dating from 1000 B.C.-700 A.D., is the oldest. The first reported white contaet with the Shawnees, then in the area, took ~l~ce around 1770 and it is reported that Oldtown, very close to the river, was the bfrthpIace of Tecumseh, famous Shawnee leader of the Indian resistance. * Mr. ASrINALL. Mr. Chairman, would my colleague from Ohio yield at this point? Mr. BROWN. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. I think we are agreed that we would like to have the Little Miami in the study section of this bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania already has it in his. We have one more witness that we would like to get to before we adjourn this morning, the only Senator that has appeared. Would my good friend from Ohio be willing to have his statement placed in the record ? We have already read it. Mr. BROWN. I would be delighted, Mr. Chairman, and if I again can have your assurance that our colleagues will have the opportunity to loOk at this pamphlet and read it, I would be more than happy to yield to whatever distinguished Senator is in the audience. Mr. ASPINALL. I would ask unanimous consent that his statement be placed in the record. Mr. TAYLOR. So ordered. The gentleman from New York. ~ Mr. KUPFERMAN. I just want to commend the gentleman from Ohio, not only on his statement but the additional material he pre- seirted to us, which so well explains the area. It helps us have a better understanding of the problem. Mr. AsPIN~i~L. May I say that the State of Ohio has asked for very little as far as national consideration is concerned, and I think they are in order at this time to ask for what our good friend Congressman Brown, whose illustrious father preceded him in the Congress, has requested. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate those re- marks about both my State and my predecessor. I should like to say one of the difficulties I had in preparing testimony in reference to this particular piece of legislation has to do with just what the Little Miami River is, what category it falls iii, because as near as I cart tell, it falls in every category which has been considered in this legislation, in some part of its traversing over the fields and gorges and wooded areas of my congressional district. And I am sure, this river, like others, which have been suggested, lies right on the edge of an urbanizing area. If no action is taken oii this river for 5 years, I am sure that the problem will be much more severe. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and appreciate your interest. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Congressman Brown. I think you have convinced us that this river should be placed in the study section of the bill. Mr. ASPINALL. If we call It a natural river, you won't object, will you? PAGENO="0105" 91 Mr. ERQw~.As1Qig~sji~ is~ô~rë4in't1i~ bjli I don't object to what- ever you call it. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thank you,~Mr. ~ Chairman. . (Mr.'Brown's statement fo11ow~ :) STATEME~T or EON. CLAI~NOE T. Eitow~, `JR., A RRPERSENPAPIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 1~IE SPATR ~ OHIO Mr. Ohairman and Members of the Oomin~ttee : It ~s a ploasure to be `able to appear before you today in suppoEt of a cause whlcli has not only great nation- wide suppoilt, but which is so popular and extremely desirable in my own dis- trict, the Seventh of Ohio. I am here today to testify not only &n support of ~cenie rivers 1geisla~tion gen- emily, but more importantly, to urge you to include the Little Miami of Ohio in any scenic rivers legislation which you may report. I say that my testimony in fgvor of `the Little Miami is more `iin~portant than that In favor of scenic rivers legisithon only because I feel it hals become generally recognized that legisia- tion in this area is so desirable. I do not feel that I need spend much time on the urgency and importance of establishing a scenic rivers system. Nor am I really here to testify in favor of any one of the legislative proposals over an- other, but rather to explain why we in Ohio feel that `the Little Miami should be,, at the very least, included in the program for study. i:. WHY SOENIO RIVERS? The need for sufficieiit recreational areas to meet the needs of our rapidly expanding population, largely concentrated in huge urban areas, is well chron- icled. Population estimates tell us that our numbres may douhie by the year 2000. Planners and government officials at all levels tell us that today we do not have enough recreational ~acilities. Clearly we must make provisions to not only correct the "recreational gap" today, but to plan ahead so a~ to provide for tomorrow. But it seems to me that the need for scenic riVers legislation goes beyond merely satisfying our recreation needs. Our rivers are a crucial part of our na- tiional character and it seems to be ironic that we should be willing to ruin `by our industrial and, population growth one of the very significant factors in that growth-our marvelous rivers. Our few rivers which still remain in their natural state-rivers which are so mueh that part of our natural resources and history-should be preserved as outdoor natural museum pieces. Finally, as in all conservation or preservation. issues, the prohleim Is truly "now or never." We can not go back, or at least not without `an Immeasurably greater effort and expense, to preserve what we have today. If we want to pro- vide a recreational system more stlgnificant than crowded municipal parks, If we want to preserve a very signilicant `factor in our American heritage, if we want to establish a national rivers system in much the same way that we have estai- lished our admirable national park system, we must act now, before pollution, 1ndustriali~ation, and dams, have destroyed our last truly pristine rivers. ` IL WHY THE LITTLE MIAMI? I am happy to have been able to distribute to the members of the subcommittee, In `addition to my statement, the very fine brochure entitled : "The Little Miami of Ohio-A Study of a WIld and Scenic River." The Ohio University ~evelopment Planning Institute prepareçl this brochure for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. I feel that the brochure expi~esses much better than I could ever do, In both words and pictures, the story of our Little Miami and why many `of us in Ohio feel It should be part of a national scenic rivers system. I hope that you take the time t~ look through this brochure. When you do, I feel sure that you, too, will agree that the Little Miami deserves Inclusion in a national scenic rivers system. ` The Little Miami, from its headwaters In the Seventh Ohio District near South CharlestOn in Clark County, to its mouth at the Ohio ~lver near Cincinnati, winds 105 miles and descends from its source eleyation of 1137 feet to the 448 foot leveL PAGENO="0106" 92 With its 3 primary tributaries, it drains an area of 1755 square miles~on the east- em edge of an intensely industrialized and urbanized stretch of Southwesi~in Ohio from Dayton to Oineinnati. In the relatively short segment proposed for inclusion in this legislation, the Little Miami traverses a wide variety of topography. Its floodplain varies from a few hundred feet to 11/2 miles. From the flat farmlands In Clark County the river plunges into a deep, narrow gorge at Clifton and later through steeply wooded areas and again through gently rolling hills. Besides the many beautiful scenic areas, the river and the immediately sur- rounding cOuntryside is rich in historical and recreational features. Nineteen sites, from 3 prehistoric cultures, are located in the area near Cincinnati, a popular tourist attraction which should be preserved. The Adena culture; mound building Indians dating from 1000 B.C.-700 A.D., is the oldest. The first reported White contact with the Shawnees, then in the area, took place around 1770 hand it is reported that Oidtown, very close to the river was the hirthplace of Tecumseh, ~ fanious Shhwnee ~ leader of the Indian resistance. Other histortcal landmarks in the Little Miami area include : the second oldest (1788) settlement in the northwest territory ; a Quaker meeting house built in 1800 which is still standing ; Olifton Mill, built in 1835 ; two early taverns frequented by stage `coach travellers, one of which, the Golden Lamb, is still serv- Ing and is known as one of the best and most famous hostelries and dining places in the Midwest ; several covered bridges and Kings Mills, formerly the site of' a large powder plant, active from the Civil War through World War II. This area was also the main line `of the pre-Civil War "Underground Railroad" in Ohio. These, and many more historical `sites, are threatened by the encroaching industrialization and "urban sprawl," the destructive bulldozer leveling ground for more subdivisions. , Local groups and citizens have taken some steps to preserve the values of the Little Miami. The Glen Helen, a 100 acre area in Greene County was a gift to Antioch College in 1929. Also in Greene County a Committee for a County Common is at work reserving 1800 acres near the Glen Helen in their natural state. Both areas Indicate the interest of preserving the scenic environment, but T question that even with such interest enough can be done without outside help. Today, however, the Little Miami and.the surrounding area are still extensively used for camping, fishing, canoeing, hiking, riding, hunting, sightseeing, and field studies for historical, archaeological, biological and geological work. We are happy in Ohio to still have such a resource-but we need help to save it. The Little Miami is within an hour's drive of the huge metropolitan areas of Dayton and Cincinnati, not to mention many rapidly growing smaller cities. If the Little Miami is not included (what i~ today the source of enjoyment for these people will be destroyed by them tomorrow). III. wuv TIlE LITTLE MIAMI AS A SCENIC aivan~ Despite my lack of eloquence in describing to my colleagues the beauty of the Little Miami, I want to close by emphasizing why I think the Little Miami belongs in Scenic Rivers legislation. The Little Miami meets the criteria I think relevant in selecting rivers for inclusion in this system. I would like to mention these en- tenia, tests if you will, for inclusion. First, preserving the Little Miami is an urgent need of southwestern Ohio. Unlike perhaps some of the rivers being considered in the Far West, the Little Miami is close to an encroaching urban area. Thus it should be included both because tomorrow may be too late and those people of the area need recreational facilities now, and will need such green spaces more desperately tomorrow. Second, the Little Miami would be an efficient, useful river to include. It is close to urban areas, so close that it can be used conveniently (if it isn't destroyed first.) Including the Little Miami would do more than preserve a scenic river; it would be a useful addition to. Ohio and the Nation. But the Little Miami is utilitarian in another manner. Rather than being exclusively "wild", or "his- tonic", or "scenic", the Little Miami within its stretches is all the types of rivers proposed; part is wild, part rich in historical features; part scenic, through pas- tonal farmland; and deep woods. In a sense, the Little Miami offers "more for the money," . . . Third, the Little Miami meets my "intrinsic" test for inclusion. No restora- tion is necessary to save it. It is now scenic and wild. PAGENO="0107" 93 Finally, I* w~u1d like to see the Little Miami included because the people of that region want it included, the local agencies want it included, and the State wants it included. The Federal government would be participating in a partnership rather than meeting continuing opposition. I am pleased to report that the State of Ohio has already passed scenic rivers legislation ; and yesterday evening I received a telegram from Fred Morr, Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, that he intends to name the Little Miami to the state system. This Federal legislation will clearly be met by state and local interest. Mr. Chairman, the Little Miami may not be as wild as the rivers of the West, but I do not think it is fair to limit wild rivers to western rivers, or rivers outside of convenient travel time from large population centers. The Little Miami is as wild as rivers flow in Ohio and is still in its natural state. The north central region of the United States seems to contaiti few of the rivers suggested for inclusion. I think that the people of Ohio should be given the opportunity to participate in this much needed program, and if the Little Miami is not included now, it may be too late. Mr. TAYLOR. We now wekome before our committee Senator Gaylord Nelson. STATEMENT OP HON. GAYLORD NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP WISCONSIN Mr. TAYLOR. Senator Nelson, it is a pleasure to have you with us. Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a statement here which I would like to submit for the record. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, the statement will be made a part of the record at this point. Senator NELSON. There are some negotiations, as you know, going on about Northern States Power's holdings on the upper St. Croix. If the chairman has no objection, I might wish to submit a brief further statement in writing on some of those points, when they are clarified, if the committee records will be held open for a while. Mr. TAYLOR. The record will be kept open in order that the Senator may put in this additional statement. Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't here-I was over in the Senate because we have got some business pending and some votes pending-so I didn't have a chance to listen to the testimony of Congressman Fraser, Congressman Reuss, and Congressman Karth, who preceded me. I am well aware that these gentlemen are familiar with the St. Croix River, and that Congressman Reuss is very familiar with the Wolf. I don't see any point in my burdening you with any comments on the Wolf. I think Congressman Reuss presented it as well as anybody, and I won't add anything to the record. I won't go into all the details of the St. Croix because I know you have already covered many of them. I will try to cover a couple of points that may or may not have been touched upon. Senator Mondale is associated with the manager of the bill that is pending in the Senate and could not leave the floor to come over here, and he asked to be associated with my remarks about the pending legislation, and about the St. Croix River. First, just as a general proposition, I feel that the concent of develop- ing a wild rivers system and a scenic rivers system is a very good, creative contribution to dealing with some of our resource problems. East of the Mississippi River there aren't any wild rivers in the true sense of the word, excepting some small streams here and there and PAGENO="0108" 94 some sthtionsin some of certain rivers east of the Mississippi such as the A11a~ash in Maine or the Wolf River in Wisconsin A good 30 miles of that ri~ wJii4~ii flOWS through. the old Menominee Indian Reserva~ tion would * qualify by arty standards as a wild river. There is no de- velopment on it at alL It is in its natural state, it is free flowing ainci it has lots of white Water. So, we east of the Mississippi, except for rivers here and there, do not have rivers that you would classify as wild rivers in the way that you would classify the Salmon or the Clearwater, for example, as wild rivers. So I think that pending bef9re you is a general concept of a wild and scenic rivers system which I think is a necessary and very impor~ tant concept to adopt by the Congress at this stage in history if we are to preserve some of the magnificent rivers that are left, both west of the Mississippi and east of the Mississippi. I sent up to the members of the subcommittee a copy of a magazine, "Wisconsin Taies and Trails," which is one of the finest magazines of it: ~ kind, :i: think, in the United States. I would just like to refer you to a couple of things. Briefly, it will give you a picture of a bit of the river. If you will refer to page 24, you will see an aerial pioture there of the upper St. Croix above Grantsburg. I was born and raised a few miles from there, and I have canoed and lived on that river half my life. That picture gives you an idea of what that terrain is like. There are a few small towns here and there along the upper river but it is beautiful, it is in its natural state, and it is a magnificent resource. If you will turn then to page 26, you are looking there at the other part of the river-the lower St. Croix-and on page 26 you see the picture of some magnificent rock gorges on that stretch of the river. This is the part of the river below St. Croix Falls, below Taylors Falls. This segment Qf the river running from there down to the confluence with the Mississippi is referred to as the lower St. Croix. That is the part that one of the Congressmen was questioning Congressman Karth about, the lower St. Croix, where there are towns and there is develop- ment. But a lot of that river looks like what you are looking at in this picture. It has spectacular scenery, the rock gorges and high moun- tains, and is quite different from the river north of Taylors Falls. The concept of the lower St. Croix in the original bill that Senator Mondale and I introduced was to provide for zoning, which the corn- munities would do themselves and to provide adequate public access. There was no intent, on my part, or on Senator Mondale's part, when we introduced the original bill which passed the Senate, to pick Up: the shoreline of the whole lower river. You are looking at shoreline:in places that is now selling from $25 to $50 a front foot. What we were thinking of in the main was that there would be local zoning to prevent d amaging the scenic beauty alon~ that river, and that the Interior De- partment would add some public access, boat launching and canoe launching places along the lower river. That differentiates it from what we were considering for the rest of the river; namely, the acquisition of 100 acres a mile in fee from the dam at St Croix Falls all the way up to Gordon, Wis., some 100 miles, of which 10 miles, on each side of the river, is owned by the Northern States Power Co. PAGENO="0109" 95 ` Now, I understand that has been discussed a bit. I would just like to add a word or twa. ~ Northern States Power Co. is a very progre8~1Ve, public-minded eor~ poration ; everybody who knows them would call them a topnotch, high-grade corporate citizen. They acquired this land a half century ago. They have preserved it without any kind of commercial develop- ment or exploitation for almost a half century. They have been inter- ested in that river as they are interested in the communities they serve. They recognize it as a great river, a grc~t asset. When I was Governor they were discussing at that time, 6, 7, 8 years ago~ back as early as 1959, I believe, with our conservation department, a program of preserving that shoreline. I believe they discussed it on the Minnesota side with the Minnesota Conservation Department. So, discussions have been underway with our conservation department and now with the Department of the Interior over a period of the last 10 years. Time and again they have demonstrated their interest in seeing thwt this river is preserved in its natural state. Their board of directors has not acted on this. I do not, of course, speak for them, but the board of directors has authorized their appro- priate vice president to carry on discussions about this with the In- tenor Department. They are meeting, in fact, today in Minneapolis for some further discussions. This will be their second meeting. If something could be worked out by which-it would be a brand- new concept but I think it is a magnificent one-by which this company would hold on to its land, to manage the land itself under the regula- tions of the Interior Department, and get the proper recognition for its efforts. I think it would be a really magnificent breakthrough and a good example which might be followed by other public-minded cor- porations around the TJnited States and help us in instances like this solve some problems in terms of resource preservation. I am hopeful that this can be worked out, but it i~ still in the discus- sion stage and I, of course, don't speak for them. Hopefully, they will have some kind of a proposal that they will be able to present to this committee prior to the markup of the bill. And that is the most I think anybody can say about it at this moment~ One more point, and that is all I think I need to make. It may or may not have been covered. ~ . In `the. Senate-passed bill, as you are aware, the idea is that 100 acres a mile could be acquired in fee which if you meandered it the same distance from the river, would be 400 feet on each side of the river, each mile. I assume the concept is that you might want 200 feet some place, and 500 another, and 100 here and there, ~ depending upon what the integrity of the shoreline of that river required, but in any event, the idea is that 100 acres a mile would be acquired by fee or ~ by easements in perpetuity. The next provision in the bill is that the appropriate Secretary may acquire easements not to exceed 220 acres ~ mile in addition to the 100 acres in fee or easement. In that case you are talking then about a strip of land 2,600 feet wide each mile or 1,300 feet on each side of the river. I just want to make one comment about this. The price estimates that Interior will give you today, if it is today that they are appear- PAGENO="0110" 96 ing, are price estimates based on the assumption that you not only will acquire the 100 acres a mile in fee but also that you will acquire easements on the additional 220 acres a mile along the whole length of the river. My own view is that it is not necessary and not desirable to ac4uire 100 acres in fee and another 220 acres in easements along the whole length of a river. Some places, yes, you protect it with easements for the extra 220 acres. Some ~ places you protect it with easements for an extra 100 acres. Some places you don't need to protect it at all beyond the first 100 acres. . ~ So all I want to make clear is that the price tag on these rivers involves the assumption which I suppose Interior had to make that the total cost if you acquire100 acres a mile by fee and 220 acres a mile by easement would be a certain figure. Actually, the cost is probably going to be less than that figure because I am sure that you wouldn't need more than half of that additional easement acquisition. I think, Mr. Chairman, that covers what I have to say on the St. Croix recognizing that you have had previous witnesses whO have addressed themselves to it. The details of the ownership along this river-county, Federal, State, and private-will be spelled out later by the Interior Department. ~, I have the figures here but they are their figures, so there is no use in me cluttering up the record with them at this time. I might make~ one more point. The public support in my State, and in Minnesota too, for this proposal is remarkable. To my kno~l- edge, there is not a single organization that I know of in the field of conservation or any other kind of an organization that has nc~tified us that they are opposed to it. We have a long list of endorsements from almost every conservation organization in the State of Wiscon- sin. We have endorsements from city councils, and chambers of corn- rnerce and so forth. This isn't to say that you may not run at some stage into a town board or county board who has reservations i~bout it or who is con- cerned because it takes laud off the tax rolls. Over the years, represent- atives * of the Interior Department have met with county boards on both sides to explain to them what this scenic river concept was, what it would do for their community, and how it would enhance the quality of living there. I think we have practically unanimous support for this proposal with, of course, some individual exceptions, but I have been amazed at how broadly and enthusiastically this concept has been sup- ported in my State. Mr. TAYLOR. Senator, we thanl~ you for a very fine statement. The bill we have before us, H.R. 8416, designates four rivers, one in Oregon, one in New Mexico, and two in Idaho, as natural scenic rivers. It places many other rivers in the study stage, the potential add'itiot~al stage. The St. Croix River is in the latter stage. Are you satisfied with that designation? SenatorNELS0N. No, I am not. We passed the bill, ~s you know, twn~e in the Senate with the St. Croix in it. Actually the St. Croix is the best studied river you have got. None of the other rivers in your bill have been studied as intensively as this one. PAGENO="0111" 97 There is need to do a little more studying to decide on some public access questions on the lower St. Croix, but that is relatively simple, I think. Mr. TAYLOR. You are requesting that the upper St. Croix be desig- nated now as a scenic river in the bill and the lower St. Croixbe left in the study stage? Senator Ni~LsoN. No. I would like to see the lower St. Croix included, too, because I am satisfied that is is a very simple proposition. The pro- position is this : When we originally introduced this bill back in 1965, the Interior people w.entout and did their study and decided upon six access points which total quite a few acres. They were authorized in the original bill not to acquire more than 1,000 acres for access points. They proposed taking much more frontage, in my judgment, than is neces- sary. I personally ~ feel that they ought to cut down on the river frontage they propose to take. Some places they propose to buy as much as a half mile of frontage. I think Interior's proposal is fine but I think there are some reasonable practical arguments against it. If they took 300 feet frontage and moved back, then, away from the river, straight back, for som0e distance and then ballooned it out into 20 acres for `some parking and for some picnic tables, they would solve the problem. You don't need a half mile of access on that river in any single place. So I think all they would have to do is look at their access points, cut down the frpn~age and cut down the acreage. It is a very simple pro'hleLrn. The protection c~f the remainder of the lower St. Croix, in my judg- ment, involves zoning to protect the scenic beauty of the Shoreline. We have `these beautiful gorges that you `have looked at here. Oh- viously you ~o'uldn't want somthody to design a beautiful house and cantilever it out over the river, which people are capable of doing and so are architects. You just want to be sure that they have a little set- back zoning, and that you don't cut down the trees on the shoreline. This is the most I think that you could expect of the lower part of that river. Now, there are access points all along that section of the river now-Hudson2 Osceola, the State park `at St. Croix Fall's, Prescott, Wisconsin, `Stillwater, Baypo'rt. Each `one of those places has access. Places like Stillwater and Hudson have marinas, `but I think it would be valuable to have same additional public accesses, probably not as elaborate as were originally suggested `by the Interior Department people in 1965. It wotild be ideal to do it that way, but I think it may be impractical to go that far. I `think it is important to include the upper St. Croix in the na- tional system because ive have a more serious prthlein in the East than you do in the West oii rivers like the Salmon or the C'learwater. This river is aibout to `be built up' ; it is not far from Minneapolis `and St. Paul, and if we wait another 4 or 5 years, we may, and probably will, destroy substantial portions of the ~ho~eiine of bOth the Nathekagon River and the upper St. `croix. I think that would be a great trage'dy. Mr. TAm0R. I don't know when I have seen more beautiful pictures than you have here o'f the St. Croix Gorge. PAGENO="0112" 98 Senator NELSON. SO1fl~ of the most beautiful scen~y in all t~1'~e Mid- west; is a~Iong ~ITLis river. * Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Califorma. Mr. JOJINSON. I have one question on the upper St. Croix, where the property is mostly owned by private enterprise, and you say cer- tam amounts of properties were necessary and you would agree to it, and then others should be taken in the way of easements instead of fee title. Do yogi know what-say the Federal Government wanted to pur- chase this other arrangement that is being talked orver and it didn't work cn~t and the Federal Governm~nt went in to purchase a certain amount of area there in fee, and then the Federal Government went in to secure easements. What would be the difference in price ~ Do you have sAlly idea? Mr. NELSON. It is a very difficult thing to estimate. It would depend upon what you are asking for, what right you are taking away from the owner with the easement. We have had in Wisconsin, I think, the original and the broadest experience with easement. We have bought 15ó or 160 miles of easements on both sides of the road running along the Mississippi River below where the St. Croix comes in. This is part of the Mississippi scenic river road concept originated by' some thoughtful people in 1919, I believe. We bought those easements and all we were asking from property owners was a scenic easement except for certain places where we bought a little land where we wanted picnic tables and overlooks. All we were saying to the owner was, we would like this preserved in perpetuity in its natural state. It remains yours under this agreement but you are selling to us in perpetuity the scenic beauty of it. You cannot cut down trees. You cannot put up a billboard. You cannot put on it any kind of a struc- ture. You could cut a tree with our consent, so to speak, so all we were buying was the scenic . beauty and in some areas where we needed it, we got some land in * fee for picnic tables and so forth. The first few miles-P-something like the first 80 miles on both sides of the Mississippi. starting down from near LaCrosse, Wis.-went for about $700 a mile, which was very cheap. We use easements in certain special situations, for example, where we find a trout stream springheads. The sprin*ghead is owned by a man and it has been in his family for many years. It is a ~ beautiful spring. It is a nice little trout stream. He doesn't want to sell it. We really don't want to condemn it, although in our~ State the bonserva- tion department has the same power of condemnation that the high- way department does except the highway department condemns and takes, whereas the conservation departmeht has to cor~denm and settle the price before they can take. We would go to these people and say, We want to preserve these springs and the integrity of this shoreline on both ~ide~ for 200 or 300 feet, and so we want to buy from you the right to protect it. You can't cut trees. You can't plat it. And hunters can use it. Sometimes we. paid halt of the fee price value of it. Sometimes we paid as high as 75 percent, but we got all we wanted out of it, It may be better than an outright purchase because the prop~rty. still remained on the tax rolls, PAGENO="0113" 9.9 Mr. JOELNSON. Row do you visualize this property adjacent to SL Croix up there ir~ the upper re~hes tha~t is owned by the power eom- pany ? Do you think that which we buy in fee and. that which we take as an easement would b~ about the same? Senator NELSON. No. It depends upon what you took. If you take in fee the first 100 acres, that is, 400 feet on each side of. the river, and you take `it in fee from any private owner who insists upon a fair market price, you would pay substantially more than you would pay for an easement behind it. However, the results of all this are going to be that everybody's backland enhances in value and the new concept in this country will be, and it is coming now, that you will protect the shoreline of our fresh water assets for public enjoyment `and you will have cluster develop- ments away from the shoreline. As long as there is public access, you are going to be selling lots 10 and 20 years from now that ar~ as valuable or even more valuable than those `on the shoreline. You can live a half mile away or a mile away from the river, and if the integrity and beauty of the river is preserved, you and I would pay more than we would to be door-to-door with a whole lot of people right along a river or around a lake. I tam hopeful ~ that we will come to some agreement with Northern States Power that will be very inexpensive and beneficial to both us, the Government, and to them, but I don't speak for them. If we can settle that 70-mile question in a fashion acceptable to the committee, I think the river is all ready to go. , If there is a slope `and you are worried about somebody building a house on it, and if you say to the owner, we would like to buy an ease- ment from you and all we want is that you, don't put any structures on it, that might be one..price. If there is property. on a nice level area and it is back away from the river a way and it looks like it might be good for development and you didn't `want them to develop it, although it Was valuable for developm~nt, that `would be another price. These two cases would be different. I think each case would have to stand on its. own. Mr. JoHNscn~. Thank you. Mr. TAThOL. Oan you say what the attjtude of the power company istoward this legislation ? That.is~the Northern; States Power Co. that owns 70 miles of the river? Senator NELSON They have been, in my judgment, very, very con siclerate of the public interest in this river and they w'ere~-long before any biil was introdueed-~-.-discussing preserving this shore1in~ with our own conservation department. Thdr desire and intent is to preserve it and they hope th'at they can work out something that is acceptable to the Oongz~ess and Interior and themselves in order t~ preserve it~ Mr. TAYLOR. Questions ? Mr. 1(txprER~tAN. `Just one~question on a related matter. In the mag- azine that you were good enough to bring before us, at pages 34 and 35 are pictures of the Wolf River and Oongressman Reuss testified on that today. Senator NELSON. Yes. Mr. KUPPERMAN. I wondered if you concurred in his request for designation for the Wolf River. 92-560-68-8 PAGENO="0114" 100 Senator NELSQN~ Yes, I do. That is ~ a really spectacular river, I think. It was up to the Menominee Indians to preserve it for all of his- tory since it was a part of their reservation. Indians have a great re- spect for nature and its resources, so nothing was built on that river for 30 miles through the reservation. The reservation then became a coutity, a few years back, while 1 was Governor. Nothing has bee~i put on the river yet. W~l1, one struc- ture that I know of. The river has been preserved. The State in anticipation that there would be a wild and scenic rivers system is now leasing 30 miles of the shoreline of that river on both sides from the Menominee Indians for $150,000 a year in order to keep it from being sold for lots. It would qualify for inclusion in this sys- tem and it is a magnificent river. I might make one more point that might be interesting to you. If you look on page 32-we had this picture in color and I ~ wish I had brought it along-on . page 32, the lower righthand corner~ you ~ see an aerial picture of the St. Croix at its confluence with the Mississippi near Prescott, Wis. When you look at it in color you see the beautiful clear blue clean St. Croix and yousee the muddy Mississippi. In black ~nd white you can even see how dramatic the difference in the quality of the water of the two rivers is. The St. Croix is just about the last river, it is the only one I can find-maybe Mr. Crafts knows of one-~ situated close to a metropolitan area in America that is still unpolluted. That is not because of planning but because Minneapolis and St. Paul grew up on the Mississippi instead of the St. Croix. Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions ? If not, we thank you for your very fine testimony. Senator NELSON. I thank you for your kindness.' (The prepared statement of Senator Nelson fellows :) STATEMENT OF HON. GAYLORD NELSON, ~ A U. S. SENATOR ~ FROM T~1~ STATE OF WISCoNSIN . S Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today. My reasons for coming here today are twofold. First, I want to endorse and support the concept of a National Rivers system to preserve and protect some of our nation's great rivers and secondly, I want to urge you to consider the inclusion of the St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers in Wisconsin and Minnesota in the initial National Rivers system. ~ This nation's great rivers are an integral part of our national heritage and have played a significant role in making this country great. Many of our gu~eat rivers-the Mississippi, the ~l' the HuUson, the Rio Grand~u, the Missouri, the `Suwanee, `the' Sus~piehanna,~ the Shenandoah-are steê~ed In his- tory and are deeply ingrained in our folklore and culture. ` S These rivers-and many more-were , the routes followed by the pioneers as they moved west, and as our great nation grew, they became the back- bone of our commerce and transportation. Beyond this, our rivers are the sources of water for many of our great cities,. and they afford many of ~ our citizens unequaled recreational opportunities. S ` Yet, ~ today most of these ` rivers are threatened by pollution which kills the fish. in them and makes them unsafe. for swimming or water skiing and ~ by tasteless development along theIr banks which destrOys * their great i~atural beauty~ We have, it seems to me, a unique opportunity to save at least some of our once great rivers by establishing a National Rivers system. We ought to take advantage of this opportunity for it might well be our last chance. The establishment of a National Rivers system would ` be an excellent com- ulement tO our existing system of parks, récreátion areas, sOàshores and lake- PAGENO="0115" 101 shores, and national forests. Public participation in outdoor recreation has increased greatly in recent years, and in the years `ahead there will be an even greater demand for recreational opportunities. The concept of a National System of rivers Is n~dther inconsistent nor in~ compatible with our concepts of park and recreational development. One of the great challenges facing us today is to make available to the public a broad spectrum of recreational opportunities. In our national recreational sys- tern, there really ought to be something for everybody. The St. Croix River-and its main tributary, the Namekagon-were studied in detail by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agri- culiture as part of their coordinated, broad-scale study, initiated in 1963, of the need to preserve a nationwide ` system of scenic or wild rivers. The con- elusion of the joint study was that the rivers were fully qualified for in- elusion in the national system. North from its confluence with the Mississippi for some 130 miles, the St. Croix River marks the boundary betweeen Wisconsin and Minnesota. At a point near Riverside, Wisconsin, the St. Croix swings into Wisconsin and meanders in a northeasterly direction to its headwaters near Gordon, Wiscon- sin. Along its upper reaches, the St. Croix is joined by an equally beautiful river, the Namekagon. The Upper "St. Croix north of Taylors Falls, Minnesota, as well as its main tributary-the Namekagon-is an outdoorsman's paradise. There are many miles of riverbank covered with mixed hardwoods and conifer forests ; along these stretches there is superb white water canoeing. Small mouthed bass and walleyed pike abound in these waters. Wildlife is abundant along the banks and adds an exciting dimension to a canoe trip along the river. The lower St. Croix, south of Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls, meanders through hills and gorges presenting some' of the loveliest scenery in the Midwest. ~Timbered gently sloping banks surround the river and its many narrow, winding ~loughs. This area has already been developed to some extent ; inclusion of this segment Of the river in the Nittlonal System would insure the protection of its scenic beauty and would develop it for broad recreational use by the public. Based on plans developed by the Department of the Interior, the proposed ~St. Croix and Namekagon National Scenic River area would consist of about 85,000 acres of land and 21,000 acres of water, including 151 mIles of the St. Croix River and 85 miles of the Nainekagon River. Of the total land acreage, about 15,000 acres is in public ownership, including State and county forests and parks. Further, there are about 8c~ unsurveyed islands in the river which are in the public. domai~i. "About 70 mil~s of the St.' Croix `River north of `Taylors Falls has been owned for more than 40 years by Northern States Power ~ Company. Northern States has not only maintained this stretch of the river in its natural state but also they have opened the area to the public for canoeing, camping ancj fishing. For their efforts, Northern States deserves the praiseot all of us. Over the years, Northern States has refused to sell or lease these lands or to ~xp1oit them in any way, and on numerous occasions in the past ten years, they ~have explored ways to preserve their holdings on the St. Croix in perpetuity for recreational uses. Northern States has, ixi the past, conferred with the Con- servation Departments of both Wisconsizi and Minnesota on how best to preserve these i~uUs ai~d cooperated fu'ly with the joint Interior-Agriculture team in its study of theriver. ~ . ` ~ . Negotiations with the company are cor~t~nuing in an effort to work out a suitable working agree~ent `between the Federal government and Northern States Power Co~npany to coyer these valuable holdings. I am very pleased to see that private industry is both interested and willing to work with the Federal ` government in the development of public recreational lands. Such a partnership would represent a significant step forward in our effcs~ts to develop quality public recreational lands and holds excitjng promise . for other such arrange- ments in the future. ` On privately held land along the upper St. Croix and the Namekagon-otber . than that owned by Northern States-the Interior Department pla~is to acquire scenic and ~creational easer~ients which would cause as little disruption of~ the existing land use pattern~ as possible. On the lower St. Cj~oix, the same recrea- tional zoning technique that has worked so well at the Cape Cod National Seashore would be utilized. In the event that zoning does not meet the Secre- ~tary's standards, the acquisition of easements rather than purchase is planned. PAGENO="0116" 102 Present ~1ans call for . six aecess points ` an the lower St. Croit and eight sites on the upper St. Croix and Namekagan. On the lower St. Croix, these sites would involve approximately 6~5 acres, pot o~e~ 20 ow~ierships and not more thaia 10 improvements. Gu the tipper river, exclusi~ve .o~f the Northern States holdings, 1,173 acres, 20 ownerships and 9 improvements are involved. Along: the whole proposed riverway, about 16,800 acres would be protected by zoning. It is critical that we m~e promptly to preserve the entire St. Oroix River. Pressures arising from the tremendous urban expansion of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul threaten this last great, clean water river in the upper Midwest. The threats of urban encroachmeilt, tasteless commercial development and pollution coupled with the wide variety of outdoor experiences which are available on the St. Croix make preservation imperative. Mr. TAYLOR. I have here statements from Members of Congress. In~ the absence of objection, they will be made a part of the record at this point STATEMENT OF HON. ALvIN E. O'KONSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGEESS FRoM TEE STATE OF WIsCoNSIN Mr. Chairman : I appreciate the opportunity to present a short statement in~ support of legislation to establish the St. Croix National Scenic Waterway in the States of Wisconsin and Miitnesota. Legislation which I introduced in `the 90th Congress on January 26, 1967, H.R. 3983, provides for the St. `Croix Scenic Waterway. The original author of the bill, United States Senator Gaylord Nelson, I under- stand will testify before this. Subco~rnttte~. ~e Is the Governor Gifford Pinchot of the State of Wisconsin, whose whole heart is behind conservation and~ wild- life projects. I am going to make my statement brief because Senator Nelson's background and interest in this project has been one of long standing and his statement will be far more effective than mine. For the promotion of Northern Wisconsin, I hope and pray that this SubcOmmittee will give approval to the legislation. I was pleased that the Chairman of the Interior Committee, Congressman Wayne Aspinail, listed the St. Croix as one of the rivers for study in the Na- tional Rivers System in his bill, H.R. 8416, and I sincerely hope that it will be put in the category of immediate inclusion in the system, especially since it is so designated In the Senate passed National Wild and Scenic Rivers :System,, S. 119. The hearings conducted by the Senate Interior Committee in April, 1965,. show wide ~upport from interested individuals, sport and wildlife and conserva- tion groups in the local and state area, as well as from all major national con- servation organizations. Mr. Chairman, 1 belIeve that the St. Croix River and Its tributary, the Name- kagon, fit very well the declaration of policy In Section 1(b) of H.R. 8416 that "certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstanding remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-floiving condition, and that they and theif immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoym~t of present and future generations." Our precious heritage of natural and unspoiled beauty and unpolluted streams. once exhausted and destroyed, can. never be replaced. We are now spending mil~ lions of dollars and thousands of man-hours iii efforts to restore the Potoma~ River In our nation's Capital, the Great Lakes, and other Important waterways to some degree of their original beauty and purity. We have a golden opportunity to save the few remaining scenic and wild rivers as part of our nation's heritage for this and coming generations. Some rivers are work th~e!rs, like "01 Man River," the commercial and indus- trial MissIssi~pi. Others, like the St. Oroix axid Its `scenic tributary, the Name- kagon, should be enjoyed for their beauty and recreational aspects alone. Many people have calind the St. Oroix the last clean r1F~r In the United States. With Its close proximity to the large metropolitan areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul, as ~el1 as to the smalle~' cities In Northwestern Wisconsin, it provides an easy access to neuntless hour of boating, fishing, camping and other reereatlohal pur- suits tor young and old alike. PAGENO="0117" 103 Mr. Chairman, the 10th * District ~f Wtseousin wMcii I represent ar~d through which most o~ the St. OrYix and Its trtbutary, t1u~ Namekagon, flow, is an area which is pulling itself upby its bootstraps. Its onoe g~reat stock of va1uabl~ tim- ber has been cut ; its mineral resources have been sadly depleted ; its farm land, which has never provided too fertile a soil for effi~c1ent a~ieulti~re, cannot sup- port successful farming operations. Yet~ this ~ area has gone from a depressed area to one of increaaing self-sufficiency. The recreation industry, with its tour- 1Fst expenditures, has contributed Immeasurably to the ecOnomic growth and stability of the area. Ki~piiig the St. Croix ahd the Name1t~get~ a~ scenic riv-ers is vital to the economic well-being of the area and Its residents. I sincerely hope that this Subcommittee, the full Interior Committee ~nd this Congress will unite in "Saving the Scenic St. Croix." At this time, I would like to list some of the local area and state groups which are supporting the St. Croix as a scenic river, along with sumbitting a copy of a Resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Washburn County ,on January 10, 1967. The list of organizations and the Resolution follow: Wisconsin and Minnesota State Departments of Conservation Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Wisconsin Resources Conservation Council Wisconsin Farmers Union Wisconsin State Division of the Izaak Walton League Wisconsin Federation of Women's Clubs Save the St. Croix, Inc. Five County Development Group of Ashland, Bayfleld, Douglas, Iron and Frice Counties Hayward Lakes Resort Association Southern Bayfield County Sportsman's Club Ashland County Civic Club St. Croix Alliance of Conservation Clubs 4-County Corners Sportsm&n's Club Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission PROPOSED REsoLUTIoN , Sr. Cnoxx NATIO1~~AL SCENIC RIVERwAY, WASHBURN COUNTY, Wis., JANUARY 10, 1967 Whereas, the St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers flowing within and along the western boundary of the State of Wisconsin and through Washhurn County in the State of Wisconsin and through adjoining counties of Douglas, Bayflield, ~Sawyer, Burnett, Polk, Pierce, and St. Croix Counties, Wisconsin ; and, Whereas, the region has experienced economic decline and significant losses of population over the past 15 years, and due to the decline in the lumber, mining, and agriculture industries, the area must now look, in part, to the growing recreation industry for economic growth ; and, Whereas, the St. Cro4x and Namekagon R4vers co~prise more than 200 miles ~of unpolluted, scenic, and undiistth~béd Wild riVer and scenic riverway ; an4, Whereas, these areas are of great' scenic and historical value and possess a high value to the Nation, to Wisconsin, and to Washhurn County as examples of unspoiled areas of great natural beauty, which are used by large numbers of Wisconsin and non-resident visitors each year for outdoor recreation and physical and spiritual refreshment ; and, ~ . Whereas, these areas are within easy traveling distance of over 50 million people, and the development of outd~or recreation resources within the proposed St. Croix River National Scenic Riverway will mean additional tottrist expendi- tures, the establishment of direct Federal employment for both permanent and seasonal johs and the generation of many more jobs In the tourist service indus- try ; and, Whereas, the establishment of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway would preserve the scenic and historical beauty of these fine rivers in perpetuity for Washburn County and Wisconsin citizens and hideed the citisens of the Natloii and for future generations, stimulate the development of an outdoor recreation industry, provide new jobs and new sources of income to people in the area, lenefit the people of Wiseon~sin and the N~ation, who Visit these areas each year, and over the long run enhance the local property tax base b~ attracting new summer home development by persons desiring to use Washburn County's unspoiled lakes and wild rivers; PAGENO="0118" 104 Be i~t th refor& resolved, b~the Wa~hbürn ~óunty~Beard of Supervtsörs; that they favor legtsl*ation ~p~evidiñ~ for the ~staliltshn~ent' of a St. Croix River National Scenic Riverway in the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ThNGEt~L, A REP1~ESENTATIVE TN CONGRESS FROM PIlE SPATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for the record, my name is John P. flingell and I am a Member of Congress from the Sixteenth District of Michigan. I welcome this opportunity to present my statement in support of the bill, H.R. 493, which I introduced on January 10, i9~7. The purpose of my bill can best be described, I believe, by quoting from President J!ohnson~s message on Natural Beauty. The President said : "~ ~ * the time has also come to identify and preserve free-flowing stretches of our great scenic rivers before growth and development make the beauty of the unspoiled waterway a memory." The need for Congressional action is urgent. As Secretary of Interior Stewart L. Udall said in his report to Congress, "The time to act is now, before it is too late." A study launched by the Department of Agriculture in 1963 reported that we have in the United States approximately 100,000 miles of rivers and tributaries that average a flow of at least 550 cubic feet a second. But the truly wild, un- spoiled river is almost a thing of the past. T1~ere are, however, several free-flowing rivers or segments that still retain enough of their original character, or which can be restored, to provide the distinctive type of outdoor enjoyment and inspira- tion that millions of Americans seek every year. Many of these waterways also have historical significance. In the era of early settlement and exploration, they were the pathways used to open up the country. Under the provisions of my bill, these historical values would be preserved and protected. In drafting H.R. 493, I purposely made it broad in scope, broader In fact than some of the other scenic rivers bills that have been introduced. My bill designates segments of 16 rivers as scenic river areas ; whereas, some of the other bills include fewer rivers. In addition, I want to point Qut that HR. 493 provides for orderly classification and subsequent development of the scenic rivers included. It also provides for systematic additions to the system over 5 and 10 year periods. At this point, I think we should carefully consider the growing demand for outdoor recreation and open space, for these factors are an important part of the scenic rivers proposaL In the United States we' anticipate that by 1975, water- based recreation needs will increase by 170 percent over what they were in 1900. and by 400 percent by the year 2000. Tn discussing this same challenge, Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman had this to say : "Every year, ~ 9 out of 10 Americans-some 175 million of' us- are on the move in search of outdoor fun-places to picnic, swim, hunt, fish, play, or just to relax and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine. Great as the demand for such facilities already is, we expect it to triple `by the end of this century. "This growth will flow from four major factors : (1 ) population, expected to nearly double by the year 2000 ; (2) disposable income, likely to quadruple ; (3) leisure time, to increase by one-third ; and (4) auto travel, headed for a fourfold increase over present levels." This, the Secretary said, is the dimension of therecreation challenge. While affirming his belief that the challenge can and will be met, he warned, "There is one sure `way to fail to meet it-that is by attempting to resolve the recreation challenge by itself. We' cannot~ meet it piecemeal.~ We can adequately meet it only in the context of the total environmental challenge." Suburban sprawl and megalopolisare also serious problems. Every year we are losing two million acres of rural area to urban use. The bulldozers and sub- dividers are gobbling up green space and converting it to jungles of asphalt and concrete at an alarming rate to provide for the population pile up. Somehow we must find a way to strike a balance. Somehow we must find a way to retain a part of "America, the Beautiful" while there is yet time. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I see our scenic rivers as a vital part of Amerh~a's future-a vital part of Countryside, U.S.A. Therefore, I urge enactment of HR. 493 to assure unspoiled, unobstructed waterways for all of us, now and for those to come in the years ahead. PAGENO="0119" IOö STATE~INT OF How. ALBI~RT. H. Qun~, A R~TATIv~ IN CONGRESS FROM THI~ STATE OF MINNESOTA Cihairman Taylor and distinguished members of t~ie Subcommittee, it is a priv- ilege for me to have this opportunity to appear before you today and to express my wholehearted support for pending legislation designed to reserve and preserve certain of our great riverways and their adj~cent lands by establishing a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. . As you know, I have authored and introduced a bill identified as H.R. 6289. to establish the St. Oroix National `Scenic Riverway in my OWfl State of Minne- sota and in neighboring Wisconsin. It is my understanding that the purpose of my legisla1~ion can and will be accoini~lisbed ~ with the passage of the National. Wild and Scenic Rivers System legislation now under consideration by this body. For, with the refinements in definitions and classifications that have been made since the Senate approved legislation to create the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway during the last session of this Congress, it now appears more appropri- ate to include this proposal as an integral part of any National Rivers System. The expansion of the term "wild" river and the addition of the "scenic" river concept are wise and certainly essential if we are to accomplish our goal of maintaining certain of our great rivers in their natural and unspoiled state for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The St. Croix arid its tribu- tary, the Namekagon River, possess unique scenic and natural values that qualify them for inclusion with each of these respective categories. The peculiar problems of satisfying simultaneously public recreational interests and protecting local property rights and the promoting of local and State development interests can be resolved, it seems to me, by designating the lower St. Croix as a "scenic" river ~tn'd the upper limits as a "wild" river-with the appropriate development of each. This dual designation of the St. Croix and its Namekagon Tributary and their proposed inclusion in a National Rivers System continue to enjoy widespread support in Minnesota. Minnesota authorities are anxious to cooperate with their Federal counterparts in a joint effort to preserve the natural attributes of this riverway. I resp&~tfully urge, therefore, that the Subcommittee give favorable consider- ation to legislation to establish a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System--a system that will assure that the St. Croix River and other great natural 1and-~ scapes will continue to be sources of scenic beauty and recreational pleasure- and will not vanish into oblivion. STATEMENT OF HoN. JoHN A. BLATNIK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FRO~sf TIiIi~ STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. Chairman, 1 appreciate tI~It~ oppoi'tunity to testify in sup9ot-t of a National Scenic Rivers System which would include the St. Croix River. We all know and recognize the great importance of protecting and preserving our rivers WTith special beauty for future generations. I congratulate the committee for hold- ing these important hearings. These hearings provide a real forum to `air the opinions of `those affected. Your hearings represent a cross section of witnesses. They Include people who actually use the river or intend to use It. These wit- flosses include industrial as well as recreational interests. The outdoorsmap's paradise aspect of this scenic river has been described by my colleagues; Rei~é~it'at4ve'Fraser, S~ihtors Nelson and Mondhle and others. I agree that there is a definite need to protect and preserve such scenic beauty on certain portions of the river. Certainly the clean water of the St. Croix is a rarity in 168 when we find virtually all of our rivers poisoned in some degree by pollution. I have long fought for conservation of our natural resources. The St. Croix truly represents one of the most scenic' waterways in the Midwest. Our Special Subcommittee to inspect flooded areas in the Upper Mississippi River Basin visited this area in early 1965. The estimate at that time of the total flood dam~ ages including emergency costs was about $5 million in the St. Croix Basin. There is currently a study under way to determine the feasibility of flood con- trol improvements in this area. I mention this only by way of pointing out the complexities of conservation and water management. I feel' certain that the thorough hearings that are being held on this subject matter will result in an excellent bill when it is reported out of committee. Many Ameri'cahs will be grateful for the foresight that is being displayed by this committee. PAGENO="0120" 1o~ $~AP1~M~4T OF~ HOi~. ~ OHAETJF~ E. B~~ETP, A ~EM1~SENPATIVE i~ CO1~GRi~s FROM T~Ig STAP~~ o~ FLORIDA Mr. Ohairman, I ~ppreciatè this Dppc~tunity to appear before the Cothmitt~, bearing testimony on legislation to establish a Nati~i?ia1 Scenic Rivers System. ~ As a lORg-tlme su~portei~ ~nd s~ponser ~f ccsflse ~ r~atión l~g!s1ation, * the Wilderness Preservatirn System and the Land and Water~ Coaservation Act, I am in complete agreement with the objectives of tim senle riVers proposaL I b~lleve the 1e~%~ation. being discussed to4ay before the Cohit~ittee is eQlupttrable to those two landmark Acts. Congres~ should enact `a scenic rivers bill at the earliest `possible moment. I believe as President Johnson said in 1965 in his message to Congress on Natural Beauty that it was time `to ". . . preserve free flowing stretches of our great scenic rivers . . As a life-long Floridian, I have a parochial Interest in seeing one particular river in the United States preserved for and enjoyed by future generations in its present state of natural attractiveness. Rich in scenic beauty and archeological and historical values, it is ualque in maziy. of its fine qualities, being the most southern of all the rivers under consideration. This is the Suwannee River, immortalized by Stephen Foster in his famous folk song, "Old Folks At Home." He made the Suwannee famous throughout the world, and more than any other stream in America, it is close to the hearts of all of us. "The Suwannee River receives its initial flow of water from the Okefenokee Swamp, gains additional water from such strange names as the Alapaha aad Withiacoochee Rivers," the Florida Development Commission observes, "and knives its way through beautiful banks of limestone, adds clear, cool water from innumerable springs, takes on more from the Santa Fe River and flows lazilyinto the Gulf through a swamp area much thesame as that which gave It birth." While I am not the Member of Congress who represents the Suwannee River area at this time and cannot speak for the people who live in that area, I did once represent the counties through which the river flows when I first came to Congress and still have a great interest in that part of Florida. The Suwannee flows through eight counties in Florida, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Madison and Suwannee. Historically, all of these counties have derived their main source of income from agriculture. During the last thirty years the increase in population has not kept pace with Florida as a whole, and from 1940 to 1950 the area actually experienced a population decline. The Suwannee River valley should become a National Park, for some very basic reasons and should be part of the National Scenic Rivers System. First, it meets the requirements of a scenic river. It is free-flowing, in an area not over populated and has outstanding beauty, recreational possibilities, and historical richness. Second, it is the only Florida river being actively considered by the Na- tional Park Service and Congress to be `included in the scenic rivers legisla- tion. I understand proposals have been made by Florida conservation groups to also include for study the Wacissa River, in Jefferson County in North Florida, and the Oklawaha River in the Ocala National Forest in Central Florida ; and some have suggested the source or southerly reaches of the St. Johns River. I support these study proposals, also. Third, the area is not over developed and there is no indication that it ever will be. There are only two towns of large size on the river's banks, White Springs and Branford, both with populations under 700. The total population of the twelve counties the Suwannee runs' through (eight in Florida, four in georgia) was 123,508 in 1930 and 125~45O in 1960. * Fourth, the Suwannee River area which lies in `the middle . part of Florida, the nation's first tourist state, is thus not far from the traveling public. As the National Park Service reports in its economic study prepared by the Uni- versity of Florida : "There are few other areas remaining in the United States, if any, which provide as extensive a river and forest area In the natural state which are also in a location which is readily accessible to a very large proportion of the population of the nation." Almost 90 percent of the tourists coming through Georgia and into Florida move over highways that bring them across or close to the Suwannee River. These tourists and visitors PAGENO="0121" 107 are usu~lly on thelir wa~y'~ to the great population ~ areas of our state, in the central and south portions of Florida. A thiwanhee River N~ationa1 Park would be of tremendous benefit to all Americai~s. The Suwannee River ha~ national interest, not just local and state support. A check of vehicle license tags mdi- cates that about half the people who use our State parks come from other states. A Suwannee River National Park would follow the same pattern. The full development of the Federal Government would have significant and beneficial influence on the area. The University of Florida economic study estimated that' over one million persons would visit the Suwannee National River Park and spend $27 million annually, thus opening a new business in the area. The Suwannee River as part of the scenic rivers system has wide support in Florida. The Florida Audubon Society has submitted a statement to the Committee in behalf of the legislation, and the Florida Federation of Garden Clubs and the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs have repeatedly expressed their support of the pending bills. The Florida Conservation Council, corn- posed of 13 state~wide groups, urged the passage of legislation on a Suwannee National River Park on March 6, 1968. I know there is some active and vigorous opposition to the Suwannee pro- posal, but I believe this would diminish or die if a more exact and reasonable proposal could be made as to what definitely would be done. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful the Committee will report a bill establish- ing a National Scenic Rivers System, including at least for study the Suwanne~ River, one of America's great rivers, which should be preserved for the fu:ture enjoyment of all our people. Thank you. STATEMENT OF EON. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, A REPEESENTATIVE IN . CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING . ~ Mr. Chairman an issue on which there is virtual unanimity among Wyoming- Ites in public office is that of the exclusion of the upper Green River of Wyoming from any legislation calling for creation of a wild or scenic rivers system. I appreciate this opportunity to articulate my concurrence in this strongly held sentiment and to ask this committee to remove the Green River from any reference whatsoever in any legislation that might be forthcoming from your deliberations. , ~ Water and the latitude to use it judiciously for both economic development and scenic enhancement are of immeasurable imlortance to Wyoming's future. Already o~r entitlemeftt to waters of the Colorado River system is imperiled by the 1egislat~ve progress' of the lar~d debated Central Arizona Project. We cannoi look optimistically to the decades ahead if that perspective reveols that the niver~ vital to our growth are locked tight into a system which preclttdes their use by the State through which they flow. If the Green River of Wyoming is included in a wild or scenic rivers system I fear the effect upon our use of Colorado River waters in our future growth as a State. I respectfully ask of this committee that it cousider how well Wyoming has respected the natural beauty and freedom of flow of this river, and trust to the continued good judgment of Wyoming and her people by agreeing in your coun- cils not to in~1nde the Green River in any legislation before you. STATEMENT OF HON. DON FLTQUA, A REPt~ESENTATIVE IN CONCRESS FROM ~ THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, last year I told the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Corn- mittee that the preservation of our nation's scenic wonderlands in their natural state for füturè generations Is a laudable undertaking. The fact that this nation has now ~a~ss~d 200 million In population and will continue to grow at an increas~ ing rate makes It imperative that we increase our e~orts to wisely preserve a part of our natural heritage. The problem which confronts my people with regard to the Scenic Rivers Bills now pending before this committee is that no one, and I emphasize the phrase "no one", knows what would happen if the Suwanee River should be include~1 in thjs measure. PAGENO="0122" 108 Thus, it has been virtually iiupo~th1efor~ an~rone to come up with an opinion as to thewisçlorn of the .piSn~ There will always be problems aiid many cases of hardship when you consider measures of this tfle, but it seems to me that the problems for our people are magnified. ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ The Suwannee River was placed in the original bill without consultation and the National Park Service has never been able to tell the people ~n my district exactly what they can and would do. I am not attempting to find fault but I think It right and proper to point out that the Park Service officials have ~ reportedly made . conflicting statemeuta ~ abput ~ certain basic ~ portions ~ of . the bill. This was not done from malice or a deliberate attempt to delude anyoue~ but was rather done because these officials were placing their own interpretation on the bill and acted in what they thought was good faith. I want to point out that my own relations with the National Park Service have been excellent and they have made a genuine attempt to help me resolve some of the personal problems which this legislation has caused me. My purpose in testifying is to ask that you not consider. any of, the pl'oposals which would take the Su,wannee I~iver inthe activecategoryAmmediately.. There are a number of bills which place it in the study category and this is much more preferable to our people. The National Park Service earlier this year sent a survey team into the area to survey the stream and they tell me that we should have the benefit of their report about the latter part of May. This will mark the first tinie that we will have had in writing detailed plans as to what would be done with the river if it should become a part of the Scenic Rivers system. It should be pointed out that the Suwannee River is almost entirely privately owned, with the exception of very small parcels owned by the State o~f Florida and a few county governments. I doubt that all of this government owned acreage wou1'd-e~ceedone percent of the'area involved. I urge you not to report out a bill which would include the Suwannee River immediately. This would make a mockery of the gool faith efforts of the Gover- nor of Florida and the Nationial Park Service, in full and complete cooperation, to present a detailed plan that our people can consider and give us the benefit of their thoughts as to changes which might need to be made to meet local conditions. At this point I would like to repeat a portion of the statement I made to the Senate Committee last year: "Last year several measures were introduced which were termed the `Wild Rivers BilL' Unfortunately, none of the authors nor any governizient agency showed the two Oongressmen in Florida through whose districts which the Suwannee River flowed the courtesy of informing them ocf this action. I do not question the right of these gentlemen to introduce such legislation, but I feel it would have been more considerate had they informed us of this act, so that we might have better informed ourselves. That, however, is water over the dam. The measures which have been presented in the 90th Congress contain the Suwannee River to some extent. Either the Suwannee is to be included at the outset, or it is to be studied for possible inclusion. When I found out that the bills had been presented to the 8~th Congress, I did not grab a `soap box' and denounce the program, but diligently tried to in- form myself. I met with officials of the National Park Service to discuss this program and what could he expected if it should pass. Since it so directly affected the economy of a large portion of my district in Florida, I asked that a large public hearing be held. At this session many ques- tions came up and much heated debate followed. It was at this point that I asked that a series of eight meetings be held at a later date, so thfit the National Park Service could answer the questions which had been posed and which could not be answered at that time in full. Generally speaking, the people of my section are reasonable men and women. I talked with large numbers of them. who said they thought maybe the Idea had merit, and wanted to know what could be expected if this legislation passed. I might point out that there is virtually no Federal land along the. Suwannee from the point of its ineeption in Georgia to the point whe.re it empties into the Gulf of Mexico, after meandering through the northern section of Florida. I have received a large number of letters both pro and con regarding this measure. Many who have never read the bill demand that we blindly support the PAGENO="0123" 109 nieasur~whi1e oth~rs ~io1~r~t1y ~ppos~d; deman:d tlutt we see that it is removed from consideration. I ththk t1~ geut1~meii o~. the comiuittee know as well as :i that I do not have the power to ac~omplish the latter." What I dG hope to accomplish is to commend the idea of preserving certain of our nation's streams in their natural state. This concept has' my support. I rely on the Representatives from the other stream~ which are being con- sidered to point out to you that peculiar problems which might be attendant to such legislation in their areas. The pe~ple :in my~ di~trict~ are rea~sonable men and women and thuy genuinely want to know what would happen to their beloved river if it should become a part of the Scenic Rivers system. This the National Park Service is going to do for them in about 90 days. I believe that you will agree with me that they should have this opportunity nnd that you will leave the Suwannee in a study category as it appears in the Senate bill, rather than considering it among the first streams in the nation to be included. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. FULTON, A REPRESENTATIVI~ IN CoNGREss , FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee : There is a great need that action be taken now, before it is too late, to assure that areas of our nation are preserved in their natural state. Failure to take such action could mean that future generations will be denied a part of their heritage . . . the opportunity to share in their nation's past. HR. 15429, the Scenic Rivers Act, will assure that certain of our free-flowing rivers will be retained in their natural state. This legislation has my strongest ~support and endorsement. . My State of Tennessee hasbeen~fortunate in being the center of vast electric power facilities through the harnessing of our major rivers by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Our area is grateful for this. However, we also recognize the need to set aside certain of our rivers to be enjoyed for their natural beauty. Tennessee is also fortunate that there still exists within its borders a number of water systems which meet all the specifications outlined by the Secretary of the Interior to qualify them to be a part of the Scenic Rivers Areas. One such river is the Buffalo, from its beginning in Lawrence County to its confluence with the Duck River. Two deep-gorge rivers, thq Obed and the' Big South Fork of the Cumberland, are also imminently qualifie~ for inclusion in the Scenic Rivers Act. The Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning has effectively detailed the qualifications, as well as the cOst estimates, for inclusion of these waterways in their testimony before this Committee. I fully ~ntIorse the efforts of the Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning, ` and it is my hope that the Committee will include these three Tennessee rivers under the provisions of H.R. ~ 15429. I have introduced legislation which would include the Buffalo River in the Scenic Rivers Act. At this time, I would like to i~ecommend that the Obed and the South Fork of the Cumberland also be included, at least in the category of rivers to be studied for possible future participation.' Mr. TAYLOk. This appears to b~ as iriueh a~ we can do at this stage, and the subcommittee will meet again a~ ~»=. The committee stands adjourned. (Thereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to recon- vene again this afternoon at 2 p.m.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. TAYLOR. The subcommittee `will come to order. Our first witness this afternoon is Dr. Edward C.Crafts,.Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department of Interior. Dr. Crafts, again we welcome you to the subcommittee. PAGENO="0124" 110 STAT~T OP &~WAED 0. 0RA~S, ~I~EC~T~R; BUREAU OP OUT~ DOOR ArrON P4Z~MWT or TBR I1~T~MOR Mr. Ci~r'rs. Thank you, Mr. Chairnr~an, itis good to be he~tre again~ I have a pr~p~red~ staten~ient which I believe hasbeen made avail-. able 1o the ~ members. It is a ra~ther lengthy statement. I would like it to appear . in full in the . record, and I would like to read ra~ther s~ivb~tantiaI. po~$.ions of it, beoause I think it may help tG clarify some of the questio~is raised this morning, and to illustrate some the major differences between the various pending bills. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, the statement will be printed. in full in the record. Mr. CRAFT. This is a complex set of bills, and a number of comp'ex questions involved. I hope that this testimony may prove helpful to the committee. I am appearing today on behalf of the Department, representing the Secretary. He asked me to express to you his deep regret that he could not adjustlongstanding out-of-town commitments for today and tomorrow in order to appear himself. I know hehad intended to do so,~ because he had told me this-he told me to prepare this draft of testi- mony before he learned the date of the hearings. The Senate passed a billin the first session of this Congress to estab- lish a wild and scenic rivers system. That, coupled with the early con- sideration of the pending bills by the House committee in this session,. is deeply appreciated by the administration. The committee is to be congratulated for so doing~ particularly in view of the fact that it carries one of the heaviest legislative sch~duies of any House corn- mittee. I think I can skip a good bit of the second page, insofar as reading it goes, because it reviews the origin of the scenic rivers proposal in- sofar as we are aware of it. It came out of the recommendation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1962. I should point out that the Departments of Agriculture and Interior in 1963 began about a 2-year study of a large number of rivers with a view to ultimately coming before the Congress for appropriate legislatioti. Initially there were some ~5O rivers that were screened. That was cut down to 67, which received preliminary field reconnaissance, and some 22 that received more detailed study and consideration. While there is some swithhing back and forth between the 22 and the 67, for the most part, the rivers named in what I shall subsequently refer to as the four major bills before the. committee come out of those 22 rivers. So I hope that this study by the two departments has proved helpful. In January 1967, President Johnson repeated a hope expressed earlier that some of our scenic rivers. might be preserved in their natural state. In February of last year, the administration sent a proposal to the Congress-somewhat revised proposal. But prior to this time-and I wish Mr. Saylor were here, because I think he felt in an earlier hear- ing this year that I had things a little mixed up, and I did at that time,. but I have them straight now. Prior to the administration's proposal PAGENO="0125" 111 of February 18, Congressmen Sttylor t~nd Dingell introduced scenic river bills on the 10th of January, iii the first session of this Congress. Mr. Saylor's bill in the 89th Congress and his bill ofthis year were, I believe, the first bills to turn from the thrm "wild rivers" to "~cenic rivers." ~ ~ ~ . Senator Church reintroduced the bill as it passed the Senate, and in clue course last August the Senate again passed a bill by unanimous vote. There is a slight error in the testimony. It indioate~ the vote was 72 to 0. I am told it was 84 to 0. That bill is before you today. Prior to this, however, Mr. Aspinall, after, I am sure, the most care- ful consideration of all the various pending propo~als, introduced H.R. 8416 in April. }i.R. 61~6, which Mr. Re.u~ ,~ponsored, ~ is the bill identical to the one submitted by the administration. For purposes of simplicity; I will refer to* it as Mr. Reu~s' bill, although sometimes this is objected to by members. I notice he did . tiot indicate it was introduced by request. So I hope he would ` not object to my referring to it in that manner. ~ ~ . ~ Therefore, the fotir bills that to me appear to be the major bills before the committee are the chairman's bill, Mr. Saylor's bill, the Senate-passed bill, and Mr. Reuss' bill. They are all different in various aspects. I call those major bills, without ~ny intent to play down the various other bills that are before you, Or the bills that relate to individual rivers. Then on page 4 of my testiiinôny, I list what we believe to be the major documents before this committee inso~fer as~ they emanate from the Interior Departm~nt. The first item whichI list i~the Secretary's letter of February 18, 1967, which submitted the administration bill. Although the letter to Mr. Aspinall of Augi~tst 14 which is in the record, was dated a few days after the Seiiá~te action of August 9, it was under preparation som~ time befoi~e. As a consequence, the ad- ministration has not expressed a position~of preferende between S. 119 as it passed. the Senate and the various pending House bills~ I hope to indicate some of those major differences, and can answ~ questions on those differences. ~ Mr. ASPINALL. Let me understand what you mean, Doctor. You mean that although the Secretary or the achuinistration has not taken any position upon~ these. diM~rent~es,~ yoti wish to point them out to us? Mr. Cii~&iri~s. Thatis correct. ~ ~ . Mr. AsrINAu~. But you do not wish totak~ any position on them? Mr. CRAFTS. Yes, I think I cantake a positionon th~m,Mr. Aspinall. Mr. AsrIN~LL. All right. `~ ` ~ ~ ~ , Mr. CIIAFTS. Yes. : * ~ ~ * ~ . Mr. TAYLOR. Go ahet~d., ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ , ~ Mr. CRA~TSI The attachrne~t to~ my testimo~y which i~ of some 1èn~th foflowsthe last page of the t,~age~ 1~ It is a suthmáry of the major differences betweeii these fom~' bii1s~ We~ ha~re an index of the subject matter covered, which may be helpful for reference purposes. When we get to the questio~i and a~nswer ~art~ I will probably be re- PAGENO="0126" 112 ferring to that, and will ~ try to ~ explain any of our statements there. I,t is the first reaJ comparison that 1 am wware ofthat has been put before the c,ommittèe with rcspect to these four major bills. We' at- tempted to cover not only the obvious differences:, such as the differ- ences in the rivers to be designated in the system, and those which would be earmarked for further study, but also methods of boundary designa- tion, administration of the rivers, State and local participation, th~ effects on water rights, mining, FPC, acquisition, condemnation an- thorities, other uses, such as timber harvesting and grazing and so on, as well as the relationship of `the costs of the different bills to the poten- tial of the Land and Water Conservation Fund as ordered reported out by this committee, I believe, yesterday or the day before. And I can get into that.~~ I see little point in describing the bills. The cogent differences are summarized in the back. But it seems to me the most significant questions which frequently come up are (a) the differences in the rivers to be immediately desig- nated, (b) the more significant recommendations of the Department for amendments in the chairman's bill, H.R. 8416, and (c) the signif- icant differences between the Senate-passed bill and H.R. 8416 if amended as the Department recommends. On the nextpage isa littie~tabii}arsummary o~ the four~bills,'which may be helpful. The first column shows the difference in the number of rivers for immediate designation. They' range from four in Hit. 8416 to a maximum of 16 in H.R. 90 ; in the next column estimated costs of acquisition for the designated rivers ; followed by the percent that esti- mated fee title acquisition cost would be of total acquisition cost ~ the estimated cost of . development, But we do not have in here, and I am not sure we could get it until we came down a little more specifically on boundaries-maybe we could give you an estimate if you want it- the annual maintenanceand operation costs. The acres to be acquired, both in fee. and less than fee, are shown, and the comparison between the different bills as' to the number of rivers to be studied is likewise contrasted. It seemed to me that this little one-page sheet summarizes thcd'iffer- ences pretty effectively-the number of rivers, estimated cost, estimated land involvement, and the rivers which would be ordered for st~idy within a specified time. The foflowing page relates only to the rivers named for' immediate andoah River down appear only in Mr. Saylor's bill. I would like to point out some significant differenèes in mileages between the bills, even though the names are the s~tme. So the' fact that the Saint Croix-Namekagon `is named in the Senate-passed bill, and i's likewise named in Mr. Sayl'or's bill, the two bills provide fo'~ a bon- siderable difference in mileage. The same applies as between the ad- ministration bill and Mr. Saylor"s bill on the Oacapon. The Illinois appears in the designated category only in the Senate-passed bill. Even in the first four rivers,, there is `a 1O-ithle difference in boundary of the Rogue as between-two bills have 85 miles, `two bills have "95 miles. There is a' very substantial difference in the Salmon. This i~ prob- PAGENO="0127" 113 ably the most ou~stamding ~ ~ dLifferer,ce, the rni1~age ranging from a mithmum of 105 inthe SenatG-pa~d~bi1i, to 340 in Mr. Saylor"s bill. The Chairman's bill and Mr. Reuss' bill `are the same. On this list, those rivers for immediate de~signation from the Shen- andoah River down appear only in Mr. Saylor's.bill. The point here is ~ha~t the riv~rs `are quite differemt not only in name, but quite differemt in length. I think referring back `to the t'thle ofl the preceding page you will note 4~hait `the development costs, in relation to `the acquisition costs, underrun the acquisi'tion cost except in the chairman's bill. Usually the ratio is the other way around. Usually in a national park or na- tional recreation area, the development costs end up by being two, or sometimes more th~in `twice the acquisition costs. The probable reason the developmen't costs are higher than the ac- quisition costs in the chairman's bill is thait so much of the land and the rivers named is already in public `ownership. But this is only `a `supposi- ~tj'on on my part as to `the reason for ithis difference. Further, and this is a very broad estimate, we estimate that to make the necessary studies of the rivers so specified in the bills for study would ~vei~g~ ~about~$ .. 5Q,OQO per river. This means `that the costs of the study part of the bill eouidrange from a ni~inimum of $1 million in `the chairman's bill, `to $3.3 million in H.R. 90. As I `say, these are very crude estimates. The fourth paragraph of the Department's report of last August makes clear that `any combination of the designated rivers, as indicated in `the chairman's bill, in Mr. Reuss' bill, or in the Senate-pa~sed bill, would be `acceptable for designation at `the present `time. If you corn- bined the rivers in those three bills up to the point of the Shenandoah and stopped-we did not include Mr. Saylor's bill in this policy state- ment-utilizing the longest length `indicated, the estimated cost of acqui'si'tkn would be `about $38 million. Now turning to the Department's proposed `amendments. When we reported on `these bill's on August 14, we reported on a group of them, but we directed our comments to H.R. 84t6. I believe there are some 17 amendmer~ts. I am sorry the number is so large, because I think it is misleading. Most of these amendments, in ourjudgment, can be properly inter- preted as clarifying orperfecting, and not of consequence substan- tive~ ~ We do believe that amendments 1, 2, 4, 6, and 17 are substantive sug- gestions, and I would like to mention those. With respect to the first amendmeiit that * we propose, the bill, as introduced, provides for the identification of boundaries through maps. Our preference would be that the `boundaries be established after we have made more thorough on-the-ground surveys than we have at the present time. I believe there is language in the report which proposes that the boundaries generally will not extend to a width of more than a quar1~er of a mile from either side of the river. Another way of ex- pressingit is that the maximum that could be included per mile would be 320 acres. Now, under this provision, as I am sure you realize, thi~s would let us squeeze in and out like an accordion-come down to a hundred PAGENO="0128" 114 feet, and then bulge out at other places. The Department prefers this as a policy position. It is not as specific as individual maps. I do not believe we are in a position to present more than the maps before you. We have maps on every one of the designated rivers around the back ?f the room. But whether we are prepared to come down and say this Is where the boundary ought to be, at this particular point, right now, we are not in that position. *T~~e question has also been raised whether the intent of the ad- inimstration here is 320 acres per mile, or an average of 320 acres per mile over the full length of the river per mile. In other word~s, if you applied the 320 acres on a per mile basis, this gives you less in and out room than if you had a hundred mile strip and al)l)lieCl the 320 acre-mile average over the full hundred miles. There has been some difference of opinion within the Department on this, both as to intent and as to what it should be. I am iustructed to indicate to you today that the Secretary's preference-and lie told me this personally-would be to ap~)ly an average, if this a~)prOacli LS used, of 320 acres per mile on the whole stretch of the river rather than on the per. mile basis. I am also advised-although I am not prepared to go into detail on this-that there is a precedent for this in the width designation of some of the parkways that have been established. I think that is all I can say about that amendment. But this is a substantive difference. The second difference is that the chairman's bill provides for four classifications, and for some, I believe, subclassifications, or two sub- types in addition to these classifications. We have no objection to this classification. In fact, we think it is desirable. . But we think it would be better to make the classification again after there has been what I guess the Park Service formally terms a master plan made, that we would be in a better position to make the classifica- tion than we would to indicate it at the present time~ So our suggestion is that the administering agency be directed to classify according to the classes and to the definitions of those classes as soon as they can after the rivers are included in the system, but not now, because we do not feel we know quite enough about it. The fourth amendment, as I understand it, would p~'event the Secre- tary from acquiring land, either public or private, within the bound- aries of any political subdivision of a State without the consent of that political subdivision. Now, this may be a question of understanding or interpretation. Our attorneys interpreted this provision of H.R. 8416 to apply, not only to the acquisition of public lands within a political subdivision of a State, but also the acquisition of private lands. This may or may not have been intended. If it was intended to apply to both public and private lands, it gives, in effect, a veto power to the county or the city over acquisition of any lands. A.s I say, we may have misinterpreted this, but this is the way our attorneys read the bill. We recommend, therefore, that the prlvate lands be subject to emi~ nent domain, but not the State~owned lands, or the lands owned by a political subdivision of the State if that political subdivision is follow- PAGENO="0129" 115 ing a plan of managemBnt, ~nd `protection that the Secretary finds compatible with the p~irposes of the Act. There is also included a cJ~fying amendmeut here to make clear that Land andW~ter Conservation Fund~ moneys can be used for the purposes of acquisition. I believe that this .reiatcs.to.a possible problem of the Forest Service where it might be acquiring lands outside author- ized boundaries of the National Forest. I believe `the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act in geueral limits the Forest Service to the use of such funds within the boundaries of the forest as establi$~xl at the time the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act passed., So thisis really oniy a c1arifyh~ig point. ~ . . ` ~ ` Another substantive amexidmeut is that as we read the. hi1~ that all federally assisted water reso~u~s projects constx~ucted on or, directly affecting a river included in the system be precluded. This tw~us in part on interpretation of water resource projects. Again we are `a4vis~d that sewage treatmen t plants might be construed as water resoureeprojeots, and we think that construction of such plants might l~ desirable, So we' have recommended that the bill be amended to preclude water resources pro~eots that would have a direct' and, adverse .e~eot.. on the values for ~vhich the rivers are establ~hed. I would `judge herethat the intent is the same. ` ` ` `` The `last substantive amendment concerns special pr~visious with respect t~ th~ Allagash River and. that portion o~f:the Wolf River ad- ministered by the State with Fe~çral~uancia1 assistance. ~ ., , There was considerajle d~scus~on of the Wolf this morniug. I can give you some specific cost figures and so on on it if you wish to go into that further. . ) ` ` ` `. ` The Allagash was not mentionçd this mornixi~. This is a stretch of a hundrecJ~r 120 miles in northern Maine which is being purchased and administered by. the State. The expenditures by the State is being matched by a grant from the Land and Water `Conservation Fund. We are.putting into it $750,00Q, and the' State voted a bond isue. That money is `available, titles are bei~'ig searched, and the land is under ac- quisitiou now. It would be administered as a State wilderness . river. I he widths are somewhat different. There is ,a maximum width under the Statelaw of a mile Qil each side of the river for fee .aoqu~sition. I emphasize "maximum." And a maximum 2-mile width fo~ scenic acc[uisition. ~ . ~ , ` But this does not seem to us to' be a hindranceto including this river, administered by the State and owned by the. State, as. part of,the Na- tional System of Scenic Rivers if the Govern~~r' ~f the State so recoin- mends. And we offer an amendmentto that e~ect. Essentially the same thing applies to the Wo1f-a~though the pat- tern is a little different, Agaiu,. without going into the details on the Wolf, the part in Langlade County will be handled exactly the same way as the Allagash was handled-it is going to be a State river with State management. The State is acquiring greater widths , than are provided for in these bills. And we have, a commitment I believe for over a period of several years,for `about $511,000 out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to match the State inputs. The lower part of the river would be strictly in thepattern of the scenic rivers legisla- tion as it may pass, and be a federally administered river. 92-500-08-9 PAGENO="0130" We think it makes sense to cOmbine the two. If a person canoes on them he is not going to care which agency is administering it. And one part of our designation that is affected here with the respect to both our amendment on the Allagash and the Wolf is that theamend- ment as so drafted would apply the Federal Power Commission re- strictions that are otherwise in the bill to thesetwo rivers. Now, if Imay proceed to the differences between the Senate-passed bill and the chairman's bill in the light of the amendments which we have offered. There are, I think~ six of those that we consider significant. On the classification of rivers, the Senate-passed bill, and the House bill-when I say the House bill I am talking aboutthe chairman's bill as the administration would recommend it be amended. The HOuse bill proposeS that these rivers be classified into these various types, and provide for the designation of high density use areasand soon. The Senate-passed bill is simpler. It provides for only two general types-wild and scenic. In the light of the chairman's question, if he asks our preference, I think the' best statement is to say that we do not consider this to be a highly consequential matter, but in the long run, I think we would prefer the House version. . The second difference is restrictions on acquisition `of lands by con- demñation proceedings. The Senate-passed bill is rather complex. It precludes condemnation of any lands and interests therein except "scenic easements," without the o~vñer's `consent, if 50 percent or more of the whole `area j:5 ~fl public ownership. There is no such provision in the House bill. The Senate-passed bill also precludes `condemnation of State-owned lands and under certain conditions, county-owned lands, and lands within `incorporated cities where less than 50 percent of the whole area is in p~iblic ownership. The House bill is simpler. As we recommended the `bill be amended, it precludes condemnation of State-owned lands and lands owned by any political subdivisions if they follow a management plan that is acceptable to theSecretary of the Interior. We prefer the House provisions as' we recommend H.R. 8416 be amended. On the applicability of the mining and mineral leasing laws, there are differences between th~ HOuse bill' as we would recommend it be amended and the Senate passed bill. Both bills continue the appli- cability of the mining laws. Neither bill affects the valid mining `chi~ims existing * at they date of enactment. If, however, the claim is validated after that date, both bills make mining operations subject to appropriate regulations. Mm- eral leases issued after the date `of enactment would also be subject to such regulations under both bills. But in addition, the House bill provides that the mining claims valida~ted after the date of the act would give the claimant title only to the mineral deposits in the claim, and the right to use the land surface as needed for mining purposes. The House `bill also includes provisions with respect to the with- drawal of rederal lands that constitute the bed and banks of a river, I I 116 PAGENO="0131" 117 from the operation of the mining laws, and here again we prefer the House bill. On the proposed water resources projects, ER. 8416, as we recom- mend it be amended, precludes the Federal agencies from assisting any water resource projects having a direct and adverse effect. Such provision also would apply to rivers under study. On this point, the Senate bill is silent. We prefer the House bill. The Senate-passed bill establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Board. It would be a `high level `board to `conduct con- tinuing studies and furnish reports to the Congress on the develop- ment ~of these rivers. This is absent. from the House bill. The origin of this proposal was with Senator Jordan of Idaho. I have talked with Senator Jordan. who is one. of my many friends in `Congress, and I know his concern. This is one reason why the Senate cut down the length of the Salmon so substantially. This again was a compromise. But I am fearful that the review board as established in the Senate bill would move us in the direction of `attempting to develop a cost- benefit ratio to put on the scales the value of wilderness or wilderness river against the much more readily tangible `evaluation of the worth `of water for irrigation and power. And it seems to , me that if at any time the Congress in its wisdom decides that a river that has ` been designated needs to be de-designated, this can be done-although I recognize that it is harder to accomplish this than not to designate it in the first place, because you do not de-establish national parks, you normally do not de-designate wilderness areas. This was the purpose behind this amendment. I understand the problem. But we would prefer that it not be included. Because we think in the consideration. of these bills, as we go through Congress, what this may lead to can be done without the formality of the pro- cedure provided in this bill. The last difference is the appropriation authorization difference. The House bill has a specific limitation on the amount authorized to be appropriated and the Senate bill is open ended. The classic posture of the Department is that it prefers an open ended appropriation authorization. But I realize that this is not the pattern of recent legislation. Now, on these other individual bills-the St. Croix, the Wolf, the Buffalo, Mr. Kyl's bill On the Lewis and Clark, I think you have a recommendation from the administration on Mr. Kyl's bill. I would like to talk of that in a moment. St. Croix and Wolf have been `discussed at length. It is in the Senate passed bill. We would like to see it in. Mr. TAYLOR. Does that apply to both? Mr. CRAFTS. The St. Croix and the Wolf-yes, sir ; it applies to both. The Buffalo, we are just not quite ready on that one. But I think we should have a report up to you on the Buffalo within the near future. . It seems to me, as the chairman pointed out, there is some significant relationship between the pattern that is~developi'ng on these bills' and PAGENO="0132" 118 the Wilderness Act. The basic thrust of all these bills is to preserve certain segments of these rivers in their relatively free flowing and unpolluted condition with minimum shoreline strips so we will know what the rivers of America looked like in the years to come, certain portions of them. The pattern of designating a few initially, establishing the system, and then requiring subsequent additions be by act of Congress, fol- lows the pattern of the Wilderness Act. Conservation groups I think, as would be expected, support this legislation strongly, as do many Members of the Congress. But Federal legislation has come to the point where it is over a period of years, going back about 6 years when the concept was per- haps originally advanced. And it takes time for legislation of this character and this significance and this complexity to shake down and mature, and receive the appropriate consideration that it merits in both the executive and legislative branches. And jfl due course, something usually comes out that is really meritorious, such as the ~Tjldeniess Act and the Land and Water Fund Act. I think we are about at that point now. I should in all fairness point out the bills are not without opposition. Sometimes this opposition is due to a lack of understanding. And in view of the number of bills and the differences in the provisions, it takes a great deal of intensive study to understand these bills and their differences and just what they would do. Sometimes the opposition is a philosophical objection to additional Federal acquisition of any sort-although as the table in the middle of my testimony shows, this would be relatively small. Sometimes it is due to concern about the particular resource, minerals or grazing, or water or timbering. And sometimes, as it came out this mornings it is about the conflicting approach of building dams in these seg- ments, water impoundments for water supply, or flood control, or irrigation or power. All of these matters have been considered, and the total pattern of the rivers of the United States, what is being proposed here, either the maximum bill, Mr. Saylor's bill, or any of the bills that do not go so far in the total context of our national system of rivers I believe is relatively modest. This bill does rank high on the list of priority conservation meas- rtres. I say this bill-I mean a scenic rivers system bill ranks high. It has been mentioned last time I think in the budget message. Aiid I urge your favorable consideration of one of these four major bills. I have Vindicated our preferences. I have indicated how we feel about the rivers for immediate designation. Now, we have here, if you want us to go through this, these maps- there are four maps here that we can flip for you, that show you at a glance really the difference in the impact between these four major bills. I really would like to do that. Before I do that, I missed one thing. On page 9-this is purely per- fe.ct.ing, but it is not in the Department's report-on page 9 of the chairman's bill, line 15-and we just noticed this yesterday-I think the river is to Kiarn.ath rather than Klamath Falls, because we believe the intent was to go from the junction of Scott River downriver on the PAGENO="0133" 119 Kiamath through that wild section tothe mouth of the river, rather than ~ go upriver to lUamath Fails. So~ if I am correct, I thilik the intent wou1db~ to strike the word "Falls." ~ We also have around the room individual maps for each of the rivers that would be desigi~iated iii ~any of the four major bi1Js~ We have over- lays ?~ them so you can ~ee how the bills differ, both as to length of the river that would be designated, which ones, aild so forth. This would take considerable time. You have other witnesses. We can leave these here. We can come up and explain them to you at. another time. Or if there are specific ones, we can go into them now. I think our `homework has been done pretty well on these 17 rivers. . If I may, Mr. Chairman, just to show you by.ready contrast the dif- ference here visually between these four bills. Do you wish me to do that? ` `Mr. TAYWu. Yes, go ahead. Mr. CRAFT. This i's H.R. 8416, the chairman's bill, and the orange shows the four rivers that would be designated immediately, and the black are the rivers on which study would be directed. Of course this bill, and I believe all the other bills, make it possible for the Secretary of the Interior, and I believe the Secretary of Agriculture, in their discretion, to study other rivers of their selection, and to make recom- mendations to Congress. The significance of the naming of them for study is that we are directed to study these, and by a certain time. Now, this. is what yo'umight call the difference to the fullest extent in the other direction. You can see the difference. This is Mr. Saylor's bill. The orange, again, are the ones that would be designated now, and the black are the ones on which studies would be directed. There is a very substantial difference between these two bills as is apparent by just a quick look at the map. This is the administration's proposal, which you see in a sense is sort of halfway between measure. It would designate more than the chairman's bill, it would study a few more, as the figures in the testi- mony show. It ~vould not be as inclusive as Mr. Saylor's bill. And this is the Senate-passed bill, which, as far as designations-is somewhat different than Mr. Aspinall's bill, but it is closer to that than are the other bills, and it designates a few more rivers for study. As I say, the mileage of the designated rivers and the names of the rivers are shown on about the middle of my testimony. ii: think, Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared remarks. I shall try to answer questions as you wish. May I say one more thing before I stop. I did not go into an explana- tion of the attachment. There is a lot of detail iU here, but it is significant. If you turn to the last page, the very last page, this relates to the rivers to be estab- lished under the four different `bills, it relates to the mileage proposed in `the four different bills, and it shows an estimated cost of acquisi- tion. And because it seemed to me that this question would come up, and it already has come up, `as `to how can these acquisition costs be funded within the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If you recall, when we testified on tha't legislation, we explained that the admin- istration considered the alternative levels of funding for the next 5 PAGENO="0134" 120 years-a $400 ixiillion level, a $300 million level, arid a $200 million level. That latter is the far right-alternative three. Under the ehair- man's bill, as we have tentatively programed that money out, as be~ tween how it goes to the Forest Service, the Park Service, and how much to new park authôri~ations__alr~ady enacted ones-and the scenic rivers-we have tentatively programed out $9 million for ac- quisition `in the first 5 years if the Congress enacts the $200 million level. This would cover the requirements `of Mr. Aspinall's bill. I should say, too, that ~ of course this is very tentative because ad)ustments can be made within this total. But this is the way it is programed at this time. I should also point out that these acquisitions presuppose something that may not happen. They presuppose fee acquisition for an ~ average of 100 acres per mile-400 feet, and easement acquisition for the bal- ance of the acreage between 400 and 1,320 feet. Now, it is quite possible that both the fee acquisition and the ease- ment acquisition would be less than that. It would not be more than that. If these cost figures are realistic, this is the anticipated amount or the highest you would get, not counting escalation. However, the history of all of * this ha~ bèèn that the cost estimates are always low. So my guess is these figures arenot too high. The St. Croix, one little comment-Senator Nelson pointed out this morning negotiation is und~way `with Northern State Power Co., and so on. We do not know what is coming out of that, but the mdi- cateci acquisition cost estimate from Taylor Falls on up, is $7 million. This applies to estimates made before the Northern States Power ques- tion entered into the picture. The Park Service has just given me a newer figure which indicates that the range here might be anything from between $3 and $4 million to about $7 million. So we may be a little bit off on that. But I thought you ought to know how these costs related to what the Land and Water Conservation Fund capabilities might be. Thank you, sir. (The prepared complete statement of Mr. Crafts follows:) STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. CRAFTS, DII~oroR, BUREAU OF OUTDooR RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I am privileged to testify today on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior in support of legislation to establish a National scenic rivers system. Secretary Udall asked me to express his deep regret that he was unable to adjust prior out-of-town commitments in order to appear personally. I know he had every intention of testifying himself because of the importance attached to these pending bills as one of the 4 or 5 major conservation legislative items now pending before the Congress. The Senate passed a bill in the first Session of this Congress to establish a wild and scenic rivers system. That, coupled with the early consideration of the pending bills by the House Committee in this Session, is deeply appreciated by the Administration. The Committee is to be congratulated for so doing, par- ticularly in view of the fact that it carries one of the heaviest legislative schedules of any House Committee. The genesis of the idea for giving special legislative protection to certain remaining sections of America's rivers was perhaps first given National im- petus by the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1902, which endor~ed the concept. In 19438, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture jointly and in coopera- tion with the various States, screened some 650 rivers for study as possible PAGENO="0135" 121 wild rivers. Out o~ that initigi sereenin~, ~ some 22 rivers received detailed consideration and 67 rivers received preliminary reconnaissance. Although there has been some switching back and torth, in general the rivers that are proposed for establishment in the four so-called major bills were selected from the 22 that were studied in most depth by the two Departments and cooperating States. In 1965, President Johnson in his message to the Congress on Natural Beauty suggested that it was time to "~ ~ ~ preserve free flowing stretches ef our great scenic rivers ~ ~ ~" In March, 1965 an initial wild rivers system bill was submitted to the Congress by tI~e Administration. Early in 1966, the Senate passed an amended version by a vote of 71 to 1. The louse did not act in the 89th Congress. . ~ In J~anuury, 1967, in his message to the Congress on protecting our natural heritage, the President reiterated his hope that a portion of the Nation's great scenic rivers might be preserved In their natural state. On February 18, 1967, the Adminlistration again recommended to the Oungress legislation to implement the President's proposal. But prior to either of these 1967 actions of the Administration, Congressmen Saylor and Dingell introduced scenic river bills on January 10, 1967. The following day, Senator Ohurch with 38 co-sponsors reintroduced in the Senate S. 119, a wild rivers bill identical to that which the Senate had passed in the previous Congress. In due course, on August 9, 1967, the Senate passed a revised version of S. 119 by a vote of 84 to 0. That bill is before you today. Prior thereto, however, Chairman Aspinall on April 12, 19G7, after mast care- ful coneideration of the various pending proposals, introduced H.Tt. 8416. Like- wise, H.R. 6166, which is identical to the Administration's proposal of February 1967, was introduced by Congressman Reuss on February 27. During the past five years, interest in the establishment of a National system of scenic or wild rivers or identification of individual rivers for such action has increased continuously and there `are now before `the House some 17 bills. How- ever, the four principal bills proposing a National approach are H.R. 8416 by Mr. Aspinall, H.R. 90 by Mr. Saylor, S. 119 by Senator Church and 3. other Sena- tore, and ER. 6166 by Oongressman `Reuss. It is `to these four bills that my testi- mony principally will be directed. I have summarized the above chronology of pending bills because this is the first `time to my knowledge that Departmental witnesses have appeared before this Committee in support of such legislation. The scope of the proposals and the variety of their provisions make their consideration complex and difficult. In addition to the four so~called "primary" bills (and I say this without intend- ing any adverse reflection whatsoever on the numerous `other pending bills) , the key documents include: 1. The Secretary of the Interior's letter of February 18, 1967, submitting the Administration proposal at that time. 2. The Secretary of the Interior's letters of August 14, 1967, and September 18, 1967, `reporting on several pending House bill's including the `bills by Chairman Aspinall, Mr. Saylor, and Mr. Reuss, but not commenting on S. 119 as passed the Senate, except in the summarization of the principal differences between the bills attached to the September 18 letter. The fact, therefore, is that up to this point, even though the report to Mr. As- pinall of August 14 followed by a few days the Senate action of August 9, the Administration has not expressed a position of preference `as between S. 119 as it passed the Senate and the various pending House bills. I shall attempt to ideu- tify major difference's and answer questions on specific points as between the various bills, if deisred. 3. The attachment to this testimony summarizes the differences between the four major bills in more detail than heretofore presented. It includes not only the obvious questions such as which rivers are to be included in the system, and which rivers would be earmarked for further `study, but also such other matters as methods of boundary designation, administration of designated rivers, State and local participation, effects on wat'er rights, mining, the Federal Power Corn- mission, acquisition and condemnation authorities, other uses including timbering and grazing, and estimated costs of acquisition by rivers scheduled for establish- ment as well as the relationship of these costs to the potential of the Land and Water Conservation Fund under the various levels of funding discussed at earlier testimony before this Committee on February 6 concerning H.R. 85q8. PAGENO="0136" 122 There i~llttIe point In this testimony to dE~crIbe what the bills would do. This is ~o~?ered both in snznrnary forth and hi depth In the key docUments referred to *above andthat are befOteyou. ~ , ~ :. Perhaps; ~ hbwever, the most aigniflcttnt qi~tiOns are (a) the differences in the `rh~èr~ t11It1~ wonld be 1~nmedfate1~ d~s1gnat~d under the various bills ; (b) the rno~e si~iificant recommendations for amendment in H.R. 8416 ; (e) ~ignifi- cant dth~reit~s between the Senate-passed bill ~nd H.R~ 841G, ~ If amended as recommended. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ Fo1I~ring is.a brief tab~iatswnmary of th~ number of rivers that wouldbe im~ mediately designated by the Thnt'~kev bifis, the cost of a~4nisitlói~i and deve1op~ theht for ~u~h rivers, acres to be ~c~uir~d as well a~ the rthmber of Hvers on which ~tudy would be required: SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF RIVERS AND ESTIMATEb COST AND ACRES TO BEACQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF SCENIC AND With RIVERS UNDER 4 SPECIFIED BILLS; Rivers tobe established Estimated cost Estimated acres tö be acqui~ed Percent Fee Less. than Acquisi- fee t~tIe Develop' acquisi- fee acqui- Total tion is of total ment tiOn sltlon (acres> (mIllions) cost (millions) (acres> (acres) (percent) Bill Number Number of rivers to be studied ., FLR. 4816 (Aspinall) 4 $5.3 22 $6.1 455 4,145 4,600 20 H.R~ 90.(SáyIor).~.. 16 100. 7 25 18. 1 21,375 192,445 213, 8~0 66 5, 1~9 (aspassed by Senate: Wild, 7; scenic, 5; of these 12, 3 are part wild and, part sceniO) H.R. 6166 (Reuss-adminis- tration) 9.9. 8,485 76,395 84~ 880 10.3 9,OSO 81,513 90,565 Not ~nl~r j~ the number of rivers to he immediately estai~lished different, but also the specific rivers named are diffetent. E~on for rho same riTOrs, tthe mileage to be included in the lesignated segments may~ vai7 substantially, as shown In the table on p. 125. 5 It 18 Mgnifleatit that the indIcated developn~ient costs in relation to acquisition Costs are substantially less than thO flormall ratio in park and recreation areas of develo~m6nt to acquisition. Usurtilly; development costs run two to three times ac- quisition costs. In this ihstance, the development costs are expected to be below acquisition costs except in the case of Hit. 8416. The probable reason is the considerable portion of the land that is already in public ownership. If it is estimated that approximately $50,000 per river would be needed tO exeéute the studies that are directed b~ the various bills, this cost could range from $1 million for H.R. 8416 to $3,300,000 for H.R. 90. These are very crude estimates but do give thO Committee some Indication of the level of the costs are believed to be reasonable. S S The fourth paragraph of the Department's August 14 report makes clear that any combination of the designated rivers as listed above in the Chairman's bill, In the Administration's recommendations, or the Senate~passed bill, would be acceptable for designation at the present time. The cost would vary depending on the length atkpted but ifthe maximum iengthl~ anyone of the three bills would be enacted, the estimated acquisition colst of such a combination would be about ~38.3 million. Although the Depaitmemt's report proposes 17 amendments to HR. Sf16, most Of these may be eategorined as perfecting or clarifying. Five amendments are con- sidered to be the most signiflcant substantively. These amendments are Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 17. Amendment 1. (Section 3, pages 5 and 6 Of H.R. 8416)-Bill provides for identi- fication of boundaries of four rivers through maps. S Depantsn~nt report recommends that map referenëels in bill be deleted and provides that `boundaries of foth~ river areas be ~stablishec1 after on~ground sur- veys have been made. Tue amendment eni~lsiónMt1iat bounditries generally will not extend to a width Of more than 1,320 feet (one-qnarter of mile) from either side of river. This envisions the mtt~dmnm that could be h~cthded to be an average of 320 acres per mile including both sides of the river. 9 9 25.3 35.1 24 21 28 35 PAGENO="0137" 123 Amendment 2. (SectiQu 3, pagë~ 5 ~nd 6of ILR. 8416)-Bill pro~!des that four d~igr~ated rivers be eias~4fied ac~ording to tpes, i.e., ~i14, natui~al envtrornnent, pastoral, historle and e~ltural. * ~ ~ ~ Department report states it to be premature for bill to make classlfitmttons in absence of more detailed know'edge of rtivers. Thus the report, while expressing no objection ~to the proposed class~ficatk~n, does not recommend that the rivers not be c1a~ssified in this 1egis~ation but on the contrary, the ndministerlpg agency be directed to classify according to the specUlc cl~ssigcation as soon as p~a~tical after they are included in the system. Amendment 4. (Section 6, page i2 of U.R. 84t6)-Section 6(a) prevents the Secretary from acquiring lands (p~b1ic or private) within the boundaries of any political subdivision of a State without consent of the political sp~division. Since all lands would be within county boundaries, the Bill co~ild preclude acquisition of any lands public or private by the ~uimin1stering agency and defeat the purposes of. the bill. The Department recommends that private lands be subject to eminent domain but not State-owned lands, or lands owned by a political subdivision of the State if it is following a plan o~ management and protection that the Secretary finds cons6nant with the purposes of the Act. It also recommends a clarifying amendment that Lai~c1 a~id Water Con~ery~ttjot~ Fund Act moneys be allowed to be utilized for Federal acquisition of lands for scenic river purposes under the bill. Amendment 6. (Section 7, pages 14, 15, and 16)-Bill would preclude all Federally assisted water resource projects constructed on or directly affecting a river included in the System by this bill or a subsequent. Act. Because certain "water resource projects" are not adverse or necessarily detri- mental to a scenic rivers program, the Department's report . reeouimende4 the bill be amended to preclude water resource projects that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which any such river was established as determined by the Secretary. . Amendment 17. (Section 11, pages 21 and 22 of H.R. 8416)-The Bill is silent with respect to any special provisions for the Allagash or for that portion of the Wolf River administered by the State with Federal financial assistance. The Department report recommends the addition of language to afford the States of Maine and Wisconsin protection in acquiring lands along the Allagash and Wolf Rivers respectively for scenic river purposes. The recommended amendment provides that upon application by the Governor of the State for designation of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in Maine or the segment of the Wolf River in Langlade County, Wisconsin as part of the national scenic rivers system, the Secretary may make such designation if the State or local administering agency agrees to manage and protect it in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary. Such designation shall preclude the Federal Power Commission from licensing the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line or other project works on or directly affecting such rivers. There are six major differences between fl.R. 8416 as the Department proposed it be amended and Senate-passed S. 119, as follows: 1. CLAsSIFICATION OF RIVERS H.R. 8416 as proposed to be amended provides that the administering agency will classify rivers as soon as practicable after they are included in the system as to thOir type into wild, natural environment, pastoral, and historic and cultural rh~ers, and provides further for the designation of high density use areas and unique natural and historic river areas. The Senate- passed S. 119 provides at time of designation for only two general types of rivers for inclusion in the system, namely, wild and scenic. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON M3QUISITION OF LANDS BY CONDEMNATION PROCEEJXENGS Senate~passed S. 119 precludes condemnation of lands or interests therein (other than "scenic easemeixts") , without the owner's consent, where ~O per- cent or more of the Wild or scenic i~iver area is Lu public ownership. ILR. 8416 contains no such provision. Where less than 50 percent of the area is in pub- lie ownership, S. 119 precludes the condemnation of (1) State-owned lands; (2) ~ounty-owned lands as long as the county is follOwing a management plan in accordance with the purposes of the Act; and (3) lands within in- corporated city, village, or borough when such lands have been zoned in accordance with purposes of the Act. PAGENO="0138" 124 ~ H.R. 8416 precludes condømnation o~ (1) State-owiaed lands ,; and (2) 1an4s ow ..~ ned Ly any political s~bcUvision of the State as 1o~g as t)ae ~ub~ division is following a management plan for such lands in accordance with the purposes of the Act. ~ * .; ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 3. : ~PPLIOABiLITY `QF V'S. MINING A~D MXNERAI~ LEASING LAWS ]~oth I~ It $416 atid Senate passed ~ 119 continue the ~tpplicabi1ity of such laws. Ne&therbill affects v~1id miningdaims existing oil the date of the Act. .Miniiig claims validated after the date of theAct and mineral leases issued ~ after such date will be subject to appropriate regulations. ~Tl i~1d~tion, H.R. 8416 provides that mining claims v~ilidated after the date of the Act will give the mining claiunant title only to the mineral deposits in the cla4m, together with the right tO use the land surface. ILfl. 84i6 further withdraws the minerals In Federal lands, which con- ~tit~te th~ bed or bank ~ a river included in the system by Act of Oongress or wl~4cb. are within one-quitrter mile of such river, from the operation of the mthtng and mineral leasIng laws. flit. 8416 `also withdraws, for not more than au eight~-year period, the minerals In the Federal lands adjacent to the *rh~ers specifically listed In the bill. fOr further study. ~ . ~ ~ 4. PROPOSED WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS H.R. 8416 precludes Federal agencies from assisting by loan, grant, or otherwise any ~a~er resource projects having a direct and adverse effect on a wild or seethe river area included In the system, as determined by the ap~ropHate Secretary. H.R. 84~I6 also contains a similar provision with respect to the rivers listed in the bill for future study for addition to the System. Senate-passed S.11~l does not contain such provisions. 5. ~AT1ONAL WILD AND SCEi~IC RIVERS nnvi~w BOARD ~ Senate-passed S. 119 creates a national wild and scenic rivers review board to conduct studies and furnish reports to the Congress on the develop- ments on each national wild or scenic river area. The board consists of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Army, the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, and involved State ~ Governors. H.R. 8416 does not containsuch provision. 6. APPROPRiATION AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY Senate~passed S. 119 authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary. H.R.. 841e authorizes the appropriation of not more than $6,500,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests therein. I have not commented specifically on other pending bills before the Committee, such as the several ones relating to the St. Croix, one bill by Congressman Laird relating to the Wolf River, ER. 7020 by Congressman Hammerschmidt re- lating to the Buffalo, and HR. 14180 by Congressman Kyl relating to a Lewis and Olark Riverway. I shall, however, be glad to try to answer questions on these bills if desired. In conclusion, I might point out that in some rather significant respects the Scenic River System bill appears to be a companion measure to the Wilderness Act. The basic thrust of all these bills is to preserve segments of rivers that are now largely undeveloped in a free-flowing and relatively unpolluted stage, along with minimum shoreline strips so that we shall have for posterity examples of what the rivers of America were In their natural or semi-natural condition. The proposal contained in all the bills to designate a few rivers initially to specify certain additional ones for study, and to require that subsequential addi- tions be by act of Congress follows the same general pattern as the Wilderness Act. There is strong support for scenic rivers legislation throughout the country among conservation groups apd I believe by the general public that is becoming increasingly concerned about the qualityof our environment. Federal legislation has gradually come to the point where it is today over a PAGENO="0139" 125 period of years originating with a concept going back about six years. It takes time for legislation of this sort to mature, to receive proper consideration in both the Executive and Legislative branches and then in due course legislation of real merit is enacted, such as the Wilderness Act, the t~and und Water Con- servation Fund Act, and the iziany other conservation measures that have been enacted since 1960. The `bills are not without opposition-sometimes due to the lack of understand- jug, sometimes due to a philosophical objection to possible addit~onal' Federal acquisition (although this would be relatively small in the case of the river strips) , possibly due to a concern over what Would be permitted with respect to mther~ls, use of waters, timber harvesting, and so on, concern over the effect of such ded~ations on impoundments for water supply, flood control, and for power. All od~ these matters have been considered and the designation of such a system would impair primarily in the designated areas, some freedom of action that now exists, particularly with respedt to ii~iponndments. However, the Administration believes public sentiment generally reflects strongly a conviction that the time is niow ripe for enactment of these bills. They rank high on the priority list of conservation measures. The United States c~n poorly afford not to do to a reasonable degree what these bills propose. I urge your favorable consideration. SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIFraRENOE5 ir~ H.R. 8416, REPRuSENTATIVE A5PINALL ; S. 119, SENATOR CHURCH (As PASSED BY SENATE) ; H.R. 90, REPRESENTATIVE SAYLOR; AND H.R. 61~6, REPRESENTATIVE R~vss 1. TITLF~S Aspinall : National Scenic E~ivers Act of 1967. Senate-passed : Wild and Scenic R~ivers Act. Saylor : Scenic Rivers Act. Reuss : Scenic Rivers Act. 2. TYPES OF RIVERS (CLASSIFICATION) Aspiuall-4 types : wild, natural environment, pastoral, historic and cultural; plus 2 areas : high density use, unique natural and historic river. Senate-passed-2 types : wild, scenic. Sayior-8 types : Class I (wild) , Class II (natural) , Class III (pastoral). Reuss-1 type : scenic. 3. INITIAL RIVERS DESIGNATED IFigures in brackets indicate estimated rnilesj Aspinall Senate Saylor Reuss Clearwater (Idaho) Ll9QJ~ Rio Grande (New Mexico) 1501. Rogue (Oregon) (85J. Salmon (Idaho) [2551. (Total, 4.) Clearwater [190J. Rio Grande [501. Rogue [85J. Salmon [105j. Illinois (Oregon) [40J. Clearwater [190J. Rio Grande [50J. Rogue [95J. Salmon [3401. Eleven Point (Missouri) [35J. St. Croix-Namekagon, (Minnesota and Wisconsin) [2351. Wolf (Wisconsin) [24J. (Total, 8 (Namekagon included in St. Croix).) Cacapon (West Virginia) [100J. Eleven Point [35[. St. Croix-Namekagon [185J. Wolf [75J. Clearwater [190J. Rio Grande 150J. Rogue [951. Salmon [255J. Eleven Point [901. St. Croix-Namekagon [185J. Wolf [24J. Shenandoah (West Virginia) [20J. Flathead (Montana) [2151. Green (Wyoming) [84J. Hudson (New York) [300J. Klamath (California) 1401. Missouri (Montana) [180[. Skagit (Washington) 150J. Suwannee (Georgia and Florida) [250J. (Total, 16.) Shenandoah [20j. (Total, 9). PAGENO="0140" 126 4.~ MEP~OD OF BOtYNDAR~' DESIGNATION Aspin~11 : Refers to maps that are to be prepared designating boundaries. Senate~passed : `Narrow ribbon concept along river not to exceed 3~O acres per niiile-4O be detailed on maps at a later date. Saylor : Refers to maps that are to be prepared designating boundaries. RensR : Narrow ribbon con~ept along river not to exceed 320 acrOs per mile- to be detailed on maps ~ at a later date. 5. DESIGNATED RIVERS TO BE STUDIED Aspinall : 20. Senate-passed : 28. Saylor : 66. . Reuss : 35. ~ All bills proposed to study each of the following rivers: Delaware, Pa. & N.Y. Gasconade, Mo. ~ ~ *Pere Marquette, Mich. Guadalupe, Texas ~ Pine Creek, Pa. . Niobrara `Nebraska ~ Susquehanna, N.Y. & Pa. Penobscot, Maine S. ADMINISTRATION OF' DESIGNATED RIVERS Aspinall : Interior-Rio Grande ; AgricultpreClearwater, and others agreed upon by the two or directed by the President. Senate-passed : As agreed upon by interior and Agriculture or directed by the President. Saylor : As agreed upon by Interior and Agriculture or directed by the President. " Reuss : Interior-Rio Grande, St. Croix~Namekagon and Wolf ; ~ Agriculture- Clearwater and Eleven Point ; others by agreement or direction of the President. 7. STATE ANI~ LOOAL PARTICIPATION IN ADMINISTRATION Each bill simIlarly proVIdes' for Federal administering agency to enter into cooperative agreements with States or local go~vernments to participate In admin- istration of area and to promote cooperation in planning and admln1stei~ing s3~stem components which Include or adjoin State or locally owned lands. 8. ADDITIONS OF STATE AND LOOAL RIVERS TO THE SYSTEM Allowed for In all four bills. Aspinall : by State legislative act with Secretary o~ the Interior's concurrence~ Senate-passed : by Governors recommendation with Secretary of the Interior's concurrence. Saylor: No specific provision. Reuss: by Governors recommendation with Secretary of the Interior's concurrence. 9. APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION Aspinall: $6,500,000 for acquisition only. Senate-passed: Such sums as may be necessary (Senate report estimates cost at $40,000,000). Saylor: Such sums as may be necessary. Reuss: Such sums as may be necessary (Executive Communication estimates $35,000,000). 10. FI5H AND WILDLIFE JURISDICTION All bills preserve existing State jurisdiction. PAGENO="0141" 1,27 11. WILDERNESS ACT Provisions guaranteed wherever applicable hi all four bills. In all bills the Act applies whenever the wild and scenic river area is also in the Wilderness System, and in case of conflict, the more restrictive provisions apply. 12. WATER PROVI5ION5 A. Ewisting water right8 None of the bills change existing water rights. B. Water reservations Aspinail : Does not specifically make a reservatien of waters for purposes of the Act. ( Specific reservation is unnecessary, however, since Federal legislation authorizing Federal lands to be used for a particular purpose reserves sufficient unappropriated water flowing through the Federal laiTds to accomplish that purpose.) Arizona v. California 373 U'S ~54C on doctrine of implied rese'rvat'ioa. S'eniate-passed : Specifically reserves waters of a wild or scenic river area, stthject to existing rights, to extent required for scenic river purposes. Saylor : Simils~r to Senate provision. Beuss : `Similar to Senate provision. C. Interstate compacts Aspinall : Specifically provides that bill does not aftect any existing compact. Senate-passed : Similar to Aspinall provision. Saylor : Similar to Aspinall provision. Reuss : No provision. D. Access rights to navigable streams Aspinall : Specifically affirm.s the right of access by States to beds of navigable str~ams. Senate-passed : Similar to Aspinall provision. Saylor : Similar to Aspinall provision. Reuss : No provision. E. Water poflution cooperation All bills identical in providing that Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary and with States for purpose of eliminating or diminishing pollution of waters within a scenic river `area. 13. MINING AND MINEEAL LuASING All of the bills continue the applicability of existing mining and mineral leas- ing laws, except that mining activities on mining claims perfected, and on mineral lE~ases issued, after the dltte of the Act will be suhj~ct to appropriate regula- tions. Iii addition- Aspinall : Withdraws the minerals in Federal lands, which constitute the bed or lank of a river included in the system. by Act of Congress or which are within 1/4 mile of such river, from the opei~ation of the mining and mineral leasing laws. It also withdraws, for not `more than an 8-year period, the mineral's in the Federal lands adjacent to the rivers specifically listed in the bill for fur- ther study. Provides that mining claims perfected after the date of the Act will give the mining claimant title only to the mineral deposits in the claim, to~ gether with the right to use the land surface. Saylor : Provides' that mining claims perfected after the `date of the Act will give the mining claliuiant title only to the mineral deposits in the ~1aim, to- gether with the right to use the land surface. Reuss. Provides that mining claims perfected after the date of the Act will give the mining `chilmant title only to mineral depo~its in the claim, together with the right to use the land surface. I PAGENO="0142" 128 ~ 14. * FPC 1~ROVISIONS Aspinall : Wonid prek~rit' the Ticensing `o~ dams or other project works on or directly aff~eUn~'añ~v r1~ersdesigMted as jiai~t of th~ system ; prer1ucli~s Federal ageneles from a~sisting b~V loan, grant, or otherwilse any water resource projectts on or directly affecting any such river. Also provides similar protection for the rivers specifically listed in the bill for future ~ study. Senate-passed : Unless specifically authorized by Congress, preclude~ the ]~ed~ eral Power O~rniniinston from lieenab~g new dams or project works in any na- th:aial wild or scenic river area. Also provides similar protection for 1~hç river~ listed in the bill for future study. ~ Saylor : Provides that t~o darn or other project works shall ~e constrUcted, operated, or xUaintained Iii any déslgnat~d natjOnal scenic river area or in certain river areas to be ilñdléd for such designation, ~itiless specifically authorized by the Congress. ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Reuss Similar to Senate prOiTls1oi~ ~ . ~ 15. ACQUISITION AtJ1~li&RITY ~ ~ ~ . All bills provide that lands or interests therein may be acipilred by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds or exchange. Land owned by State or Indian tribe may be acquired only with consent. No acquisition o1~ county- owned land without itsconsent ~s lirng as' county is followiug land management plan approved by Secretary. ` ` ` . ~ In addition- . ` ` ~ ~ `` Aspinall : On exchange of properties of unequal value cash ëquallzatiotk pro- vision is permissive rather than mandatory. Silent on availability of L&WCF for land acquisifion. ~ . . ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ,. ` ` . Senate-passed : Lands in NPS, NWR, and revested O&C Railroad and recon- veyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands are uot to be exchanged. Where s~enic easements are acquired prior uses shall not be affected, L&WCF avall~bie for land acquisition. ~ ~ Saylor : L&WOF available for land acquisition. Reuss : L&WOF available for land acquisition. ~ " , : ` , , ~I6.; OONDEM~Ai~ION UMI~ATIONS ` , , All bills provide no condemnation authority ~ of city, village, or borough land as long as local zoning is approved by `Secretary. In addition- Aspinall : Precludes condemnation of lands ` owned ` by, or within , boundaries of any political subdivision `of a State or held by or for an Indian tribe, or owned by a State, nniess `(1) in the caseof lands withina political' subdivision, there are not in effect valid zoning laws approved iy the Secretary, or (2) in the case of lands owned by a political subdivision, the subdivision is not follow- ing a land management plan, approved by the Secretary. (AthendUient suggested in, our rep&rt to bring tato line with ` Senate version. ): , .. ` ` Senate-passed : Precludes condemnation of lands or interests' therein; (other than scenic easements) , without' the owner's consent, where 50 percent or more of the , wild or scenic river , area is in `public `ownership ; none of the other bills ` contains such a provision. Where less than 50 percent of the area is in ~ public ownership, limits the acquisition of a fee title, by condemnation or any other method, on both sides of the river to a total of not more than lOC) acres per mile. ` ` ` Saylor: Limits conde~nnation of. a fee title to not more than one mile' on either side of the river, and condemnation of a less than fee title to not more than two miles on either side of the river. Reuss: Generally' limits the acquisition of a fee title,' by condemnation or any other method, on both sides of the river to a total of not more thati 100 acres per mile. PAGENO="0143" 129 1 7. FEE TITh1~-LI~SS * THAN FI~E~ TITLE Aspinall : Sec. 6(a) , fee title or any interest in land may be acquired wherever land acquisition authovity exists within authorized boundaries. Senate-passed : Sec. 5(a) lImits authorized boundary to a total of not more than ~ 32O~ acres per mile. Sec. 5(d) limits fee acquisition to 100 acres per mile other than to avoid severance. Oannot condemn a fee or interest in land (other than "~cenic easement" ) when 50 percent or more of acreage within the entire river area is owned by Federal, State, or local government. "Scenic easement" is defined in section 5(e) . Saylor : Sec. 4(c) on land acquisition includes interests in lands and defines "scenic easement". Appropriate Secretary can acquire fee by condeninatioli not more than 1 mile on either side of stream. Can condemn interests in land up to two miles from either side of the stream. Reuss : Sec. 4(a) limits authorized boundary to a total of not more than 320 acres per mile. Section 4(c) on land acquisition includes interests in land. Fee acquisition limited to 100 acres per mile other than acreage needed for public use and access and to avoid severance. ~ ~ . 18. DEVELOPMENT-USES ` ~ ~ A. Roa~Z~ Aspinall : no opecific provision. . Senate passed : allowatle if they don't substantially interfere with the public use and enjoyment of a~ea. Saylor : Class I (wild)-no new roads.. Olass II (natural)-no new roads paralleling stream within 1320 feet. ~ ~ ~ Reuss : no specific provision. ~ . . ~ B. Bridges Aspinall : no specific provision. Senate-passed : allowable if they don't substantially interfere with the public use mad enjoyment of area. Saylor : no specific provision. Reuss : no specific provision. ~ , . a. Powerline8 None of these bills mention powerlines. . . D. Grazing ~ ~ ~ ~ Aispinall : no specific provision. . . Senaite-~passed : allowable use. Saylor : Olass I (wild)-not allowed. Olass II & Ill-allowed but subject to regulation. . ~ Reuns : no specific provision. E. Ti~niber Ha'rvestiing Aopinall : no specific provision. Senate~passed : allowable if they don't substantially interfere with the public use and enjoyment of area. Saylor : Class I (wild)-not allowed. class II & 111-allowed within ~ mile as long as bistas are not altered. . ~ ~ . Reuns : no epéeitLc provision. ~ ~ 19. NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS REVIEW BOAED Only Senate passed bill would estabilsii a Review Board consisting ~f Secre- taries of the Interior, Agriculture, Army, Ohairrnan of thO Federal Power Coin- mission and Governors to conduct continuing studies ~hicb would measure the balance of benefits and detriments of national units of the system to the State as compared with values of the river to the State for other purposes such as reclamation, and make reports to Oongress. PAGENO="0144" I Length of river ~gment. ~ ~ * ~ 2 Total acquisition cost in each of 3 level programs is $35,000,000. ~ ~ Levels I, Il, and Ill refer to the proposed alternates for the total program under the L~anct and Water Conservation Fund Act during the years, 1969-73, in average annual amounts of $400,000,000 $300,GOD,00iJ, and $200,000,000. respect* ively. Mr. TAILOR. Thank you, Dr. Crafts, for ,a most helpful statement. Most ~ of these rivers, seethe rivers, would be administered by the Secreta~ry ofthe Interi~~? ~ Mr~ Cit~i~i~. Well, som~ would be adthinist~red by th~ Secretary of Agrieült~ure, and some would be ádministe~ed. by the Secretary of Interior, depending on the bills. The administration of some would be as agreed upon by the two Secretaries or as directed by the President. The bills vary in those provisions. My belief, is, however, that generally those that are out- 130 20. COST OF ACQUISITION FOR DESIGNATED RIVERS IDollar amounts in millionsj Name ` Miles 1 Total ac- qutsition Progtámed for 5 years under H.R. 85782 alternative levels 3 Level I, $400 - *S Amount Percent Level II, $300 S Amount Percent Level Ill, $200 Amount Percent Senate bill (S. 119): * ~ . . Clearwater 190 $0. 7 Elev~n PoinL_~ 35 2. 4 Illinois 40 1,3 RiO Granite 50 .08 ogue.~-~ 85 3.9 St. Croix 2~ 9.1 Salmon 105 .16 -. 24 7;? - rotal,,~.. Aspinall (HR. 8416): Clearwater Rio Grande Rogue Salmon 35 764 25.3 $19 75 $9 35 $9 k~S1~ 4~~W~L ~ ~J4~ -~~-- ~ S 190 .7 50 .08 85 3.9 255 .6 100+ 9 100+ 9 100+ S-~:~~ ~-tj ~ ~ ~ S'~ S TotaI__..~ 580 5. 3 19 Reuss (H.R. 6166): Cacapon 120 5.7 ~ 19b .7 Eleven Point 90 5.2 Rio Granite.... 50 . 08 Rogue 95 4.8 St. Croix 185 7.2 Salmon 255 .6 Shenandoah 20 3.1 Wolf 24 7.7 Total 1,029 35.1 19 54 9 25 9 25 S ~ 5 -. Saylor (H.R. 90): Cacapon 100 4.8 Clearwater 190 .7 Eleven Point 35 2. 4 Flathead 215 1. 1 Green 84 5.6 Hudson 300 9.0 Klammath 140 3.4 Missouri 180 1.2 Rio Grande 50 . 08 Rogue -~ ......~.. 95 5 4.8 St. C~ol* 185 1.~ Salmon 340 . 8 Shenandoah 20 3.1 Skagit 150 9.0 Suwannee 250 39.9 Wolf 75 7.7 TotaL.~._. 2~409 100~7 ~ 19 19 9 9 9 9 PAGENO="0145" 131 side the National Forests would be administered by the Secretary of Interior, and those inside the National Forests, or mostly inside, would be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. TAYLOR. Would there be any other exceptions? Mr. CRAFTS. Well, there are the ones I mentioned. If you accept our suggestion of the Allagash and part of the Wolf, they would be administered by the States. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, this morning the Congressman and Senator rec- ommended that Wolf be brought in, in this bill, as one of the Federal rivers. . Mr.CRAFTS. Yes,sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Your recommendation is that it be administered by the State? Mr. Cit~r~rs. Which-the Wolf? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. Mr. CRAFTS. The portion of the Wolf that is in Langlade County, or the northern portion of the Wolf that is so designated would be administered by the State of Wisconsin. This is what they are buying now. They are in the actual purchase process. They are buying a wider area. This would be a State administered wild river. And there is only 24 miles in the southern portion that would be financed wholly from Federal funds and administered by the Federal Governi~ent. Here you have an anomaly, 1ik~ you have on the Flaming Gorge Recreation Area There you had two Federal agencies, here you have a State admimster- iig part and the Federal GDv~ernment administering part of the area. I do not believe this would cause any trouble. We work very closely with the State of Wisconsin. And our recommendation here is for, as I say, this area in the lower part to be a scenic river in the classic sense of the other Federal rivers-the northern part is a State wild ri~ver which would become a part of*the system. Mr. TAYLOI~. Now, do you recommend des~giiating any additiona,l scenic rivers, in addition to the Aspinall four ? And the ones you have mentioned? Mr. CiiAFTS. I have to waffle on that, Mr. Taylor. The posture of the administration is~-if you look on page 8 of my testimony, and. draw a line below the Shenandoah River-that is about half w~y down there-that is where Mr. Saylor's list starts gohig on down-~.draw a line across the page at thatpoint. Any of the rivers above that line the Administration believes would be acceptable and would concur in. So you see I Cannot tell you this is the list and no other list. This is ex- plained in the fourth paragraph of the Department's report of Au- gust 14, where we say "We believ~ it would be appropriate to start the system either with the four . rivers mentioned in H.R. 8416, as a minimuni, or any combination of the additional rivers designated as the initial units of the system in H.R. 616~3 or S. 119." ~ * Mr. TAYLOR. You heard the Congr~srnan this morning from Ar- kansas stating he did not want the Eleven Point. Do you hav~e any commer~ts on that? * Mr. CRAP~S. Yes. We disagree with the Congressman from Arkan- sas. Mr. ASPINALL. Would the gentleman yield tome? Let me ask you, Do~to~, what work you have done within that area in order to find out what those people want? 92-560-68------iO PAGENO="0146" 132 . Mr. CRAFTS. The Eleven Point was one of therivers that was in our group for most intensivekstudy. We floated the river. We have talked to the people. Wehave consulted with the corps. It is my understand- ing that the Water Valky `project which has been controversial, has been r~ommended by the corps for deauthorization. This means we no longer have the question of' what you might ~ call competition be- tween corps impoundments and the scenic river values. I think, if .1 understhod the Congressman right, his concern went to a feeling that this river perhaps sho~tld be dammed up for purpdses of. flood con- trol, and so forth. ~ If he is talking just about the narrow strip alongtheriver, 1 can say that, althongh we have not held publichearings, we have con- suited with the people, we have been in the area, and we have a report on the Eleven Point, which we can make available to ~iou if you would like to have it. . ~ . Mr. SAYLOR. Will the gentleman , yield to ~me at that point ? ~ T?ir~t, I* think we ought to g~t ~this established in the record * real early. ~ Mr. Crafts wha~t is the position ~f the; Department ofinterior on thiS legi~iatioti? Is this local in character; or isthis a, piece of' legislar tioi~hh~h is h~tiona1 incharacter? . Mr~~uirrs.it isi~atiô~a~i.incháraeter. Mr.~SAit~n.Well~ i~ it is natiónal in character, what will be the positi~i csf the!Dep~tt11~ntOf Interioril~ that which the Department ~f interiorreoorx~nends ~hou1dbe incihided; and the local Congressman thinks itshoi!&ldbe~ excludk~d, ai~d two members of Congress who sit in the other body thinks it ought to ~ be included. Because that is the situation we haveon one of these rivers. . Mr. Ciwrrs. Well, I think, Mr~ Saylor, that we, of course, give very heavy weight to the views~f the Congressman from the~ District, we ghr~eiy hea~vy weight tothe views of the Senators from the State, we give ~veight, as we understand it, to the views of the people in the area. But some ofthese things must be decided, and this isthe ~harac- teristic pattern usually-like Assatea~ue, for exaniple, which Mr. `Morton went through~w]ere there was local opposition, bnt nation- ally at least it' appeared to be wanted. I would have `to say that we arrive at our light of all' of these considerations. As you well know, we do not always go along with local Congressmen. Mr. Km. Will the gentleman yield? It seems to me this gets into a little more difficult area when we talk about study of rivers. Now, suppose a~ Congressman from a certain district with one of these rivers. is opposed to the river being set aside at the present time ~ind even in present disposition, is opposed to studying the proposition. Now, we certainly cannot block up the study of that river f~r all time to come. Mr. Ciwrrs. I have not talked to Mr. Gathings~ As 1 mentioned in my testimony, these bills are complex. I am not sure whether he was talking about eliminating it from establishment, or eliminating it from study. I do not have the study rivers listed on the different bills. PAGENO="0147" 133 I think the elimination of it from a study category is kind of mean- ingless, because there is another provision in the bill that authorizes the executive branch tostildy any river it wants*to. The elimination of a river from the study category means that it is not `mandatory on. the executive branch to study that river, and that the sttidy need ~ not be done bya certain time. So I think the elimination of a river from a study. category. is really of little significance. Mr. TAYLOR. The Congressman from Texas this morning recom- mended eliminating Guadalupe River from the study category. You say that has very little significance. I judgs then you would not have any strong feelings on whether. we should or should not do that? Mr. CRAFTS. No, I do not believe we feel strongly on that, Mr. Taylor. The Guadalupe River is not proposed for establishment as part of the system in any of the bills. It is in the study category in all of the bills. I think we prefer to s~e it in, but I do not think that it would bother us much to have it taken out. . . ~ This is. I guess hedging my answer. But as Isay, I do not think it is of great significance. We could go ahead and study it anyway. Mr. TAYLOR. Explain to me the difference between a wild river and a natural environment river. . . Mr. CRAFTS. Well, ~he best thing I can do is to read the language in the bill. . A wild river, according to }LR. 8416-and we have no better defi- nition-~ Mr. TAYLOR. I have read both, but I wonder if you can enlighten me. Mr. CÜAFTS. We are willing to accept the definitions. I thii~k a wild river is a degree wilder than a natural river. A wild river to me is a real wilderness river. A natural environment river can be a river which, as it says here-trhe surrounding territory has been changed, but the river itself and its immediate border are pretty much as it was. Mr. TAYLOR. I have only one additional question. The Aspinall bill lists 20 rivers for the study stage. Are you recom- mending any additions to that list? Mr. CRAFTS. Let me look at my table here. We recommended in the Administration 35 rivers for study, and I guess while this particular question has not come up-I guess I would say that the Administration posture on the 3ö rivers stands. But again I do not think it is a major point at issue. Mr. TAYLOR. In other words, in your opinion the Administration would back those listed in the Reuss bill? Mr. CRAI~'TS. Yes, we would favor those in tile Reuss bill, but we would not I think shed a great many tears if it ended up 20. Because I do not think this study category is too significant. Mr. SAYLOR. In other words, Mr. Crafts, you would not object if you had all 66, would you? Mr. Cn.&~rrs. No, sir, I would not object. We might study some of those even if they were not in the bills. The only thing is we are di- rected to study the ones in the study category, and by a specific time; that is the only d.istinction. Am I wrong? The counsel is correcting me. Mr. WITMER. Mr. Chairman-there is one further significant differ- PAGENO="0148" 134 ence, isn't there? Those that are named for study are given protection against licensing fora limited period. That is ~iot given to others. Mr. CRAFTS. This is true in the cases of Mr. Aspinall's hill and the Sea~ate-pass~d bilL As I said ~arIier, we think this is a very valuable point, anda good point. Mr. WmrEu. But since we were addf~essing ourselves prin~ipa11y to the bill- Mr. CaAi~rs. I am glad you corrected me on that. I think that is sigmficant. TMr. ASrINALL. It is the only real significance there is between includ- ing the rivers for study and bringing them in through a study later on. Mr. CRAYrS. I think you are right, Mr. Chairman. When we go before the Appropriations Committee, we might find it a little easier to have ~a responsiveness . in the Appropriations Committee if rivers were named for study than if `we were simply seeking money to study rivers which the Congress in its wisdom, after going through this prooedure, had elected not to name. It might help us that way. Mr. PArLOR. The gentlema~i from `Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Dr. Crafts, would it be possible for you to list the rivers ~in the Aspinall bill and in the other bills and give your priority? Mr. On~urrs.. For desig~iation or for study? Mr. Asrn~AL.L. For study. Do you want to go to that extent, with the reoonn~aissanoe work you have done at the present time-or would you' rather have them ma grouping like we have them? Mr. Ca~i~m. Do you mean dividing ` up the study rivers into first, second and third ~iiority~ for study ? Is that what you mean? Mi~As~INAu~. Thai is riEht. Mr. Ca~urrs. No, sir, I would rather `leave them the way you have them. Mr. ~&5PINALL. Letm~ ask youthis question. We were talking aobut the Eleven Point River. Are you talking about the Eleven Point River in Missouri and Arkatisas, or are you talking about the Eleven Point River just in Arkansas, or the Eleven Point River just in Missouri? Mr. Cit&rps. Well, let me try to clarify that if I can here on the map. Unless we have made some error on these maps, the chairman's bill provides that the river from Thomasville, Mo., down here to Black Rock, Ark., is to be studied. Mr. Saylor's bill, H.R. 90, provides `that this section of the Eleven Point'in bltie be designated. There is no provision in the bill for study ` of the rest of it. The Senate-passed bill in this case goes beyond Mr. Saylor's bill and ` has nothing in Arkansas, `and provides that from this point in Missouri near the Arkansas line up to Thomasville be designated. So all `three bills are differeiit. The administration bill, as it originally came up, proposed the en- ~tire stretch th~t in your bill Mr. Chairman is proposed for study-the administration `bill proposes it for designation. But as I said earlier, the adthinistration is agreeable to accepting any of it-any combination of designation that are in these other three bills. PAGENO="0149" 135 Mr. ASPINALL. As far as the present studies are concerned, the value for any designation are in Missouri rather than Arkansas. Mr. OnAFTS. Well, it would appear to be that way, because there ap- pears to be relatively little disagreement about the designation in the 1\~Iissouri portion. One solution might be-I do not know whether any of the bills are like this-it would be to designate this portion in Mis- souri and to study that part in Arkansas. Mr. ASPINALL. Or to leave it out, and study it later whenever we get Through with the others. Mr. CRAFTS. Yes, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Director, for your presentation. In my opinion it has been very effective and very `ogical. I want to say to my colleagues and to the representatives of the Department, and those interested in this legislation, that I have no pride of authorship in my particular bill. I do feel that we should have something more, though, than just a single river authorization as we are beginning to talk about ~t program to study the question of setting aside certain rivers. * In my own personal opinion-I might as well state here, so that everyone will understand it-where the States can and are willing to do their job, I would rather have them do it than the Federal Govern- ment. I would state also that as far as the relationship to pollution is con- cerned, wherever a State, like my State, has seen fit to set a floor in treating pollution matters and that floor is way above the limitations that the Federal Government has so far seen fit to state, I think it is a State responsibility. Now, Doctor, would you explain for me first, just what your pbilos~ ophy as head of the Bureau of Recreation is as far as concerns the necessity of establishing a scenic rivers, or wild rivers, or whatever you want to call it, program for the Federal Government? Mr. CRAFTS. Well, Mr. Chairman, of course I have been trained as a resource manager and a conservationist. Mr. ASPINALL. I do not necessarily believe that the Federal Govern- ment can do everything any better than the State government. Mr. CRAFTS. No. But I thought your question was the importance of establishing a system. Mr. ASPINALL. That is right. Mr. CRAFTS. This is why we think we have a good program in the Land and Water Conservation Fund program where the States get half or more of the money. We encourage the States. In the adminis- tration of that Fund, we have encouraged the States to go into what you might call the wild or scenic river business. These are some that I have not mentioned. We have in Oregon the Deschutes River acquisi- tioh for a State scenic river. We have in Vermont a series of stream bank acquisitions and all this sort of thing. We have found, however, with a few exceptions such as in Wiscon- sin and Maine, which are the outstanding examples, that the States are not moving very fast in this direction. I think there are certain rivers, just as there are certain parts of the Nation that are of national character and national significance. I also think that quite often in a situation of this sort, the Federal Government is looked to PAGENO="0150" 136 for leadership. I think that if the Federal Government would estab- lish a moderate system, that the States might follow along. There is provision in one or more of these bills for the States to do this. It en- courages them in this regard. The State rivers can be added into the national system with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Their work can be aided by the Land and Water Fund work. The States did not establish a system to my knowledge of State wilderness areas. There are some exceptions, but the States with major systems of State forests in this country I believe postdated the initial creation of a National Forest System. There are some exceptions, I know. I think that pollution-wise and impoundment-wise, there is a need for a national system. Mr. ASPINALL. But if the States, in cooperation with the Federal Government, establish the antipollution measures that it is intended they establish, then you can remove pollution as far as the rivers are concerned from this program ; isn't that right? Mr. Cit~&PTs. Yes. Mr. ASPINALL. All right. I think we should keep that in mind. Now, is there any particular value to the size of a river for it being established as a scenic river? Mr. ORAFTS. You mean the length, the width? Mr. ASPINALL. Either one. Mr. CRAFTS. You nèth to have enough to see that it doesn't lose the character which you are attempting to establish, otherwise it might be so small that it is eaten away by attrition. Take-maybe this is not a good example, but you are going to be out looking at this pretty quick-the Tall Trees unit of the Redwoods. There iS fl0 point in the world in my judgment to establish the Tall Trees unit of the Redwoods as a separate unit disconnected all by itself and give it a national status, because it can blow down, a fire can hit it-it is too small. So I think the same thing applies here. You need to have a large new unit to be able to be assured that it, I guess you would call it the ecology, or the~forces of nature won't, by attrition, destroy what you are trying to establish. That is all the bigger it needs to be. Mr. ASPINALL. Well, I think perhaps the Cottonwood River of An- zona is a beautiful little stream, a scenic part of the area, which should be established. No one here suggested to bring in the Cottonwood River of Arizona-it goes from Flagstaff on south-or says that it be a part of the river system. My friend from Pennsylvania suggested that the Yä~ipa jerhaps be made a part of the scenic river system in Colorado. Mr. Cn~&rrs. Well, there are parts-I know a little bit about Arizona. Nobody suggested that the river down through Oak Creek Canyon, which is the most scenic river in Arizona, be established, either. The Salt River up above the head of ~Roosevelt Lake I think was proposed for study in one of them-it runs up into the Apache Indian Reservation-and that is an extremely scenic and attractive river, particularly in its upper areas. As to the lower parts of the Qua and the Salt, I cannot see it, because a lot of times there is no water there, and so on. But that Oak Greek Canyon area, certainly it meets the qualifica- PAGENO="0151" 137 tions. You run into a problem there which may be insurmountable. It: is almost solidly built up with private homes, resorts, developments, and it would just be a cleanout process. . . ~ Mr. ASPINALL. Isn't that after all the guiding criteria we are work- ing here now-that there be no' development as such on any of these rivers? Mr. CRAFTS. Well, I think we are trying to stabilize the develop- ment that is there, and to pick segments of rivers in which the de- velopment has not proceeded to the point' where it does not meet some of these classifications. ~ I know it is our intent that if you have one of these rivers estab- lished, and you find a summer home there, `and it can be handled in a way that in the judgment of the Secretary it is not incomi~atible with the purpose of the river, the intent would be to leave it. We would not clean out everything. Mr. ASPINALL. I do not have any quarrel with what you are saying. But why didn't you pick the Madison River in the State of Montana? Mr. Oi~rns. Well, I do not know whether the Madison was in one of those groups or not. I think the Madison was in one of the bills. It is in the administrationbill for study. But you see, we did * not pick this one, either, this stretch of the Missouri. There are many we `did not pick. You can go on and on. We did not pick the Buffalo in Arkansas. This stretch of the Missouri River, in Mr. Kyl's bill, runs from some miles below Robinson's Bridge on up to Fort Beñton-~a stretch of 180 miles or something like that. The only question we really have on Mr. Kyl's bill is the length. We think this river qualifies. There are others that we think qualify. You could also pick the Oolorado River in the Grand Canyon, too. I mean there are lots of others that couldbe picked. Mr. ASPINALL. There is no necessity of taking care of that river, is there? Mr. Cn~r~s. No ; it is already in a National Park. The Yellow- stone-part of that was picked. There are any number of rivers coming off the Sierras here, and stretches of these rivers could be chosen. The Feather is one. There is a whole series of rivers coming off the west slope of the Cascades. I mean there is no end to this. So that is what I meant when I said-there is no proposal for the Federal Government to do it all. This is a pioneering thing-just like the wilderness bill was. I think it is a moderate and modest approach ~;o asking for that which is basically new and basically needed. There is plenty of latitude and opportunity for State and local participa- tion in the proposed program. Mr. ASPINALL. All right. *You have gone all the way around my question. But why did you pick the ones that you did? Where did you get the pressure from- your Department or outside of your Department-to pick the ones that you finally picked? Mr. CRAFTS. We had a directive from the two Secretaries to make a study of this. PAGENO="0152" 138 Mr. ASPINALL. I do not . care about the Secretaries. The Secretaries listen to a whole lot of minorities. Mr. CRAFTS. All right. We picked 22 `rivers. First we started with 650. We Obtained suggestions from everybody we could think of. We screened those 650 by an office procedure-~by maps, by knowledge of people who knew about the river. This was an office job. We cut down the list `of rivers to 67. Then. we went in and looked at places. Again it was a judgment procedure. We eliminated some of those 67, and within the limits of our ~ financial resources and manpower, we concentrated on ~2, which seemed to be the best. Of these 22, five had received previous study. ` Then we did a field job on the remaining 17.' We got reports on each of the 22. ~ The Allagash was thrown out. I can go down that list 9f 22. The Allagash was thrown out because the State of Maine is administer~ ing it as a wilderness waterway. * The BufFalo~ Arkansas, was not put in because `we think a pro~ posal may be sthnlitted `for a somewhat different approach on that river. ` ` ` Mr. ASPINALL. The fact is there is oppOfltion to the Buffalo? ` Mr.Ci~&rrs. No, sir ; `that i~ not why we threw it out. Mr. ASPINALL. it~ m~y not be why you threw it out, but there is opposition to the ` `Buffald, and it has been before me for the last 3 years. ` , ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `` Mr. Oiw~"rs. The Buffalo in Tennessee is one which we would like very much to have put in. I do not know how to answer your question better, Mr. Chairman, other than to ` say we exercised a judgment among this group of 22 within the limits of what we thought was financial possibility, and within the limits of ` what we thought were highest priorities. I can- riot give you any better answer. Mr. ASPINALL. And to authorize anywhere from 12 to 20 rivers for establishment immediately in the scenic river category-we would have `the Bureau of the Budget making the determination as to what rivers were to be giv~ attention, wouldn't we? Mr. CRAFTS. You probably would. Mr. AsPINAI~L. Now, Dr. Director, will you please furnish for the committee-I do not want it at this time-the procedure by which you arrived at the $50,000 apiece study for each one of the rivers in the study section. Mr. CRAFTS. Yes. It is a very superficial procedure. But I will give you a statement on that for the record. Mr. ASPINALL. I will be glad to have it. It just simply means to me more than likely we will be asked to come back and authorize another $50,000 a river, or for some of them, anyhow. (The information to be furnished for the record follows:) JuarirloAvioN ron Snm~ Cosn Or $50,000 Based on our experience during the Wild Rivers Study and experience of the National Park Service in its studies of particular rivers, we estimate the average cost per river of making a detailed study as called for in the proposed legislation to be $50,000. This figure includes allowance for s~ field study team including development planning, the preparation of a study report, and travel and other related miscellaneous expenses. PAGENO="0153" 139 The figure may vary depending on the particular river being studied. For example, study of a large river like the Susquehan.na in New York and Pennsyl- vania with its extended length and complicated land ownership and use pattern, will be more costly than of a smaller river like the Kiamath in California, where most of the land is already ip public ownership, and where there is little devel- opmen.t. However, we believe $50,000 to be a reasonable average. Mr. ASPINALIJ. Now, as I understand the attempt in the bill which bears my name, there is not any desire to name any of these rivers, as such, wild rivers, natural environment rivers, pastoral rivers, or any- thing like `that. `The attempt is to `call them scenic rivers. And if they possess `these qualifications that are in the different definitions, then they come into the scenic river progra~m. We do not intend to call any of them wild rivers, as such. You may designate them as wild rivers. On page 2 it says "The following types are eligible for inclusion in the management scenic rivers system." Then we go ahead and set forth six classifications-four classifications I guess it is. Then we set forth another group, and we give two more clesigna- tions to that. And if `they qualify within that group, they are placed in the national scenic river program. Isn' that better than trying to describe what a wild river is? Mr. CRAFTS. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, there is some misunderstanding or misinterpretation on our part. You know what you intended-I don't. I am not a lawyer. What led us to that conclusion was that on page 5 in section 3, where th~ rivers start to be named, `the Rogue River, that segment, and so on "to be preserved as a wild river." The next one, the Rio Grande, "to be preserved. as a natural environment river." And so on. Each of these rivers named-the Salmon, "to be preserved as a wild river." I guess that is what led us to `that conclusion. Mr. ASPINALL. Well, rivers today may be as wild as all get out- tomorrow there may be no water in it whatsoever, at least in my coun- try. And that is one of the difficulties I have. I notice that `all of the bills except mine, or the one that bears my name, have openended authorizations. That has been contrary to the desire of this `committee. You have, do you not, the necessary information on each one `of the rivers so that we can use a closed appropriation figure, not only for study, but also for implementation. Mr. CRAFTS. You tell us which rivers you are going to include, and we will give you the information. Mr. ASPINALL. I would like to `have that information, Mr. Chairman. Mr. `ChArTS. You want it on your bill as `it now stands, Mr. `Chair- man? Mr. ASPINALL. I will take it on yours-mine as it now stands, yours as recommended, or if you have some information- Mr. ORAFTS. I think we could g~ive it to you on all `of them. (The information furnished for the record follows:) A breakdown of the $50,000 follows: Personnel costs (3 Miscellaneous (travel, materials, per diem, `~`~ Total $42, 000 8, 000 50, 000 PAGENO="0154" Mr. ASPINALL. Ill the matter of condemnation proceedings-and here is where we are getting into more difficulty on this kind of 1e~i's- lation-why are State-owned lands or subdivisions, political subdivi- sion lands, so much more sacrosanct in their classification than private lands are as far as the matter of condemnation is concerned? Mr. CRAFTS. Well, this condemnation matter is extremely difficult and extremely unpopular. First of all, I think you asked about State and private lands. Or did your question go to the local government, too? I cannot find the place in my testimony, but I think that the lands owned by a political subdivision are not subject to condemnation if they are managed under a plan of management that the Secretary finds is compatible with the purposes of the bill. 140 ESTIMATED COST OF ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FOR RIVERS DESIGNATED IN S. 119, HR. 8416, H.R. 6166 AND H.R. 90 Name [Dollar amounts in millionsi Miles Estimated totaf costs Estimated acquisition costs Estimated development costs Senate bill (S. 119): Clearwater Eleven Point Illinois Rio Grande Rogue St. Croix Salmon Wolf 190 35 40 50 85 2~5 105 24 $0.7 2. 4 1,. 3 ,08 3.9 9. 1 16 7. 7 Total - $1.0 1: 3.9 1.2 1.0 764 $1.7 3. 0 1. 5:4 13.0 1.~3 8. 7 Aspinall (HR. 8416): Clearwater Rio Grande Rogue Salmon 25.3 9, 9 Total 190 50 85 255 580 35.2 :08 3.9 5.3 1.0 ~: 1 3. 2 6. 2 Reuss (HR. 6166): Casapon Clearv~ater Eleven Point____________________________ Rio ~rande_________________-__----- Rogue St. Croix__~________________-___-__----~ Salmop Shenandoah Wolf 1. 5:4 3.8 11,5 120 190 90 50 95 185 255 20 24 1, 029 5. 5.2 08 4,8 7. 2 ~: 1 7,7 35. 1 Total ~: 0 1. 5 1.0 3.2 ~: 0 10.4 6. 0 1.7 6.7 6:5 8. 2 3. 8 3. 3 8. 7 45. 5 Saytor (HR. 90): Cacapon - Ciparwater - Eleven Point _ Flathead Green - Hudson Klammath Missouri Rio Grande Rogue St. Croix Salmon Shenandoah Skagit Suwannee Wolf 100 190 35 215 84 300 140 180 50 95 185 340 20 150 250 75 2,409 4. 8 2.4 1.1 5. 6 9. 0 3. 4 1.2 . 08 4. 8 7. 3:1 9. 0 39.9 7.7 100.7 Tnfsl ~: ~: 1. 2.2 ~: 1.0 3. 2. 1.0 18.0 5. 0 1.7 3.0 2. 1 6.9 9. 5 4. 1 3.4 . 58 6. 5 8. 2 4. 2 3, 3 9.7 41.9 8.7 118.7 PAGENO="0155" . 141 Mr. ASPINAiL. Yes. But if they do not meet your regulations and standards, then what happens? Mr. CRAFTS. Then I think it ought to be possible to condemn them if they are in key spots and this is a necessary component. I know this is a very unpopular posture today, but as a last resort, if they are in key spots, whether they be public or private, they need to be managed either in a way that fits the intent of the legislation or they need to be acquired and either leased back or sold back on appropriate terms and conditions. And I can cite you one example from my own experi- once, which goes back quite a few years when I was in the Forest Service. In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, with ~ which you ` are undoubtedly familiar, there was no provision for condemnation. We negotiated and negotiated andnegotiated. Gradually we acquired most of the lands through negotiation over a period of time. Every time we bought a piece of land through negotiation, we en- hanced the valtie of the land of people who would not sell. What was left were high-priced resorts, private hunting lodges owned sometimes by major companies, other organizations of one sort or another, and ultimately we were at a stalemate-there was no further possibility. So the situation we were in there-and it is not entirely comparable to what we have here because that was a big area. But we had a few resort people who were benefiting by the expenditure of Federal money, benefiting ~ by the cooperativeness of the many other land- owners, mostly the small ones. They had what in effect was a national park or wilderness area around them. They enjoyed all the benefits from it. We finally went to Congress and reviewed the history of these 10 or 15 years of negotiation, and asked them for condenmati'on authority- went before the Agriculture Committee. And it was given to us at that time. The situation has been cleaned up. Without it, it never would have been cleaned up. I think the Federal Government paid more in the long run than it would otherwise pay. Mr. ASPINALL. I did not make myself clear, Doctor. What I am trying to find out is what are you going to do if the State and th~ local political subdivisions do not cooperate with you. Mr. CRAFTS. Under the bill, as we recommend it be amended, if the political subdivisions will not cooperate and the land involved is in a key spot, then we would exercise eminent domain. Mr. A5pINALL. But you do not have it under this bill, as I under- stood your statement. Mr. CRAFTS. We asked for it under this bill. Mr. AsPINArj~. Was your testimony to that effect? Mr. CRAFTS. I believe so. Mr. ASPINALL. I thought your testimony was to the effect that you wanted condemnation authority for private property, but not for State-owned land or public- Mr. CRAFTS. Let me read the sentence, Mr. Chairman. It is in the middle of page 11. The Department recommends that private lands be subject to eminent domain, but not state-owned kinds or lands owned by a political subdivision of the state if it is following a plan of management and protecticnr-consonant with the pur- poses of the Act. PAGENO="0156" 142 Mr. ASPINALL. That means you do want the authQrity. Mr. Ort~ur~rs. Yes, ~ir ; we want it if there not thes&- Mr. ASPINALL. Then an affirmative statement that you wanthd it would ~ have been far better than to say if they would cooperate you would not need it. This is what I was trying to get clear in my mind. Mr. Oi~rrs. We want it under these conditions ; yes, sir. . Mr. ASPINALL. ThWt ` is all, Mr. Chairman. ~ . Mr. TAYLOR. . The gent1~inan froni Pennsylvania. Mr. SAYLOR. First, Mr. Crafts, let me congratulate you on trying to work through a maze. All I ~an tell you is that I will assume some ofthe responsibility for putting you in the terrible spot you find your~ self since I introduced the first piece of legis]iution a long tinie ago. And nobody asked your department down there to help me. I did have some help froth some other people. I ~ had a whole list of rivers people wanted.in, and some wanted out. We used the best judgment of those I could associate with myself to `draft the original bill. Sure, I have more rivers in my bill than anybody else h~s in theirs, beoause I have been in this game long enough to know when you are in that position everybody starts shooting at you, and I have to give in. Some rivers 1 `am going to fight to keep in. I am going to fight to keep the Tennessee in. . Your statement that this' is a national policy, if we adopt this bill, as far as I am concerned, overlooks any local Congressmen. I do not expect to run over anybody. I expect to serve notice on them if some of the people in the area want it. Then they should try to get back home and solve the problem themselves. Now,I do have one question.~ Mr. ASFINALL. Would my colleague yield? I would feel better if he would answer me as I would like him to answer me. He has criss-crossed my State with his proposal like no~ body's business. Is he going to give on this? ~ Mr. SA~r.oR. I will give a little `bit on yours. It depends on how much I get in return. I am a poker player. I have not been in this game nearly as long as the chairman, but I have learned a good many of his tricks. I have ` watched him, I `have sat at the feet of Qamaliel, and I have learned. I hope he does not `envy the fact that his student has been more than `apt. Dr. Orafts, on page 5 of the report which the department sent up is a matter which gives me some concern, and I would like to have some explanation. Mr. CRAFTS. Is this the August 14 report? Mr. SAYLOR. This is the August 14 report. This says: There are i~o maps in existence to identify the boundaries of the four river areas designated by ` the bill as the initial components of the National `Scenic Rivers System. We do not `believe it is feasible to identify detailed boundaries ~or such areas until `surveys are made on the ground. The amendment `therefore deletes a reference in the bills to maps and provides for the boundaries of the four river areas to `be established after the surveys have been made. The amendment en- visions the `boundaries generally will not extend to a width of more than 1,320 feet from either side of the river. My question is twofold: First, what do you do about rivers that are not navigable rivers and, PAGENO="0157" 143 therefore, the title goes to the center of the stream ? This is the first question. Mr. CRAFTS. I cannot answer that. I would like to ask our attorney, Mr. Wolph, to answer that, if I may, please. Mr. WOLPH. If the rivers were not navigable as of the date of state- hood, then the Federal Government in a Federal area, or the adjoining owner in a non-Federal area, would own the bed of the stream. Mr. SAYLOR. That is right. But what I want to know is how much land are you going to take ? Do you take 1,320 feet from the center of the stream, or 1,320 feet plus a half of the width of the stream? Mr. WOLPH. It would be from the side of the stream which we have construed as being the ordinary high-water mark. Mr. SAYLOR. All right. Now, this 1,320 feet from just a rough estimate, that is about 320 acres a mile ; is that correct ? Mr. CRAFTS. That is right. Mr. SAYLOR. Well, now, does this not set a whole new precedent of taking 320 acres a mile ? Is it necessary to take that much land? Mr. CRAFTS. Well, as I said, Mr. Saylor, this is a c~uarter of a mile on each side. That 1,320 is a quarter of a mile. This is the maximum. And it is not always necessary. Tbis would let it be possible to. go out beyond this in some places and pull back below it in some places. Also we made the point-I do not know whether it was before you came in or not-that the intent was that the fee-taking would be lim- ited to 400 feet on each side of the river and the difference between 400 and 1,320 would be easement purchase if at all. Now, I do not think this is without precedent. These parkways-~ and I cannot cite the width-there is certainly precedent there with respect to the parkways in that National Park System. The distance that we ai~e talking about here is less than either the State of Maine or the State of Wisconsin is taking on the rivers that it is establishing. Mr. SAmoR. I am not. concerned so much, Mr. Crafts, about the 1,320 feet. I am concerned about the apparent inflexibility that you tie yourself into. Mr. CRAFTS. No. Mr. SAYLOR. In other words, there may be some areas where you do not need it. Mr. CRAFTS. That is right. This is a maximum. You do not have to go out that far. Mr. SAYLOR. That is what I would like. In other words, there might be some places you need more. This is the thing that I thing you ought to liave. Mr. CRAFTS. All right. The way it reads now-if this is a mile, the maximum you can go-you go in and out any old way you want to within that mile. But it cannot be more than this average of a quarter of a mile. To give us more flexibility, what the Secretary personally would prefer would be, for example, that if there is a hundred-mile river, we could go in and out and apply the quarter-mile average, not on a mile-per-mile basis, but on the full hundred miles. This would give us more flexibility. Mr. SAYLOR. This, I think, would be desirable. Mr. CRAFTS. This requires the insertion of only a few words, I think, in the bill. PAGENO="0158" 144 Mr. SAYLOR. could you provide this? Mr. CRAFTS. We can supply this to you; yes, sir. Mr. SAYLOR. That is all, Mr. Chairman. (The information supplied for the record follows:) LANGUAGE To PROVIDE A MORE FLEXIELE APPLIcATIoN OF THE 320 ACRES PEE MILE The new section 3 (b ) , as proposed under amendment No. 1 on page 5 of the Department of the Interior report of August 14, 1967, on H.R. 8416 would be revised to read as follows: " (b) The agency charged with the administration of each cothponent of the national scenic rivers system designated by subsection (a ) of this section shall establish detailed boundaries therefor as soon as practicable after the inclusion of such component lr~ the system. Such boundaries may be revised from time to time, but may include on both sides of the river an~ average, ba8ed on the totaZ river, miZes of such component, of not more than 320 acres per river mile. Such ag~ncy shall publish~notice of~ such detailed boundaries in the Federal Register, together with appropriate descriptions." Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from. California. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Crafts, I want to commend you for a very fine statement here. It has pointed up. what this is all about, as far as I am concerned, much more than anything I have read or heard before. Thei~e are several things in my mindthat I would like to try to clear up. This morning we were told that the Department of the Interior was in negotiationswith the private landowners on the St. Croix and other small tributaries. Now, if I understood them right, it was that the private landowners are asking you to establish a national scenic riverway on these rivers. They in turn would enter into either a sale of a certain portion of the land in fee, and then easements, or all easements, and then they would ask to be the operator for operation and maintenance, is that right? ~ Mr. CRAFTS. You are talking about the St. Croix in this particular situation, Northern States Power? Mr. JOHNSON of California. Yes. Mr. CRAFTS. Well, in the first place, I do not know, because the meet- ing is underway right now in Minneapolis. So I do not know what they are going to come out with. We have met with them-I did not personally, but our representa- tives did-about a week ago, and out of that meeting came confusion, to be perfectly candid. Also it was apparent that at that time the company was not quite sure what it wanted to do, and I am not sure that we were sure what we were able to do. But the best that I can indicate to you at the present time-and a week from now we can tell you, I think-now I can only conjecture-its that what is contemplated is a conveyance of fee title to a narrow strip, 400 feet, on each side, and a leaseback under such terms as I am told can keep the land on the taxrolls-and I do not really understand this-to allow the company to carry on its normal management processes, but within the restrictions that would be re~ quired under the act. As I have jnst described it, it does not quite make sense to me. But it is not intended or contemplated on our part that this land would remain with the company by title or lease, and that the immediate PAGENO="0159" 145 strip along th~ river would be managed by the company. This would be managed by the Department as would the rest of the river. Mr. JOHNSON of Oalifornia. N'ow, when we come down to the Wolf River, which is going to be partially developed by the State, through the water and land conservation fund moneys, both Federal and State, and be managed by the State, I presume that they would follow the criterion to be laid down for the lower end of the river, and the way that was handled. Does that meet your minimum standards? Mr. CRAFTS. It i~ far more-it is more than our minimum standards. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Well then, when you get into the In- dian reservation or the Indian lands there, I understood them to say they are being leased now for protection purposes at a fairly good figure to the Indian tribe or organization, what do you intend to do? Buy the lands from the Indians? Mr. WOLPII. We could acquire them only with the consent of the- Mr. JOHNSON of California. What is that? Mr. Wotrn. Under the terms of H.R. 8416, as we recommend it be amended, we could acquire the Indian lands only with the consent of the tribal governing body. Mr. JOHNSON of California. So they are generally prote~ted in any legi~lation. What is the negotiation ? Mr. CRAFTS. I just was going to say. We have conferred with the Indians. Early in 1967, the Menominee Indians met with the Wisconsin Congressmen and Senator Nelson and the representatives of the In- tenor Department. The Indians are in favor of scenic river status for the Wolf River in Menominee County. However, they hope the Government will lease rather than buy their lands so they will have an annual income rather than a lump-sum payment. Insofar as I know, that is the status at th~ moment. And I think further discussions would be necessary if the Wolf is included. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Also I understand from your chart that there will be enough money to carry out the program as provided for in the Aspinall bill, 8416, in the way of acquisition, if the increased moneys are provided for in the land and water conservation fund, I presume. Mr. CRArrS. In the first 5 years. Now, you will notice in . the ad- ministration bill, we could carry out only 25 percent during the first 5 years. More of it could be carried out after that. The same with these other bills. But as far as the first 5 years are concerned, the acquisitions in those river areas provided for in Mr. Aspinall's bill could be handled if the money were authorized and appropriated. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Now, naturally there will be not too much in the way of develOpment, although development will prob- ably run into a considerable sum before it is over with.' Mr. CRAFTS. The development is shown, Mr. Johnson, in summary form for the different bills ~n one of those tables. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Yes. It could go up considerably more, I imagine. PAGENO="0160" 146 Now, that money. you figure ~ou1d be available, also as the lands ~re acquire4 .iii that.5-year period-would you be able to develop this? Mr. ORA~r$. Well,, the first thing that would, be necessary, with re- spect to lands administered ~ by the E~rk ~ Service-their customary procedure is to develop w J~ at they call ~ master plan for the area. I would. expeot.tbatthat çç~ildbedon~. They would be dependei~t upon development money ~r appropriatio~ in thQ normal process from the Treasury. I have one of the assistant directors of the Park Service sitting right behind me, ~ Mr. ~ ~wew, . imd~r whose jurisdiction this wouldeome. ..:` ~ . , . Do you~ar~ . to elaborateonthis any ? * ~ ~ ., ~ ~ , ~ . 1\fr, Swim. Ido not think further elaboration, i:s in order. That would be the pro~eclure~ that w~, would make a detailed waster plan study of the river wvolvecl It happens in the case of the St Ci~oix River we have completed a detailed study, and we~ a~e right now firming up our master pian recommemiations. This isnot true of the other rivers. We have not done this on the Woi~ River. * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr, ~ ofCa1i~rnia. Oi~i the St. Croix, you anticipate you wouhi make the 4~ve1op~eiit cn the river as well as~ncquire the land, the necessary easemei~its, and then lease back these facilities to the pri- vate ho1d~rsof.i~he Jançjo~a the St., Croid ~ * ~ ~ ~ Mr. CRAFTS. You are speaking of Northern States Power? .. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Yes. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. Ci~u~s.We jt~st d~ ~iot know, M~. Johnson.' W e just plain do not know. We have either our solicitor or associate solicitor out there today, a~ad we do not ki~ow .what~ he is coming back with in the way of a proppsal, Thi~ thing is ve~y much in a state of flux with respect to that particular piece of property on the St. Croix. Theefl~ort the~, the intent there, is for the company to take, s~me actiou which. will reduce the cost to the public, and yet at the same time not surrender such rights' as it feels that it must i~tain. We have to decide whether we can get sufficient control that we feel we must have to car~~y out the intent of the aet. Whether the two parties can come together, I just 4~ not know.. .. ~ ~ ~ Mr. ~JOH7~SON Of California. Well, ` that is the way I understood the Senator this morning-~---ever~ to the ~tei~t of tax considerations to the company, looking forward to beii~g able to use as far as their agreements with the Goverr~rnent. , ~ ~ ~ And I was amazed to find out that this particular river is the furthest one ahead in the master.plan. Do I understand that you people have actually studied this for a ma~ter plan, and you have it ready to submit? ~ , ~ Mr. Swi~i. We hope to soon have it ready ; yes. Mr. . JOE]~SON. What is the progress on tiie~ other rivers . that ~ are in the bill under the Aspinall bill-the Clearwater, the, Rio Grande, the Rogue, and the Salmon ? How far are you along with those? This St; Croix is not in the Aspinall bill, but it is in the adminis- tration's bill, was in the Sa1ylor bill, and in the Reuss bill. Of course the Reuss bill is the administration's bill. Mr. Cn~rs. Well- Mr. JOHNSON of California. Who picked the priority for- Mr. Ci~rrs. I might say, Mr. Chairman, on the Aspinall bill, the Department of Agriculture would administer the Clearwater, Interior PAGENO="0161" 147 would administer the Rio Grande, and the other two, the Salmon and the Rogue, would be as agreed upon between the two Secretaries, or as directed by the President. However, the Department of Agriculture in its report on H.R. 8416 recommends an amendment which gives the Secretary of Agri~ culture administrationof the Salmon. The Department of the Interior concurs in this recommendation. So, if the Congress adopts that amend- ment, the Rogue is the only river which at this stage we do not know who would administer. Mr. Km. Will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. JOHNSON of California. Yes. Mr. Km. Is it not true that we have studied the 180 miles as corn- pletely as any other river that we have contemplated for inclusion in this bill? Mr. CRAFTS. I would say that the St. Croix perhaps more. But other ihan that, I think your statement is correct. Mr. Kyi. I might add at this point, if the gentleman from Cali- forma will yield for just one further remark, that in the case of this stretch of the Missouri River, the gentleman from Iowa spent a year :gett~g an agreement on all phases of legislation necessary to include it in some kind of preservation like this, from all of the interests he could find in the State in which `it is located. Mr. Cii~rrs. I might say, Mr. Kyl, I think it was before you came in this afternoon I spoke a little bit about this river, and maybe one of our problems on why it was not in-not on merit, but on the fact that we received a directive, and it was that formal resolution and directive from the Senate Interior Committee, as you well know, to study this river again. This time it was from Fort Benton, Mont., to Yankton, :8. Dak. This study will be completed in about a month. On this stretch ofthe river, while this has not gone through the Bu- reau of the Budget yet-I am speaking of Interior's posture-the only substantive difference that we might have with you on this bill, to the best of my knowledge~ is on the length-whether to extend it into the :game range, and whether to stop it at Virgelle or thereabouts. Mr. KYL. This would be a kind of in-house adminietrative~ difficulty. Mr. CRAFTS. Well, it Is not in-house within Interior. It is how we are going to come down, and we could not very well come down until we have completed our study, which is just around the corner. I do not know how soon this committee might take action, but I expect if this is the situation as you describe, I at least would make every effort to try to get an Interior position on this up to the committee for its consideration. Now, I cannot tell you offhand-do any of you know the estimated cost of the acquisition of this river? I do not have that figure in mind. We would have to get it. It is easy enough to get. But on the merit of the river stretch, on what. you plan widthwise, on what the general indications are with respect to management, we are in accord with you. Mr. KYL. I thank the gentleman. Mr. JOHNSON of California. To put it another way, I presume the ~National Park Service is the logical agency to make the master plan 92-560-68--il PAGENO="0162" 148 study, regardless a~ to who will have jurisdiction-whether it be the Forest Service or the Secretary of the Interior, or whether it bo -~ Mr. CRAFTS. I do uot think the National Park Service would make the master plan study of the rivers that were to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. I think that would be carried out by the Forest Service. Mr. JortNsoN of Oalifornia. Well, in most cases generally the Park Service is askcd to do their work. Mr. CRAFTS. To do the Forest Service, recreation planning? Mr. JOHNSON of California. Not the total recreation planning, but a master plan. I think the Park Service has quite a bit to do with the-around some of the reservoir facilities we have had, that come under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service in the end-the Park Service. After the Bureau and the corporations get through, the Park Service makes the master plan? Mr. SwE~. That has been true in the case of master planning for some of the reservoir areas~-that is where national forest lands may he coming down right to the reservoir water surface. We have not prepared plans for the regular national forest lands. Mr. JOHNSON of California. The only master plans you will make is where you figure you will be the agency to administer the National Scenic Riverway? Mr. Ci~i~rs. If I may interject-the best estimate we have at the moment on the cost of the Lewis and Clark Waterway, the lengths that we are thinking about, which are somewhat shorter than the length in your bill, the best estimate we have at the moment i~s $2 million for acquisition and $2.2 million for development. So it would add to the acquisition cost of these bills, if that river were included, about $2~ million. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Now, I presume that you have sufficient funding then to take care of the studies that are necessary for what- ever we authorize in~this legislation? Mr. Ort~&~rs. We do not have moneys available to carry out the studies on the study rivers. I think that is a fair statement. We would have to seek moneys through the Appropriations Committee for this. On the master planning aspect, if it reaches that point, I think Mr. Swem should talk to that. Mr. SWEM. On the studies we have been talking about, we would work them right into our regular study program. For example, just referring briefly to the upper Missouri again, we do have a master plan study scheduled there for the mçnth of May, as part of the regular study activity. Mr. JOHNSON of California. On the upper Missouri? Mr. SwEM. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON of California. As I understand it, you have enough money over a 5-year period to fund, if this other bill passes. from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. And you will have and make the necessary requests for master plan moneys, or these can all be master planned as they are acquired? Mr. CRAFTS. Yes; we would ask the money, that is right, as they were approved by the Congress. Assuming this other bill passes and the money is appropriated, we have scheduled $9 million for acquisition the first 5 years under PAGENO="0163" 149 the level that the subcommittee reported the other day to the full committee. Mr. Aspinall's bill has an estimated acquisition cost of something over $5 million. So there is some leeway in there. For example, jf it were decided to add the upper Missouri, an addi- tional cost of $2 million, if this figure is right, could be handled. If it were decided to add the St. Croix in there, at least a portion of it could be handled. We would come to the committee for appropriations- assuming my $50,000 per river is right on the average for study rivers-we would come to the committee for appropriations out of the general funds of the Treasury. Then after the Congress acts and desig- nates the river, or directs that it be designated, then the Park Service would make its master plan. Mr. JOHNSON of California. That is what I am trying to get straightened out. When do you start the master plan ? Seemingly the master plan is already started on a river that is questionable whether it will go in or not. And then say we pick up the other rivers, if we put in four or five-how do they come along as far as priorities are con- corned? Mr. Ciw~'rs. We are scheduling the master plan on the Missouri for a number of reasons. The Missouri has been studied and studied and studied. The Park Service has a report on it several years old. We have been studying it for about 2 years. It has just about been studied to death. We thought it was pretty certain that if any of these bills are going to pass, be established, this upper Missouri, this wilderness see- tion of Missouri, was a prime candidate and would probably be in- cluded. So they went ahead on that basis. Now, Mr. Swem will have to answer why the muster plan on the St. Croix was undertaken. Mr. Sw~i. Well, that has involved quite a history, too. As brought out earlier today, the State has been interested in this river for some time. It was one of the first rivers studied in the overall wild rivers study. We have been asked for more detailed information, particularly as it pertained to costs for the St. Croix River. And we feel that in order to supply that, we should make a mkster plan study of any river that we would be administering. Mr. CRAFTS. Part of that goes back to Senator Nel~on's point this morning. He felt that on the section of the river below Taylor Falls, down to the junction with the Mississippi, tha~t the Park Service pre- ~ liminary estimates were unreasonably high. And he envisioned isolated tracts to be acquired and this sort of thing. I do not know what the basis of the Park Service estimates were. But he made the statement this morning that he felt that `the Park Service estimates as initially developed were unreasonably high. And I think this probably moti- vated the Service in undertaking the master plan. Mr. JOHNSON of California. The gentlemen testifying this morning were asking that the upper reaches be included as one being authorized, a~t this particular time, and the other set aside for study. I presume you do not have a master plan on the lower reaches of the St. Croix River.. Mr. SwEM. We do not. We are studying that right now. That wilt all be pulled together within a relatively short period of time. I PAGENO="0164" I 150 Mr. JOHNSON of California. Your master plan concerns the upper reaches that they- Mr. SWEM. Only momentarily. 1\~tr. JoHNsoN of CalifOrnia. What is that? Mr. SWEM. Only momentarily. Mr. C~APTS. They finished the part from Taylor Falls up. They are studying the part from Taylor Falls down right now. The whole thing will be done very shortly. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Well, I doubt whether the lower reaches gGt in this first authorization. Mr. Cit&~rs. Well, they may not. I do not know. They are in the Senate-passed bill. Mr. JOHNSON of California. We have others that will probably go in there, and naturally they would expect the plan to start on the ones that are authorized, so that they could get their development in and acquisition taken care of. I have no objections to it, but I certainly want to make sure that in this particular instance, where you are thinking about leasing it back to private enterprise, with the rederal Government's expendi- ture of funds, that the operation of the scenic rivers is not different, *as far as the public is concerned. Mr. CRAFTS. This is precisely. the same thing which the Secretary ~told us when he gave us our directions to go out there and consult with them. We agree with you completely. We must protect and ~iianage it the same way. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Because in the establishment of the I'~ational Scenic Rivers program, I ~1gree if a State is willing to do it, with assistance from the Federal Government, and operate and maintain it, fine. But if the Federal Government has to do it,, either under Forest Service jurisdiction, or under the Secretary of Interior, I think we should have one `basic pattern, philosophy, of authoriz'a- tion. . . That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas. Mr. SKUBITZ. Thank you. Mr. Crafts, I have one question. On page 8 of your testimony if we were to approve the Aspmall bill, does that mean Clearwater-is that 190 miles? Mr. CRAFPS. That is right. Mr. SKUBITZ. We would take 320 acres in each mile ; is that correct? Mr. CRAFTS. That is what I was discussing with Mr. Saylor a few moments ago. As it is worded now, it means that the maximum that could be taken under a combination of fees and easement would be 320 acres per mile. Now, most of this would be easement. It does not mean we would have to take that much, or that we would take that much. It means this is the maximum, and the maximum fee part is much less than that. That is 400 `feet as contrasted to a total of fee and easement to- gether of 1,3~0 feet out. So you see, it is one-fourth of thc- Mr. SKrrmTz. I was using your figure of 320 acres per mile. Mr. CRAFTS. That is the maximum, not for fee acquisition, but fee plus easement acquisition. PAGENO="0165" 151 Mr. SKUBITZ. What percentage would go for fee and what percent~ age for eas~meht? , . ` ~ ~ ~ , ~ . . Mr. Ci~iu~rs. Most of it would go for ~s~rnent, ~nd rn~C1~. of it is al- ready in public ownership. The Clearwater runs through the national forest, which is already in public ownership. Mr. McCLui~. That is the point I wanted to britig out. Oould you give us the mileage of this 190 miles Which i~ already in public owner- ship? Mr. CRAFTS. I think I can. We are talking about Mr. Aspinall's bill. There again we are talk- ing in maximum of a total of 60,000 acres ; all except 3,000 is already publicly owned. Mr. MCCLURE. Would the gentleman yield. Mr. SKUBITZ. How much of that 57,000 acres that you have iden- tified there is within the presently designated wilderness area? Mr. CRAFTS. I would have to take a look at the map. We have a map of the Clearwater, and it shows the wilderness area. I can give you a judgment estimate very quickly. We estimate we would only purchase on the Clearwater, under Mr. Aspinall's bill, 75 acres. We would obtain easements on 695. Mr. SKIJBITZ. I am pleased- Mr. CRAFTS. It does not amount to anything, reaily. Mr. SKUBITZ. I took the total mileage and multiplied by 320 acres, divided this into $5 million and came out with $28 per acre. It did not make sense. Mr. CRAFTS. No, no. Here is the Clearwater. You see the green national forest land, and this shows land status as well as boundaries, because here is the sec- tion of privately owned land. This is solid national forest, except foi~ a few inholdings in here. Here is the boundary of the primitive area- Mr. MCCLURE. Wilderness area. Mr. CRAFTS. I do not know whether this has been converted to wild- erness or not. . This part of the Lochsa is outside, or it forms the boundary for a little stretch. This part is inside. You put the tw~ together and you have, I do not know, maybe 20 percent, 15, 20 percent in the wilder- ness area. Mr. McCLtritE. If the gentleman would yield further-just for the record, that is the portion of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area which comprises nearly a million and a half acres of wilderness land. Mr. Sicuiu~z. You have clarified my point. Mr. JOHNSON of California. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Kyl. Mr. Km. I have several questions, but I am not going to `ask all of them now. I have some misgivings about this legislation for a number of rea- eons. In the first place, I think it is going to stop some State activity or postpone State activity. Before I get to the questions, I want to read three sentences from the 56-page bro~hure which the State of Ohio prepared with regard to the Little Miami, a beautiful stream. To expedite preservation and development at' the river and valley, It Is rec- ommended that the project be directed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. PAGENO="0166" 152 No.2: ~ ~ An advisory board should be established by the Director oi the Ohio flepart~ ment~ of Natural Resçurces to provide loca~[ representation and augment the State's role in administering the project. ~ ~ The third sentence : It is reeUmmen'ded that federal wild or scenic river legislation include pro- vision for grants that cover up to 100 percent of the land acquisition and ease- ment costs. That is a pretty honest summation of what the States are looking for, to do a State job with 100-percent Federal funds, And I am afraid that this legislation may very effectively stop a lot of State activity, and especially when we consider all of the hundreds of rivers that should in some respect be preserved or kept clean or in some other way safe for future generations. Let me get to these questions. Accordmg to your `testimony, in 1965 President Johnson in his message to the Congress on natural beauty suggested it was time to "reserve free flowing stretches of our great scenic rivers." Now, that is the general gist, that is the beginning. We want to keep these rivers free flowing, which means we do not want to put dams on them. We heard this morning testimony about a river that floods, but not because of the river. - If Stiliwater, Minn., should have a tragic flood, do you think the des- ignation of the river through this town as a natural or scenic or wild river would make one bit of difference insofar as reconsideration of dams is concerned? Mr. CRAFTS. If I follow you, you mean if they have a flood, are the people going to want a dam to see they do not have a flood again? Mr. Km. Yes. Mr. CRAFTS. I think so. They are going to want a dam. Mr. Kyi~. They are going to want a dam. Mr. CRAFTS. Yes, sir. Mr. Km. And the Congress can at any time it desires change the status of any of `these streams from free-flowing streams to a stream which is protected for flood control and river stabilization. Mr. Cii~yrs. That is right. And I made that statement here today. Mr. Ki~. Now, so far as your office is concenaed, is the real purpose of this act to `preserve these rivers, or is it recreation. ? Mr. CRAFTS. Well, I do not know. I am not sure I get the full dis- tinotion. There is not much point in preserving just for the sake of preserving. You have ecological remnants, you have natural areas. But even those, you reserve them for scientific study and this sort of thing. It depends how broadly you consider recreation. If you con- sider it to encompass the enjoyment of therivers by canoeing, by walk- ing, `by looking, even by the fact of knowing that they are there, then I would ~ay that recreation is a principal purpose. Mr. Km. The point I want to make absolutely clear is this. Your answer to the question will help establish the point. We have a category of streams now possthle, a category which also includes land areas, and we oall them national recreation areas. Now, when we consider this bill, any of the bills ~hich are introduced on the subject, are we talking about developing national recreation areas or I PAGENO="0167" 153 national preservation areas-if you have to have a choice between those two terms. Mr. CRAFTS. Well, you faoe me with a dhoice which really does not exist `in the `bills. But I just cannot answer it in that way. I think you are talking about having national preservation areas for the purpose of enjoyment of these reservations. Mr. KYL. Are we going to build, as the Ohio study suggests, swim- ming pools? Mr. CRAFTS. Oh, no. Mr. Kyi~. Places for boating, motorboating, water skiing ? Are we going to prohibit these activities on these rivers which are preserved in the wild scenic river category? Mr. CRAFTS. The bill is very open on that. Our concept is that this would vary some. Of course if you use some of the classifications of a wild river, then I think probably acti~i- ties of this sort might very well he prth~bited-might be a canoe river, like the Allagash is-this prohibits motorboats, except on some of the big lakes, for safety purposes. If you are talking about some of these high density areas, I think you might permit some of these things. I think there would be considerable variation within the scope, and depending upon the condition. I do not think we are talking aboub-except possibly in the wild river category-what amounts to an elongated stretch of a wilder- ness area, with a river gding down the middle of it. Mr. Km. Actually the gentleman knows I know he does not mean this. But we have an awful lot of people who have been in this room who have been interested in this legislation who are concerned not with saving beautiful streams but with recreation, and recreation to attract tourists, money, dollars. Mr. CRAFTS. Well, I think that the purposes are to preserve seg- ments of America's rivers in as nearly a natural state as we can, but permitting a minimum type of recreation development-trails, boat- ing, but generally in the wilderness areas they prohibit motorboats and also in a substantial portion of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. In some places you would have to use motorboats for safety. But I do not think you would have the extent of recreation develop- ment and facilities that you normally contemplate in a national rec- reation area. You would not have that. You would not have overnight accommodations and this sort~ of thing. Hopefully, you would have this sort of development on private land outside. You might have a simple type of picnic facilities, and this sort of thing. I think my figures indicate that the developments contemplated here run about a third of the cost of acquisition. The normal ratio between developwent and the cost of acquiring a recreation area is about2to 1. What is contemplated for scenic river areas generally is a very sim- pie type of development. Mr. KYL. A lady wrote me a letter and said, "We want this bill passed because we have always planned to build a cabin on the banks of this river, and we want this river to be preserved for us." PAGENO="0168" 1~54 Did I answer her properly when I said if this bill is passed and that river is included, she will not build a cabin on the banks of the river? ~ Mr. Oi~rrs. I think you did. This is one thing that concerns me about the lower part of the St. croix. As I understand it, it is pretty heavily developed with private hOmes and cabins. Mr. KYL. I have had letters from people who have cabins who op- pose i*t because they will lose the cabins. Mr. Cjie~irrs. An occasional one might be left that fits in naturally. But there is no point in setting up a Federal reservation with Federal money, and then dividing it up into lots for summer homes. Mr. KYL. Now, we have talked a lot about buying land and ease- ments. One of the Members of Congress this morning noted that it would be much cheaper to get easements than to get a fee. We have a somewhat simi]ar situation existing on ~Jacks Fork River- way. In your expei~ien*ce in that connection, have the easements been inexpensive compared to fee? Mr. CRAFTS. I cannot speak about Jacks Fork as such. But quite often the easements will cost almost as much as the fee. Mr. Km. That is the only response. I need to the question, sir, and I thought that that was true. Now, Mr. Aspinall's bill has a limitation of $6.5 million on it. Mr. ASPINALL. $5.3 million. Mr. KYL. This one says $6.5 million. Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman was right as far as my appropriating section is concerned. But as far as their figure downtown is concerned, they have cut it back. That. is where the difference. is. Mr. KYL. Well, the figure in the bill is probably closer to accurate, but I think it is still a long way short of being practical. Mr. ASPINALL. I have no quarrel with thttt. Mr. Kyr~. The gentleman a moment ago said they had some cos~ e.sti- mates on the upper Missouri study and are using this simply as a. coin- pan son here, approximate cost. When I went into this subject, trying to find out what. this land would cost, and what comparable land had beeii costing in the area- about one-third of the area. where we plan to purchase acres, in that case I did not come up with anything like $1 million acquisition for land costs. But I think perh aps I was_you were including in your study seine breaks along the river which the people up there. do not want to lose, and which we kind of maneuvered out of my bill to get a piece of legislation they all agreed to. Mr. CRAFTS. That could well be. I do not have the details on the upper Missouri here, Mr. Kyl. But most of the land, as you know, is publicly owned now. I think about two-thirds of it is Bureau of Land Management land. The other land is mostly owned by the iii~estock industry. Along that stretch of the river, cattle come clown to the water. Those breaks are heavily grazed and eroding. I am sure included in this cost estimate is a substantial portion of these breaks. I must say this, that if your bill excludes those breaks, I think it is a mistake from the standpoint of preserving that waterway in any sort of a natural environment, because starting from the table lands and going down the breaks and along the cottonwood flats, and into that river, those breaks need to be grazed sufficiently lightly to permit very rapid range im- proveiinent and reestablishment of the grazing cover. 1 I PAGENO="0169" 1~5 Mr. K~.NQw, these people up there arewilling to do that Thit I am afrgad you jia$ iqiled m~ Bec~u~ise if we inolude the breaks~ the setikMors and the representative from the area will not go along with us, aiid ` under our "A.M." dootrin~, this will au~ôntaticall~ ~11rnh~ate ti~ from consideration. ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~. Mr. CRAFTS. I am not trying to kill you or yotir bill. * I aim telling y09 what I think on the merits. This is almost essential from the stand~ pornt of having a meaningful Missouri. Wilde~mess or Scenic Riverway if it is to have any lasthig stability, because these breaks are tearing apart. They are just going to g~t worse and worse. To rehabilitate that country with short grass plaii~s `and light rainfall, it takes considerable effort. It is n~t a n~i atter of justtaking the livestock off. Mr. ~ .~ And 10' years. Mr. Cii~r~s. itt means reasonable use to allow reproduction. It means affirmative efforts in reseeding. It is expensive and precarious. It is a difficult thing to rehabilitate the breakiands. * Mr. 1Cyi~. I would Just ask you one more question. Do you think the cost estimates that we have here are reasonable? Mr. Cn~FTs. You mean in gener~d? Mr. Km. Yes. Mr. CRAFTS. Or ju~t-~----- ~ Mr. Km Let us take the A'spinall bill-4s this a reasonably accurate figure for acquisition for easements and so forth? Mr. Cn~rrs. My experienc~ has been, Mr. Kyl, that we always under- estimate. They are the best that we could come up with. We are co~nizant of our experience of underestimating. They are based on anticipated ac- quisitions in fee and easement I should point out that there is no safety factor cranked in for price escalation. We are talking of acquiring the necessary lands in 5 years for the four rivers in the chairman's bill, if we have condemnation authority. Such authority may never `be used, but is a very persuasive thing to know that it is there. It grea'tiy helps the matter of negotiations, not `as `a `threat-~ithcugh it ôo'uld be con- strued as such. If we have condemnation authority, I `believe we can do this in 5 years. I think the cost estimate is reasonable. However, if we do not have condemnation authority, `if it goes on past 5 years, I think it is probably too low. Mr. Km. I thank the gentleman. Mr. JOHNSON of California. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. McClure. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr, Ohairman'. I am a little puzzl~d be- cause you have indicated to me `some of the-4n your statement-4he .. rather exhaustive comparison between the various `bills before this com- mittee, and yet `have not compared the very basic philosophy, it seems to me to be differently expressed in the bills, and that is what we are trying to accomplish by `the establishment of `this system TØf scenic rivers. if I understand your `sta~tement, oontained here just in the last several minutes,y'ou think of `a wild river as bei~g a narrow strip of wilder- ness area. And~ if I understand the implied definition ~ontain~d in the PAGENO="0170" 156 Saylor bill, and all ofthe rivers contained in it, would include a very great number of rivers, portions of which are ~ relatively highly d~ veloped at the .presenbtime. ~ . ~ Mr. Ci~w±s. Weli,:n~iaybe I was misleading yOu. I was thinking of a wild river as distinct from a scenic natural environment or some of these other classes. I wasspeaking of a particular class of rFirer. Even that would not be entirely comparable to wilderness, because as I said, it would permit some ofthese m~nimal type of developments. I think maybe natural environment rivers is a more descriptive term of the whole category of what we are talking about, which in essence is to attempt to preserve the status quo of these rivers. The basic thing is no dams, let them be free-flowing-this is one of the key things. Pollution control is another thing-relatively un~ polluted. This I think is essential, and a narrow strip along the shore so that as you travel the river, you appear to be in a natural environment. One of the best examples that I can cite to you offhand is the Oonnecticut River from its mouth on up to Hartford, which is in the heart of the eastern megalopolis. If you go up that river in a boat and look at that shoreline as you go up, you think you are way out in the country-in a natural environment-~because along most of that strip of that river there is a narrow hand of trees and so on. You don't see the houses and the highways and the other developments that are back there. Some- times that strip may be only 10, 12 yards wide. When you go along that river on the roadways nearest to that river, which is up on the first bench, you get an entirely different impres- sion of the ~onnecticut River. I am just using that as an illustration. What it means to me, and what I think we are talking about is tO keep a few segments of our remaining undeveloped rivers in a natural state. We are talking about a very small fragment of our whole national river system. But most of the rivers in time will have developments down to the shore, or very close to the shore. On some there will be a staircase series of lakes, like those in eastern Arkansas, and the big corps developments in Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and up the Missouri River until you get to Fort Peck, and also down in the~ southeast part of the country. We are trying to pick out the residuals to keep so that won't happen. Mr. MCOLtmE. You are referring to the esthetic quality of the total environment, including that which you see from the river? Mr. CRAFTS. Yes, sir ; I am. Mr. MOCLtrnL Now, how do you correlate that to the terrain in the Western tTnited States where the mountains rise for miles out of the river ? Is your desire to control the usage on all those miles of hillsides? Mr. CRAFTS. No ; not at all. This is, of course, impractical, and it is not intended-and this question came up this morthng, whether the intent was to take a scenic easement from line of sight. Some of the line of sight out of some of those western rivers can be ~O miles, as you well know. This you cannot do. So you compromise, and you maintain a strip, as specified in here, of a maximum of a quarter of a mile, I think it is, on each side. You compromise. PAGENO="0171" 157 Mr. McOLtnI~. Now, hi'córni&~t1o~'with this compromise, and talking the strip, the relatioi~hip of this to a wilderness concept, is it your intention or desire to regu1Ei~te grazing, for inst~nçe, within this strip ? ~ ~ Mr. *CRAI?Ts'. Yes. And ~ it is not a wilde~'ness, sir, unless it is in a wilderness area~ In a wilderness, under the terms of the Wilderness Act-the intention is that. grazing would be permitted to continue, but not overgrazing. The intention is that the occasional ranch along the river would be allowed to' stay, unless it turned into a honkytonk or something of that sort. The intention is that controlled timber harvesting would be permitted-this type of thing. Mr. MCCLuaE. You also mentioned in your statement a moment ago that it was designed primarily to maintain the status quo. Mr. CRAFTS. Well, the status quo within limits-the status cjuo where it is still pretty good. I am not trying to duck you. I am trying to be as responsive as I can. Mr. McCLtriiE. I realize that. In response to the gentleman's question a moment ago, in regard to the cabins along the banks, you indicated in some instances those cabins might have to be removed. Mr. CiiAi~rs. This particular stretch of the St. Croix I have not seen, the lower stretch. But I have seen some of the lakes in the Middle West. I was born and raised there. On those lakes, it is not just an occasional cabin-it is one cabin right after another. It is just solid real estate development all the way `around the river. Now in this case, there really is no point of putting that in the system. Mr. McCLuiiE. If it were to be included in the system, it would imply the removal of the cabins through purchase or condemnation. Mr. CRAFTS. Certainly the removal of enough of them, because there is no point in doing it-that type of situation shouldn't be in the system. Mr. MOCLcrnE. Do you have- Mr. Ciw~vrs. But the occasional cabin, like we are talking about, on some of the western rivers, you go along the Salmon, any of them, the Kiamath-you will get an occasional cabin, an occasional ranch, an occasional irrigated valley along the river. This type of thing I think would be allowed to stay. This doesn't bother the natural environment concept. But just continuous summer homes, one right after another, this is something else. Mr. McCLuiiE. Of course, I think I would be less candid than you have been if I did not confess at this point that many people in my State are concerned about the very fact that this kind of authority is vested in the discretion of a public official. Mr. CRAFTS. I am well aware of that. I don't have any answers to that. I don't know how you handle this. You give us such directions and provisions as you wish. You can put limitations on us, give us leg- islative history. There has to be some confidence, some mutuality of confidence between the executive and legislative branches on all pieces of legislation I am trying to build a legislative history here in response to Mr. Kyl's questions, in response to yours, that would help to clarify this. PAGENO="0172" 15S . Mr. MoCLVRE.~.In:response to ~sqine quest~ms ear1i~r tocMy, you did not indi'oate the Q~'iteria by whic)i you se1eo~d the rivers t~ be in~ ~1uded. ;Poyou have aii~tofsuoh critez~i~ ~ ~ . ~ , . Mr. Cn~jrrs. Do you mean m the administration bill? Mr. MCCLURZ. ~No. I mean, ~i your De~u~tment. ~How did yoi~ ari~ive at the seleotion?You indioated you had a large ~oup. Mr. CflAFrSS We weut through the judgment process4 I think I said I would submit the details ~f how we arrived at these 22 rivers, for the record. I don't `have that with me. Mr. MCCLURE. But you will submit that for the re~ord~ Mr. CL&p~rs. Yes, sir ; I will. (The following information was furnished for the record:) SELECTION OF RIVER 111 1963-.64 theDep~trtnients of ~he Interior and Agricuittire cotidilcted ~ nation- wide study of rivers in cooperation with the States. The study sought to define the need to protect a limited number of rivers in their free-flowing condition and to identify the best opportunities. Initially 650 ri~re1~s were suggested by various agencies and individuals for st~d~r. Sl~ty-seven of th~se Were then selected for preliminary fteld evaluation. Seventeen of these were fttrther selected, for addi- tional study. Five other rivers also were considered on the basis of previous study by other agencies. Most of the rivers listed for designation in present scenic and wild river bills are from among the 22 that re~e1ved additional stud~r or had already been studied by other age~cl~s. Several factors were paramount in selecting the study rivers. The quality of the river was, of course, important. In addition geographieal balance was sought, as well as the inclusion of different types of rivers. In a memorandum of instructions dated I~ecember 81, 19~33 tO fleglonal t~irec- tors frOm Director, Bureau of OutdoOr Recreation, the following criteria were provided for use during the Wild Rivers Study in making field evaluations. 1. Condition : The river. is relatively free-flowing and unpOiluted% and the scene as viewed from the river Is pleasing, whether of true wilderness character or somewhat modMed b~ wan, or these cond1tion~ are practicably restorable. 2. Quality : The river and Its setting poSsess natural and recreation values of outstanding quality. 3. Capacity : The river and its setting are large enough to sustain existing recreation use or to accommodate more without undue impairment of the natural values of the resource or quality of the recreation experience. 4. Hlghest use : Retention of the river In its natural, free-flowing condition appears to outweigh alterflate uses. 5. Present status : There are ~1o projects at the construction stage or atitborizéd that would permanently and drastically impair the existing natural and reerea- tion values of the river and its setting. Mr. MCCLURE. Was the Battelle report utilized as a portion of the analysis of the selection of these rivers ? Mr. CRAFTS. I cannot answer that. Mr. Tkacli was involved in this study I don't know the answer to your question. Mr. TRACH. The Batteile report was one of the reports used ~s a basis for the Salmon and Clearwater. ~ . . Mr. CRAFTS. I recall now. We empl9yed the Battelle firm to run a couple of pilot studies for us, more on a procedural basis than anything else, as to how to go about making an adequate study. So I would say that we gave consideration to the Batteile report but they did not have a controlling influence on our conclusions, We would be glad to make that available to you. Mr. ASPINALL. Did the Department of the Intei~ior pay `for the Battelle report? Mr. CRAFTS. I believe we did. PAGENO="0173" 159 Mi'. As:i'INALr~. Under what aiiUiority? Mr. MCCLURE. Contract No. 263. Mr. CRAFTS. Under the Organic Act of the Bureau which allows us to enter into contracts. Mr. ASPINALL. Bureau of Recreation? Mr. CRAFTS. Yes, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. Did you ever advise this committee that you were making that kind of study? Mr. C1~FTs. I cannot recall, Mr. Aspinall, whether we advised this committee. We advise the Appropriations Committee each year of the contracts that we have. I think during the life of this Bureau, we have had about 20 contracts for work of a variety of sorts. I would be glad to submit a list of them. Mr. ASEINALL. You haven't had 20 contracts for this? Mr. CRAFTS. No, sir ; just this one pilot study with Batteile is all. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you. Mr. MCCLURE. Did I understand you to say that it had not influenced your decision? Mr. CRAFTS. I would not say it had not. It certainly has not con- troiled it. I don't even remember what the Battelle report recoin- mended. Mr. MCCLURE. If it did not play a significant role in the selection of the rivers to be included, can you explain why the rivers recoin- mended by that report are included in all the bills? MiS. CRAFTS. You may know more about the Battel]e report thaii I do. As I say, we retained the Battelle people more to develop proce- clures for us than otherwise. Mr. Tkacli is trying to say something to me, audi I don't understand it, so I will let him speak for himself. Mr. TKACi. In addition to the Battelle study, there was the Forest Service study, and the joint Agriculture-Interior field studies on time various rivers. Time Forest Service study was also considered as a pri- mary basis. Mr. CRAFTS. For all time rivers? Mr. TKAC}I. For the Salmon and Clearwater. Mr. CRAFTS. You see, the way we went about this-we set imp a stinly team for each of these 22 rivers. Mr. MCCLURE. I aimi concerned about how you got down to the number "22," first. Mr. CRAF~I'S. %Ve made reconilaissance surveys, which I mIIelltioJledl sometime today. Our reconnaissance surveys were airplane surveys- flying tlie rivers, setting down and driving into occasional l)OjiitS on time rivers. There were consultations with the people that knew the rivers. Then we exercised our judgment based on this type of reconnaissance. We used aerial photograpiis where they were avail able. In all cases we consulted with time States involved. I don't mneaim to infer that in a]] cases the States agreed. I don't know. I would have to go back and check this. But timey were brought in. \`Yhen we went into time detailed studies, we set ~P specific study teams wiiicii traveled the rivers to study them in mileli more depth. The Governors of the States were advised, they were invited to assign participants, and in most instances the. did join with us, that is. the appropriate State departments as indicated by the appropriate Gov- PAGENO="0174" 120 ernors. These study teams were made up, I believe, of th~ Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the Bureau of Land Man- agement, and a representative of the State. Mr. MCCLURE. You indicated you would be glad to make copies of the Battelle report available to us? Mr. CRAFTS. Yes. Mr. MOCLuiiE. To the committee or to us individually? Mr. CRAFTS. No-to the committee. I should think it would be avail- able for the committee files rather than to go into the record. It's a long report. Mr. ASPINALL. Will my colleague yield to me at this point ? If he is trying to find out why these two rivers were included in my bill-the bill passed the other body 84 to 0. That's the reason why I have included these two. Mr. McCLijaE. I thank the gentleman for his explanation. But I liotice he did not accept all portions of the other body's actions. Mr. ASPINALL. No, no, I did not. Mr. CRAFTS. I might say this, too, Mr. McClure, the Clearwater and Salmon are both extraordinary rivers-particularly the Salmon. It is a nationally known, nationally famous river. Both of these rivers ~ire largely publicly owned. We are pioneering a concept here. It is something new. Therefore the impact of the establishment of these two rivers is relatively minimal, costwise and on private lands. We ~te1t that this was perhaps a good place to test out this concept, in an area which is already largely in public ownership. Mr. MCCLuRL Will you make available to the committee also the other studies that were made on these two rivers? Mr. CRAFTS. Yes. You mean the studies of the study team? Mr. MCCLtmE. I think you mentioned the fact that there was a joint Interior-Agriculture Mr. CRAFTS. Task force, yes. Mr. JOHNSON of California. It will be made available for the files. Mr. MoCLuiiE. Yes. Do you know-it has been said-could you answer whether it is true that no consideration was given in either of these studies by the Bat- telle Institute or by the joint Departments of Interior-Agriculture study to the possibility that either the Salmon or the Clearwater Riv- ers might be needed for irrigation or flood control within the State of Idaho? Mr. CRAFTS. I cannot speak for the Battelle report on that because I don't know. Bub-on the other point, I would like to answer that for the record. The assignment to the study teams was primarily to assess the rivers from the standpoint of the objective involved here-their suitability for the type of thing we are talking about. We did not at- tempt to assess-I believe this is right-whether it is more important to have a dam here or whether it is more inportant to keep the wild river-if this is what you are getting at. Mr. MCCLURE. Yes. Mr. CRAFTS. I think this was out of th~ purview and the competence of the study teams. This takes a broader type of approach. Of course, this is. one of the concerns of Senator Jordan on the Salmon. I believe the State of Idaho currently is involved in something along that line. PAGENO="0175" 161 I believe that the assignment to the study teams was primarily to evai~ uate the suitabilities of the rivers as they found them for the purposes involved and not to attempt to develop which in the national interest is the best thing to do. Mr. MoCLum~. Now, is the study team approach that was used by you, under your direction, the only study that was made of these rivers for inclusion in this legislation ~ Mr. CRAFTS. The Battelle ~tudy, and the study team report. If there were others, I don't know of them. Mr. MCCLURE. You don't know of any other effort made within the administration to make a broader study relating the value of these for this purpose as compared to other economic uses? Mr. CRAI~TS. I am not aware of them, no. Mr. MCCLURE. I really find this rather shocking personally, that we would come up with a rather major piece of legislation that will affect the lives of millions of people in great areas of our country for years and years to come, and find there has been no attempt by anybody within the administration to balance the uses of these rivers for the various possible uses. I didn't expect that we would get to this point without at least some effort having been made to make an economic analysis of the impact of the use of these streams for this purpose. Mr. CRAFTS. This is the feeling I know that prevails in some quar- ters of your State, and this is the feeling that Senator Jordan has. But it is also true that if you attempted to do this, to evaluate all the pros and cons of the rivers that are under consideration, all the pos- sible alternatives, I don't know whether you would ever get anywhere. Mr. MCCLURE. Isn't that exactly what this committee is called upon to do? Mr. CRAFTS. It also is possible for this committee, if it puts a river in there and decides later on that it wants to take it out, there is nothing to prevent this committee from taking it out. Mr. MCCLURE. Nothing except prior history that indicates you don't back up once you have taken this step. Mr. CRAFTS. That's right ; yes. Mr. MCCLURE. I believe that the legislation before us in most of its forms at least calls for some acceptance by a body or instrumentality of the State affected for the inclusion of additions to the system in the future. Mr. CRAFTS. That is certainly right with respect to additions of State rivers. It requires consultation with the Governors of the States and with a whole group of bodies, Federal bodies and so on, before recom- mendations are submitted. In a sense it is very similar-in a broad sense it is very similar-to the pattern that we now go through with respect to recommendations from the Bureau of Reelamation and from the corps. `There is a consultation and report and advice sought * from a variety of agencies, and these all become available to the committee at the time the recommendation comes up. Mr. MoCLUm~. Isn't there a further provision in some of the legisla- tion concerning approval by the Governor of the State? Mr. CRAFTS. Can you tell me which bill you are talking about? The addition of the State rivers-if you turn to page 4 of the attachment of my testimony, it is pretty clear. For State rivers to be added to the PAGENO="0176" system, depending on which bill, it takes an action of either the State legislature or the Governor and in either ease the concurrence of the Secretary of Interior. Mr. MCCLURE. This has your approval? ~ Mr. CRAPTS. Yes, the Senate-passed bill requires the recominen- dationof the Governor and the Secretary's approval. The bill that the administration sent up, by Mr. Reuss, is similar to the Senate-passed Now, what is required with respect to the Governors' approval for proposals for national scenic rivers-I am still searching for this- Mr. MCCLURE. How do you distinguish between a State and a Federal river? Mr. Cn~irrs. A State river, like the Allagash and the Wolf, would be administered and operated by the State, and would be paid for in part by the State. . Mr. MCCLURE. You are referring to the financing and administra- tion of the river than its character? MiS. Cit~FTs. That's right ; yes, sir. Now, the nationa.l scenic rivers, I believe, require consultation with the Governor. But I don't. think it is required that we must follow the Governor's ~ recommendations. And I think in some cases he has 90 days, I believe, to submit his views, and his views go up with our recommendation to the Congress. Mr. MCCLtmE. Are the~re any such consultations or recoinnienda- tion with regard to the instant sections of the bill? Mr. CI~AFTs. There was consultation with the Governor. Of course, this was not done under specific directive authority from the Congress. There was consultation with the Governors or the Governors' rel)resentahves. Mr. MoCr~tmE. Has the State of Idaho approved the inclusion of all the sections of the Salmon and- Mr. CRAFTS. I don't know. I think I can check it easily. As of that time-whether the position of the State has changed or not, I don't know. But I think I can check as of that time by checking with the study team member of the State at that time. Mr. MCCLURE. What was the coordination between the Bureau of Outdoor Recreat ion and the Water Resources council on the ecoiiomic a-nd resource impact of this proposal? ~ CR~\FT5. I think the. ~\Tater Resources Council did not exist at that- time. ~ MCCLURE. There has been no attempt- :\`ii*. CRAFTS. No ; other than that the Chairman of the Watei~ Resources Council was and still is the Secretary of the Interior, and that one of the members of the Water Resources Council is the Secre.- tary of Agriculture, and that the Bureau of the Budget, when it concurs in legislation of this sort-I cannot tell you all the groups to which it has referred this legislation, but I know that it has referred this bill to the Federal Power commission, to the Corps of Engineers, and I think that three or four others-I-IUD and HEW. I don't know whether it was referred to the Water Resources council. But certainly the Cabinet departments involved have all had an opportunity to review and express the-jr views on this bill directly to the committee. 12. I PAGENO="0177" I 163 Mr. MCCwRE. How many miles o~ these streams, total, would you have any idea, are within the boundaries of public ownership? Mr. CRAFTS. These two streams? Mr. MCCLTJRE. No-of all of these that are included in the instant section of the bill. Mr. CRAFTS. You mean the Clearwater and Salmon or the whole 17? Mr. MCCLURE. Yes. Mr. Ci~FTs. We have it river by river. I will have to add it up for you. Mr. MOCLITRE. Could you supply that for the record? Mr. Ci~FTs. Yes. We have it divided between public and private ownership. Mr. JOHNSON of California. Withotit objection, such material will be fuinislied for the record. ( The material follows:) APPROXIMATE RIVER MILES IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP Name Total miles Approximate miles iii Approximate miles in public ownership private ownership Senate bill, S. 119: Clearwater 190 181 9 Eleven Point 35 2 33 lllinois 40 36 4 Rio Grande 50 47 3 Rogue 85 55 30 St. Croix 235 23 212 Salmon 105 103 2 Wolf 24 0 24 Total 784 447 317 Aspinall, HR. 8416: Clearwater 190 181 9 Rio Grande 50 47 3 Rogue 85 55 30 Salmon 255 250 5 Total 580 533 47 Reuss, HR. 6166: Cacapon Clearwater Eleven Point 120 190 ~ 90 2 181 ~ 4 118 9 ~ 86 Rio Grande 50 47 3 Rogue St Croix 95 185 52 46 43 139 Salmon Shenandoah ~55 20 250 1 5 19 Wolf Total 24 0 24 1 029 583 446 Saylor, HR. 90: Cacapon 100 2 98 Clearwater 190 181 9 Eleven Point 35 2 33 Flathead 215 193 22 Green - 84 46 38 Hudson 300 120 180 Klamath 140 84 56 Missouri 180 135 45 Rio Grande 50 47 3 Rogue 95 52 43 St. Croix 185 46 139 Salmon 340 272 68 Shenandoah 20 1 19 Skaglt 150 62 88 Suwannee 250 12 238 Wolf 75 ~ Total 2, 409 1, 255 1, 154 . 92-560-68-12 PAGENO="0178" Mr. MoCLurn~. How did you arrive at the costs estimated for the acquisition that are listed in the addenda to your statem~it? Mr. TEACH. Based on the past land appraisals and the cost of the land acquired recently, we made an estimate of acquisition costs in the various areas. Mr. MCCLURE. Do you have a parcel-by-parcel appraisal? Mr. CRAFTS. No. Mr. TKAOH. This is an average. It's an estimate. Mr. McCLtnu~. You don't really have any idea as to how much of it is developed and and how much is open land? Mr. Ci~urrs. We have an estimated acquisitiqn cost, which I believe we have not broken down as between what it would cost for the bare land and the cost of improvements, if this is what you mean. This would vary greatly by different rivers, depending upon the ex-. tent of the present development. I don't know. I would have to check that out, Mr. McClure, whether it is broken down. But these-this is why we said earlier that we think it is premature to determine that this river is going to be wild, this scenic, this is natural, and so on, at this stage. We need to go back in and do some more work. And if Con- gress goes with the creation of this system and directs that these ad- clitional areas would be studied, this is one reason why we estimate roughly a cost of $50,000 per river. We would have a more complete amount of information on the rivers that we come up to you with in the future than we have on some of these at the present time. Mr. MCCLURE. You don't have a very detailed cost estimate on these ~that are included even in the Senate-passed bill. Mr. Ciwr'rs. I would have to go back and check it, as to what we have, river by river. Some will be much more detailed than others. In some you will have purchases by the Forest Service or private lands in and around the river-probably went to the assessor's office and got the sales values, and this sort of thing, they would check the market value. But we have not carried out what is tantamount to an appraisal in the sense that you make an appraisal before you make an offer on a piece of land. This has not been done. Mr. MCCLURE. I don't suppose you have even actually had anybody look at a piece of property individually, parcel by parcel, and esti- mated the value, individually parcel by parcel? Mr. CRAFTS. Not all the parcels. Some parcels I am sure they have looked at, to get some idea and to get comparisons with other parcels, the prices of which they know, in which there have been recent trans- actions. Mr. MCCLURE. Not to the extent of being able to assure this corn- mittee that these are any more than just guesses. Mr. CRAFTS. Well, the term "guess" I think is too broad. I would not agree with that. These are the best empirical estimates we could make with the resources and the time that we had at our command, and the skill of the people that we were able to use. Mr. MoCLTm~E. That's a good answer, but it doesn't really answer it. Mr. CRAFTS. I cannot answer you any better than that. I can tell you we spent on this total joint departmental study a total of about three- quarters of a million dollars. Therefore it was not just a guess. I could not concur in a statement that all we are doing is guessing. PAGENO="0179" 165 Mr. McCLURt. I didn't mean to be derogatory. I just meant to i~di~ cate that the estimates are very rough. Mr. CRAFTS. They are very rough. With that I will concur. Mr. M0CLURE. And you would not expect us to take them as being an accurate reflection of what the costs are or may be. Mr. CRAFTS. I think they are indicative but I do not expect you to take them as accurate. Mr. MCCLnRE. You indicated earlier that there is no precise way of indicating what developments would be compatible and what would not be for a river in a wild river state. Mr. CRAFTS. We could give you a statement. If you want a statement on the types of development that we construe to be appropriate within the various classes specified in the bill, we can write that out and give ittoyou. Mr. MCCLURE. I think that would be helpful. Could that be added to the record? Mr. JOHNSON of California. Without objection, that is so ordered. (rJlhe material follows:) T~~ss OF DEvELOPMENT From a scenic river standpoint emphasis would be placed on providing princi- pally those facilities that are oriented to active visitor use and enjoyment of the river. This would include such facilities as access points, campsites, picnic areas. and interpretive areas'. In the case of rivers flowing through areas in which the natural scene has remained unchanged, development would be minimal to retain the integrity of the natural state. In those instances where the rivers flow through designated wilderness areas no development will be permitted unless expressly allowed by the Wilderness Act. Wherever possible visitor goods and services would be provided outside the boundaries of the rivers by private initiative in the nearby communities. Existing farm and ranch operations normally would be consistent with the ~ scenic river concept. Likewise, existing well managed timber operations would be compatible, except that clear-cutting of trees on the river edge may in some instances be too disruptive to the natural scene. Existing mineral activities would be compatible except where they tend to destroy esthetic qualities or pollute the river. Existing cabins, summer homes and other recreation oriented commercial developments may be compatible with scenic river objectives if they do not son- ~ ously detract from the esthetic features and qualities of the river. Certain uses would be discouraged that are disruptive to the natural or pastoral river scene such as residential sub-divisions, industrial plants~ motels, and ~as stations. The construction of dams, river channelization, closely paralleled roads and utility lines would be discouraged unless compelling reasons exist why they should be permitted. Mr. MCCLURE. I have only one or two more questions. In an area which is designated as wild river, ~ind which is paralleled `by a developed road, what would be your `attitude toward dwellings in that area that presently exist? Mr. CRAFTS. And that are inside boundaries~ What we will prob- ably do is try to keep the boundaries from going out that far-keep that road and keep those dwellings outside the boundary of the na- tional scenic river area. This is why this flexible thing has merit. We `would pull in. We could pull in right close to the water's edge. Mr. M0CL1JRE. I am thinking in terms of the Lochsa River in Idaho. Mr. CnAFTS. You are thinking of the road down the river? Mr. M0CLIThrn. Yes. Mr. CBAFTS. There is a highway right down there, and you see this PAGENO="0180" 166 I I is public land. Along the Lochsa there is very little private land. I have been down that road. There are occasional developments. Down here, ae you get further down, you get more private land. I would say occasional development would not bother us, but if we got a concen- tration of developments we might break the stretch here. Mr. McCLuiu~. There is a concentration at the lower part. Mr. CRAFrS. We might put a break in there-stop it above it and bring it out below it. Mr. MoCLuiu~. You would not attempt to disrupt it? Mr. Cn~j~'ps. I cannot~ say specifically. This is what we did at Fire Island. We had communities there. We stopped the boundary of Fire Island just before we got to the community and picked it up on the other side. Mr. MCCLURE. It would be your intention- Mr. ~ `Uie intent is minimum disruption. Mr. MoOr~uiu~. There are a number of those people who are quite concerned about their future right to continue to own property which they now own and occupy. Mr. CRAFTS. Yes. We are facing that right now in the North gas- cade area. Here again the Park Service has developed a new policy which Mr. Hartzog announced. I would say this. The Park Service is now more flexible on this thai~ it was in times past. But the intent is minimum disruption compatible with the purposes of the. act, and as you say, this turns on the Secretary's judgment. I don't know how else you could handle it. You cannot spell out every single detail. Mr. McCLURE. I would not expect you to know offhand, but could you tell me, supply to the committee, whether or not your preliminary investigations included a reconnaissance survey of St. Joe River, the Priest River, the Mo~rie or the Bruneau River in the State of Idaho. Mr. CRAFTS. I can teil you in just a second. The St. Joe in Idaho was in the reconnaissance, yes. What were the others ? Maybe you would rather have me submit for the record a list of 22 that we studied in. detail and the 67 that we macic preliminary reconnaissance and then you will have the whole list. Mr. MoCtuiu~. Since you have indicated one of these was included- were those studies in such detail that you would think it would not be appropriate to include them within the study section of this bill? Mr. OitL~r~s. No. There are quite a few of these that are proposed in the study section, and they were not studied in that detail. We cer- tainly didn't spend $50,000 per river on them. We maybe looked at them for a couple of days. If they were given preliminary recon- naissance, it does not in any way indicate they should not be in the study section. Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Ohairman, I would ask that this be made a part of the record at this point. Mr. JOHNSON of california. Is there objection ? Hearing none, so ordered. That includes the 22 plus the others? Mr. CRAFTS. Plus the 67. And we can give you a list of 650 that we initially screened. Mr. JonNsoN of California. This is now where there was some study given in the reconnaissance. I think that will be sufficient.. (The document follows:) PAGENO="0181" 167 AllagasLh, Maine1 liBuffalo, Ark.1 Buffalo, Penn. Ciearwater, Middle Fork, Idaho Eleven Polflt, Mo.1 Feather, Midd1~ Work, Oalff. Flathead, North, Middle, and South Forks, Mont. Green, Wyo. Hud~on, N.Y. Kiamath, Calif. Missouri, Mont.1 Animas, Cole. Ausable, N.Y. Big Fork, Minn. Big Hole, Mont. Black Warrior, Ala. Blackfoot, Mont. Blue, md. Buffalo, Penn. Cacapon, W. Va. Cache la Poudre, Cob. Cheat, W. Va. Clearwater, Idaho Colorado, Utah, Ariz., Nev. and Calif. Connecticut, N.E. Cumberland, Penn. and ICy. Beschutes, Oreg. Feather, Middle Fo~k, Calif. Flathead, North, Middle, and South Forks, Mont. French Broad, N.O. and Tenn. Oasconade, Mo. Gila, N. Met. Green, Wyo., Utah, and Cob. Oreenbrier, W. Va. ~Gros Ventre, Wyo. Guadalupe, Tex. IToh, Wasb~ Hudgon, N.Y. James, Va. Kern, North Work, Calif. Klamath, Calif. Linville, N.C. Little Wabaah, Ill. Madison, Mont. Manistee, Mich. Nai~tek~on, Wis. Niobrara, ~br. RiO Grande, N. Mex. Rouge, 0mg. St. Oroix, Mlnfl. ahd Wis~ Salmon, Idaho ~avan1iah hOadwaters, N.C., S.C. and Ga. Susquehanna, NX. and Pa. Skagit, Wash. Suwannee, Ga. and Fla. Wolf, Wis. Methow, Wash. M.ullica, N.J. Namekagon, Wis. Niobrara, Nebr. Oklawaha, Fla. Penobscott, East and West Branches, Maine Pere Marquette, Mich. Potomac, Md., Pa., W. Va., and Va. Queets, Wash. Rio Grande, N. Mex. and Pex. Rouge, Oreg. Sacramento, Calif. St. Croix, Wia and Mlnn. St. Joe, Idaho Salmon, Idaho Salt, Ariz. San Juan, Utah and N. Mex. Savannah headwaters, Ga. and N.C. Sh~nancloah, Va. Skagit, Wash. Smith, Calif. Snake, North Fork, Idaho ~usquehanna, N.Y. and Pa. Tangipahea, La. Peton, Idaho Upper Iowa, Iowa Wacissa, Fla. Wapsiplntoon, Iowa White, North and South Forks, Ooio. Wind, Wyo. Wolf, Wis. Yellowstone, Mont. and Wyo. Youghiogheny, Md. and Pa. 22 RIvERS ~PIWJ~ RECEIVED DETAILuD CONSIDERATION 67 Rivaas ThAT RECEIVED Pai~LtMINARx CONSIDER.&TTON 1 ConsIdered partially on basis of information aiready available as a result of other studies. Mr. McCLurna. Thank you. I will yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Km. Mr. Chairman, I simply asked the gentloman to yield so i: can thank Dr. Crafts for his p~tieuce and his candor. It is obVious that in addition to his very broad knowledge of the general subject, he has done his homework so that he could be specific in his answers. I think you have done a splendid job today and I thank you ~rery much. Mr. CRAFrS. Thank you, Mr. Kyl. PAGENO="0182" 188 Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr~ Witmer, do you hake any qu~stions ?~ Mr. WITMER. I think at this late hour, no. Mr. JOHNSON of California. We tried to hold on here so that we- eould release Mr. Crafts and his people, so that they can get away. I, too, want to say, Dr. . Crafts, I appreeiate your staying with us here today. It's been a hard day. You have certainly answered all the questions. Each one of us has had something in particular we are interested in. All of us have an interest in the scenic rivers system that will be set up. I want to thank you and your people for coming here today, and the chairman of the full committee will probably make a decision on whether we want you to come back. Mr. CRAFTS. We would be happy to come back at any time. Thank you for your courtesy. Mr. JOHNSON of California. I have a letter here from a Mr. James Richard Wolf to Hon. John P. Saylor, in connection with Congress- man Saylor's bill, H.R. 90. The gentleman from Pennsylvania would like to have this placed in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.. (The letter follows:) PITTSBURGH, PA., February 26, 1968. Hon. JoHN P. SAYi~oR, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SAYLOR : I understand that your H.R. 90 Scenic Rivers bill is scheduled for hearings in the near future. The bill is an example of the best tong-range conservation planning. You may be interested to know that the Audubon Society of Western Pennsyl.* vania, of which I am currently president, has recently started canoe outings for bird observations and pleasant recreation, and this has generated considerajle- enthusiasm. We need to preserve the few priceless waterways that are still worthy of real enjoyment. One river which I know personally is the Cacapon in West Virginia, a stream of gentle rapids and great botanical interest. The flowering dogwood and redbud are gorgeous in the spring and repay the paddler many times. Both the Cacapon and the Shenandoah should definitely be designated as scenic rivers even though they were ill-advisedly dropped from the Senate version. From my own experience in West Virginia I would have no hesitation in having. the Cheat (see the Life article last December) and the Potomac designated im- mediately. The former provides an exciting challenge to the accomplished canoeist ; and the Potomac is known not only for its white water but also for the~ grandeur of the Trough near Romney. The Youghiogheny's recreational development over the past several years demonstrates the tremendous increase in canoeing interest that is bound to be~ duplicated whenever the opportunity is preserved near population centers. Thou- sands must shoot the rapids near Ohiopyle each year. The ~u8quehanna raises a special problem, and I would appreciate your corn-- menits. I have studied the proposed Interstate Compact and have suggested that it be amended to give explicit recognition to scenic rivers values. This has not been done to the hest of my knowledge, and it therefore seems desirable to include a special provision in your bill that would enable scenic river decisions to be implemented even though they might run counter to the industrial develop~ ment plans that an interstate commission might propose. The West Branch presently affords exceptional opportunities for long-distance canoeing in a landi of forests, fields, and mountains and we should save this part of our Pennsyl- vania heritage. PAGENO="0183" 169 I am sure my Oongressrnan, Mr. Moorhead, will continue to give you his full support in your efforts on behalf of conservation. Sincerely, JAMES R. WOLF. P.S.-I would be happy to have these remarks referred to Rep. Roy Taylor for inclusion in the official record if you consider it appropriate. Mr. JoHNsoN of California. The committee will stand in recess until 9:45 tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the committee was recessed until 9 :45 a.m.,~ Friday, March 8, 1968.) PAGENO="0184" I PAGENO="0185" NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEIU FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1967 UoUs]~ or REPRS~NTATIV~$, StmcoMMn'ri~E ON NMrIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION, OP THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Wc~shington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9 :55 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Roy A. Taylor (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. TAYLOR. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation. will now come to order. In the absence of objection I would like to place in the record at this point an additional departmental report from the Department of Agriculture dated March 7, 1968, addressed to Hon. Wayne As- pmall, signed by Secretary Freeman, the FPC reports of March 1968 and a statement of the Texas Water Conservation Association. (The documents referred to follow:) DEPARTMENT OT AGRICULTURE, Waskiitgton, D.U., Marclv 7, 1968. I~Lon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on bvterior and InsuIci~r AfJa%rs, House of' Represe~ta4ives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in response to your request for a report on H.R. 752, H.R. 753, H.R. 3389, H.R. 3983, and H.R. 0289, similar bills "To provide for the establishment of the Saint Croix National Scentc Itherway In the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and for other purposes." The bills would establish the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway for the purpose of pr~tecting, developing and making accessible for the use of the Amer- lean people the nationally significant outdoor recreation resources of segments of the Saint CrOIX River and its tributary, the Naniekagon River in Wisconsin. The `boundaries of the Riverway would be as generally depicted on a map referred to in the bills. The Riverway would be administered, protected, and developed by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with statutory authorities available to the Secre- tary for the conservation and mauagement of natural resources. Any portion of the Riverway within a National Forest would be administered In such manner as agreed upon by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. The bills alSo contain provisions relating to authority of the Secretai7 of the Interior to acquire lands and Interests in land within the Riverway, authoriza- tion of water projtets under the Federal Power Act, and other provistens of substanee. The upper end of the Namekagon River extends into the Ohequam~gon National Forest for approximately two miles. Most of the lands bordering this stretch of the river are National 1'orest lands administetud by the Forest Service of this Department. Under the bills these lands would be administered in a manner agreed upon by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. In 1963, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior initiated a joint study of the Nation'~ scenic ri~ers. As an outgrowth of that study, the Secretary of (171) PAGENO="0186" 172 the Interior on February 18, 1967, sent to the 90th Congress with the concurrence of this Department a proposed bill to establish a Nationwide System of Scenic Rivers. This bill has been introduced as H.R. 6166. Subsequently H.R. 8416 and a number of related bills have been Introduced to provide for e~tabilshm~nt of a National Scenic Rivers System. Under H.R. 6166, the Saint Croix River and its Namekagon tributary would be designated as a part of the National System to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. Under H.R. 8416, the Saint Oroi~ and Namekagon would `be studied as a potential addition to the System. On August 14, we sent to your Committee a report on H.R. 841~I, H.R. 61A36, and related bills. We recommended enactment o~ H.R. 841~, with the amend- ments suggested in our report. Under the several pending bills related to the Saint Croix and Namekagon the Department of the Interio~ would be principally responsible for its administra- tion as a scathe river or scenic riverway. That Department would be in a better position to comment as to whether the river should be Included in the National Scenic Rivem System or treated as a separate area. Insofar as this Department is concerned we express no preference as to the manner of administration of the river. If the Saint Oruix is to be administered as a part of the National Scenic Rivers System, we would have no objection If the river is initially designated as a part of the System. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there Is no obj~ction to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN. FEDERAL POWEE OOMMISSrON, Washington, D.C. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, ~Jhairman, Comrin'tttee on Interior and Insu'ar Affairs, House of Hepre~entatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN : This is in response to your request of April 17, 1967, for a report on the following group of bills relating to scenic rivers : H.R. 90 ( Saylor) and an identical bill, H.R. 493 (Dingell) ; HR. 3996 (Reuss) ; H.R. f~166 (Reuss) and a similar bill, H.R. 088 (Anderson of Tennessee) ; and HR. 8416 (Aspinall). We enclose our report in depth on HR. 8416. The views of the Commission therein stated, In general, apply to the other bills enumerated above. As you will note, the report endorses an amendment proposed by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture under which the licensing moratorium can be shortened from five years to two years when the Commission receives an application affecting a river while it is under study. We are also attaching for the information of the Committee tabulations like those submitted with our report on H.R. 8416, listing existing and potential hydroelectric developments on the rivers described by the other bills in the group. For the reasons explained in the Commission's report on H.R. 8416, we recoin- mend that the pertinent provisions of the other bills be amended, where appro- priate, to require approval by Congress for all State-established or adminis- tered river areas which are added to the wild and scenic rivers system, and also to define more clearly the Commission's licensing jurisdiction in relation to the system. With respect to the latter point, we urge that the following provi- sion be incorporated in section 7(a) of HR. 8416 and in applicable sections of the other scenic rivers idils. . This language was approved by the Senate in section 6(a) of 5. 119, which is also before your Committee: "Except as specifically authorized by the Congress, the Federal Power Com- mission shall not authorize the construction, operation, or maintenance in any national wild or scenic river area of any dam or other project work under the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1063) , as amended (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) : Pro- `oided, That the provisions of that Act shall continue to apply to any project, as defined in that Act, already constructed or under license to be constructed." This provision also should be followed with respect to the various bills dealing with individual scenic rivers included in your request, viz., H.R. 752, 753, 3389, 3983, 6289 (St. Croix); H.R. 6373 (Wolf); and H.R. 7020 (Buffalo). PAGENO="0187" 173 The Bureau of the Budget advises us that there would be no objection to the j~resentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's prOgram. Sincerely, LnE 0. WHni~, Chairman. FEDERAL POWnR COMMISSION Rnronr ON H.R. 8416, 90TH CONGRESS A bill "to provide for a national scenic rivers system~, and for other purposes" H.R. 8416 would be known as the "National Scenic Rivers Act cxf 1967". As set out in Section 1 of the bill, it is designed to implement a national policy of ~preservi'ng selected ~ in their free-flowing condition for the purpose of protecting "outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values" of such rivers and their immediate environments for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Section 2 of the bill describes the various types of rivers that may qualify for inclusion as components of the projected National Scenic Rivers System. They include ( 1 ) river areas in which a true wilderness environment should be pre- served ; (2) those in which natural values should be preserved compatibly with permitting other resource uses ; (3) those in which the coi~tinuation of pr&lami- nantly agricultural and other forms of dispensed human activities should be permitted consistently with enjoyment of scenic river values ; and (4) those rivers which should be protected because of their unusual historical or cultural significance. In addition, rivers in areas having unique natural beauty, archeo- logical or historic remains, value for scientific study, or high-use for outdoor recreational needs may be considered. Section 3 of the bill would designate four segments of i~ivers for initial inclu- sion in the Scenic Rivers System, and Section 5 ( a) names 20 additional rivers for future study as possible additions to the System in accordance with the pro- cedures set out in the bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be responsible for submitting recommendations to the President and the Congress with respect to the inclusion of these rjvers as Federally or partially Federally administered components of the National Scenic Rivers System. Before submitting any such proposal to the President and the Congress, the Secretary would be required to submit his proposed report to the Federal Power Commission and other inter- ested Federal agencies for comment. All agency recommendations or comments thus furnished to the Secretary mu~t be transmitted by him to the President and the Congress with any report which he submits. Consequently, the recommended addition of a Federally administered area to the Scenic Rivers System could be effectuated only by an Act of the Congress which would have the benefit of the views and recommendations of all concerned Federal agencies before it acted on the particular proposal. Under Section 2(a) (ii) , scenic rivers could also be designated by acts of the legislatures of the State or States through which the streams flow, provided the proposals are approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Such an area would be permanently administered as a seenic river by the State or States concerned, and before giving his approval to such an arrangement, the Secretary would be required to submit the proposal for comments to the interested Federal agencies, including the Federal Power Commission. This section of the bill further directs him to "evaluate and give due weight" to any recommendations or comments furnished by such agencies. If the Secretary approves the proposal, he would be required to publish a notice thereof in the Federal Register, but no Act of Con~ gross would be needed in order for the proposal to become effective. Section 7(a) provides that the Federal Power Commission shall not license the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, power house, transmiS- sion line, or other project works under the Federal Power Act, on or directly affecting any river designated or hereafter designated for inclusion in the Scenic Rivers System. This licensing prohibition would be applicable to all com- ponents of the System, including any State-administered areas added with the Secretary of the Interior's approval. I The term "river" is defined In the bill as meaning a flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or tributary thereof, Including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, small lakes, and man-made waterways. PAGENO="0188" Section 7 (b) would inipose a rnoratorthm o~i Federal Power Commission licensing for periods up to eight years applicable to the 20 rivers listed In Section 5 (a) , in order to afford the Secretary of the Interior and the Congress time to process and act upon the studies of such rivers for possible additions to the Scenic Rivers System. Section 7 (c) would further require the Commission to netify the Secretary of the Interior Immediately upon passage of the bill of any proeeedft~gs affecting the rivers dui~ing the sthdy periods. The Commission believes that the maintenance in their natural state of selected segments of the nation's rivers is a desirable means of preserving our national heritage, and we accordiiigly endorse the purposes of this legislation. In considering previous bills on this subject the Commission has taken the position that the selection of particular areas for inclusion in a wild or scenic rivers system necessarily involves, and will continue to involve, a balancing of public policy objectives. Such goals include the multipurpose development of the water resources of the nation's rivers for flood control, navigation, irrigation. pow~r production, water quality control, protection of fish and wildlife, and el1hance- ment of any recreational potential afforded by such multipurpose river develop- ment, as compared with the existing values which are retained by the preserva- tion of such rivers in a free.fiowing condition with the attendant public benefits. inclixling conservation of fish resources and preservation of scenic assets and historical features. We are convinced that these diverse public interest factors can be accom- modated under the comprehensive multipurpose standards set by the Fede~ral Power Act, to the extent applications for hydroelectric power projects are pre- sented. ~Jonsequently, we do not believe that the uses of any major river, par- ticularly those having significant hydroelectric possibilities, should be limited without a careful study to support such a course of `action. Phe iiossihility of comprehensive multipurpose development of the Nation's water and related land resources must receive the most careful deliberation. Our review of H.R. 8416 indicates' that the river segments named in Sections 3 and 5 (a) contain substan~al amoumnts of developed and undeveloped hydroelec- tric `power capacity and possibly some pumped storage capabIlities which the Congress may wish to consider in its deliberations on the bill. We are attaching for the information of the Committee a tabulation (Table A) listing in detail the existing and potential hydroelectric developments on the stretches of rivers described in the bill. The amounts of hydroelectric power involved are sum- marized below. Section of bill 3 5(a) Total Developed or under construction: Number of streams 4 20 24 Number of plants Installed capacity (kilowatts) Annual generation (millIon kilowatt-hours) * Undeveloped: Number of plants 25 Installed capacity (kilowatts) 3, 085, 900 Annual generation (million kilowatt hours) 10 873 20 106 946 488 53 3, 462, 700 10 276 20 106 946 488 78 6, 548, 600 21149 ~Tith one exception, the capacity and annual generation listed in the attached table includes only conventional hydroelectric installations. One-half of tine poten- tial capacity of 240,000 kilowatts at the Edes Fort (W. Va.~ site would be in reversible units. Pumped storage sites may be available within the designated portions of other rivers and studies may show that athlitional capacity in re- versible units would be juc~tified for installation at some of the undeveloped sites. There are no existing hydroelectric projects and no licesising proceedings are pending in the Ooinmission with respect to the four rivers ]isted for initial scenic river designation by Section 3 of H.R. 8416. A summary is attached (T~bi~ B~ showing the licensing status of existing projects on the rivers listed for sfr!cly 174 I PAGENO="0189" 175 ~in Sectic~n 5(a) of the bill. The Commission bas no outstanding preliminary Dermits or applications pending for projects to uti112~e the undeveloped power pc4~ent1als at an3~ of the sites loeated on these rivers. If the bill is amended as deseribeti below, we believe that the consultative, review, `and auth&rlzation procedtlres spelled eut in H.R. 841~ would provide a sound and workable method for establishing a National Scenic Rivers System that will carry out the p~liey objectives of the bill consistently with the scheme for comprehensive water resources development prescribed in the Federal Power Act. The Commission recommends (1) that Section 4(c) be amended to require scenic rivers designated by agreements with the States to also be approved by Acts of Gongress In the same manner as Fedei~ally administered additions to the Scenic Rivers System must be `approved, (2) that Section 7(a) be amen~led to clearly preserve the Commission's licensing jurisdiction over existing projects In scenic river areas, and to enable the Commission to license a new project in such an area when It is specifically authorized to do so by an Act of Congress, and (3) that Section 7 (b) be modified to provide that the moratorium period applicable to Federal Power Commission licensing actions on a river while it is under study for possible inclusion in the System shall be reduced from five years to two years upon notification by the Commission to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may be, that the Commission has received a license application affecting such river. Our reasxns and specific pro- posals in support of the foregoing recommendations are outlined as follows. Under Section 4 (c) , the Secretary of the Interior, after interagency consulta- tion, can enter into an agreement with a State for the administration by such State of a scenic river area thus desigm~ted by an act of the State legislature. As defined in Section 2(a) (ii) of the bill, such a ~tate-designatod area would be deemed an integral part of the National Scenic Rivers System, subject to all of the restrictions of the National Scenic Rivers Act, including the prohibition against licensing under the Federal Power Act. Consequently, it appears logical that the inclusion of such an area in the System should be sanctioned by an Act of Congress in order to assure full consideration of the benefits as well as the aiternative uses of the particular area. In this connection it is our view that any n~ajor policy decisions limiting the use of such an area and possibly fore- dosing multipurpose development of its resource potentials should ultimately be made by the Congress. We therefore recommend that the bill be amendod ac- ~ordingly to provide for Congressional approval for the inclusion of State-acimin- istered rivers in the Scenic Rivers System. Another related bill on this subject which is also pending before the Committee (H.R. 3996-90th Congress) calls for Congressional approval of any such acquisitions to the System. We believe that Section 7(a) should be modified to clearly spell out the author- ity of Congress to authorize the Commission to license future developments on scenic rivers by special legislation, and also to preserve the licensing jurisdiction of the Commission over existing projects on such rivers. In tjiis regard we point to the example of the Act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat. 1353, which eliminated Fe~leral Power Commission licensing within the limits of any natthnal park or national monument as a preferable means of accomplishing the objectives of this bill once Oongress has determined that a segment of a river should be dedicated to scenic river purposes and subjected to a general restriction on hydroelectric licensing. The Commission believes that the following substitute language would ef- fectuate the fovegoing suggested changes and also be consistent with objectives of the legislation in protecting wild and scenic river values. "SEC. 7(a) Except as specifically authorized by the Congress, the Federal Power Commission shall not authorize the construction, operation, or main- tenance in any component of the national scenic rivers system of any dam or other project work under the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1063) , as amended (16 U.S.C. 791'a et seq.) ; Provided however, that the provisions of that Act shall continue to apply to any project, as defined in that Act, already constructed or under license to be constructed." This would enable the Commission in the case of the existing projects listed in Table B (whether licensed ~r yet to be licensed) to require a licensee to so operate and maintain its project facilities, to construct or reconstruct licensed PAGENO="0190" 176 project works, or adopt `any other measures necessary to secure &r acc'omrnodate~ oth~r 1benefieFal public prn~p~ses, includimg the conservation, development and utilization of the water and related land resources for nav~gation, flood control,. i~rri~'ation, ~powe~~ generation, water quality oontrol, preservation of scenic and his4~or.ie assets, protection of fish and wildlife, and enhancement of recrea- tional features or `any other potential values. In cases where the structure al- ready exists upon a scenic river, Commission regulatory jurisdiction over the project could serve as an effective tool to advance the purposes of the bill. of course, before the Oommisci!on could authorize or require any such redevel- opment or other action by a ileensee the Commission would have to be able to find under Section 4 (e) of `the Federal Power Act that such redevelopment or other action would not ii~'terfere or be inconsistent with the purposes for which the scenic river area reservation was created or acquired. Hence, if the Commis- ~ion lacked `a factual basis for such a finding it could not auth'or~ze the particular redevelopment or other `action with respect to an existing project or develop- men't. Furthermore, in considering the application for license for any existing project works in a scenic river area, the Oommission has `authority to deny the application in `the event the project does not meet the standards of the Federal Power Act. Under that circumstance, the owner could be required to remove the project works. The third amendment which we endorse calls for a modification of the licensing moratorium which would be imposed on the Commission by Section 7(b) of the bill while the scenic assets and potentials of the rivers designated in Section 5(a) are being studied. We understand that the Departmenìts `of the Interior and Agriculture in the reports they `submitted to your Committee on HR. 8416 and related bills rec- ommencled an amendment which in effect would reduce the study period from five years to two years in the event a license application for a project on or affecting a pa~rticuIar river is filed with the Federal Power Commission within three years after a study of such river is initiated. Po implement this change,. the following sentence would be inserted on page 15 of the bill, line 25, preceding the word "No" "Upon notification by the Federal Power Commission that an application has been received for `a license on or directly affecting any `river listed in section 5,. `subsection (a) , of this Act, the Secretary `of the Interior `or the Secretary `of Agri- culture where national forest lands are involved shall proceed to complete the study within two years after the `receipt `of such notice." As we interpret this language, the Secretary would have two years from the notification by the Commission in which to complete his study and recommend~ inclusion in the national `scenic `rivers system. If the Secretary so recommends within the two-year period, the Commission could `take no final action to lie~nse a project during the period `of Congressional consideration, of up to `three years, prescribed `by section 7(b) (ii) . If the Secretary failed to act within the `two-year `abbreviated study period, or prior to `the expiration of such period concluded that the river should not be included in the system, the Commission w'ould be free `to issue `a license. The Secretary of Interior's report states tha't the amendment is intended to enable the Commission to process without any undue delay such applications as may be filed concerning the rivers in the section 5 ( a) study group. We under- stand therefore that nothing in the bill or the amendment would preclude the CommIssion from processing an application and investigating or holding hearings. upon a proposed project during the study and Congressional moratorium periods prescribed therein, so long as it took no definitive action to issue a license. Licensing moratoriums in the past usually have been prompted by the fact that there were licensing actions pending before the Commission which would' have conflicted with specific legislative proposals then under active consideration by the Congress to authorize Federal development or use of the rescurces of `the particular power sites involved for other purposes. In the case of the 20 rivers which would be authorized for study under H.R. 8416, the Commission, as pointed out above, has no licensing matters pending which affect these rivers. In these' circumstances, there would as a practical matter seem to be no serious objection to imposing an FPC licensing moratorium, provided the bill makes clear the PAGENO="0191" Project State River Installed capacity Annual generation (thousand kilowatt- hours) Gross head (feet) 2. Rio Grande (none). 3. Salmon-Undeveloped: Crevice Idaho Salmon Black Canyon do do Pinnacle Peak do do Shoup do do Indianola do do Lewis do Middle Fork, Salmon Pungo do do Risley do do Steelhead do do Sheepwater do do Deerhorn do do Fuller do do Salmon Falls do do Fall Creek do do Chinook do do BearValley do do 1, 015, 000 2, 000, 000 238,900 930,000 243, 000 940, 000 14,000 110,000 71,000 280,000 141000 550,000 8,000 66,000 5, 300 44, 000 5,400 45,000 7,700 65,000 5,300 44,000 5, 800 48 000 3,900 32,000 5,500 46,000 5,200 43,000 7,800 65,000 Total _____..__1;781, 900 5, 308,000 4. Clearwater-Undeveloped: Penny Cliffs Idaho ~~______ Middle Fork, Clearwater_ Jerry Johnson do _______ Lochsa Wendover __~----~----- do _~ do Wolf Creek ____ ~_~__ do ~__~__ Selway Moose Creek ______~__~___-~-- do ___~~ do Running Creek do - do White Cap ________~______~ do do Total _ ___________________________________ ________________ 904, 000 3,995, 000 177 status of any application affeeting such rivers which may be filed while they are being studied. The amendment to Section 7(t) set out above will accomplish this result. The Commission believes that this amendment would be compatible with the basic precept of the Federal Power Act and would further the objectives of HR. 8416 by assuring full consideration of scenic factors in water resources programs. The amendment would not in our judgment unduly delay the processing of licensing matters under the Power Act and we accordingly concur with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture in recommending its adoption. In conclusion, the Oommission supports the objectives of this legislation and we would have no objection to the enactment of H.R. 8416, if the bill is amended along the lines described herein (1) to require State-established components cvt the National Scenic Rivers System to be approved by Acts of Congress, (2) to preserve the licensing jurisdiction of the ~ederal Power Commission over exist- ing projects on scenic rivers established thereunder and also to permit it to license further developments on such rivers when specifically authorized to do so by Act of Congress, and (3) to require any studies of rivers for possible future inclusion in the System to be completed within two years after notification that an application for license affecting such a river has been filed with the Federal Power Commission. FEDERAL PowER COMMISSION, LEE C. WHITE, Chairman. TABLE A-DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS BILL, HR. 8416, 90TH CONG. I. REACHES OF RIVERS NAMED IN SEC. 3 AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM 1. Rogue-Undeveloped: Cooper ~ ~ ~ 300,000 Ramey Falls ~ 100,000 Total 400,000 1, 140, 000 430, 000 450 300 1,570,000 725 332 376 90 248 433 170 135 145 240 170 190 140 200 200 310 292,000 1,787,000 590 46,000 178,000 290 105,000 450,000 718 103,000 400,000 286 240,000 720,000 592 50,000 200,000 302 68, 000 260, 000 483 Total, sec. 3, undeveloped ____________________-__----___----__-_---_-__ 3,085,900 10, 873, 000 PAGENO="0192" I II. REACHES OF RIVERS NAMED IN SEC. 5(a) FOR FEDERAL-STATE PLANNING FOR POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO THE SYSTEM . Project . State . Installed River capacity (kilOwatts) Annual generatIon (thousand kilowatt- Gross head (feet) hours) 1_ Cacapon-Undeveioped : Edes West Vfrginia Cacapbn 1 240, 000 315, 000 225 Fort. 2. Chatooga-Undeveloped : Camp Creek South Caroiina_ ~ Chatooga 100, 000 75, 000 180 Rogues Ford do do 120, 000 77, 500 246 Sand Bottom Georgia do 66, 000 43, 000 141 War Woman South Carolina do 80, O0o ~0, ~0ö 182 Chatooga do do 44, 000 54, 000 (2) Total ~ 410~000 299,800 3. Delaware-Undeveloped : Nar- New York-Penn- Delaware 15, 900 64,00040 rowsburg. sylvacia. 4. Eleven Point-Undeveloped : Arkansas- Eleven Point 34, 000 90, 000 127 Water Valley. Missouri. 5. Flathead-Undeveloped: Canyon Creek Montana North Fork, Flathead 116, 000 260, 000 154 Smoky Range do do 220,000 510,000 350 Spruce Park - do Middle Fork, Flathead~ 88, 000 330, 000 860 Total 424,000 1,100,000 6. Gasconade-Undeveloped: Rich Fountain Missouri Gasconade 35,000 96,000 78 Arlington do do 30,000 120,000 101 Richland do do ~ 25, 000 49, 000 97 Total 90, 000 265,000... 7. Green (none). - 8. Guadalupe: Developed: H-5 Texas Guadalupe 2, 400 7, 700 28 H-4 do do 2, 400 7, 700 27 Guadaiupehydro do do 308 1,500 9 Nolte, TP-5 do do 2,480 7,000 27 Seguin do do 250 1,600 (2) TP-4 do do 2,400 7,800 29 Abbott, TP-3 do do 2, 800 8, 900 30 Dulap, TP-1 do do 3,600 13,400 NA Undeveloped: GB-6 . do do 5,000 11,000 38 GB-S do do 5,000 11,000 45 GB-4 ~ do do 5,000 10,000 35 Retention No. 2 do do 5, 000 11, 000 53 Canyon ~ do do 20,800 8,400 153 Auxiliary No. 1 do do 80, 500 101, 700 231 Auxiliary No 3.~ do do 122,600 156,600 250 Dam No.7 do do 21,400 8,650 140 Total 281,938 373,950 lilinois-Undeveloped: Buzzards Roost Oregon Illinois 250, 000 767, 000 550 Kerby do do 9, 400 51, 000 180 Total 259,400 818,000 - -- -~ 10. Klamath-Undeveloped: Happy Camp California Klamath 135, 000 790, 000 476 Hamburg do do 67,000 380,000 388 Total 202,000 1, 170,000 PAGENO="0193" 0, ~ *0, ac,) ~CD. U I -~ -~ S CD~ C,, -~ ~0 C, 00 N~0) ~ :~ ~ 0~ ~ 00 ~ ~*~-Jt~0 - (0 ~ r~o~c~*~ 00 ~ ~ 00 ~ C.,, (~ ~ ~C~4 - r~o c~,~jc.,o - 0, * (0 U~00CJ1 00 - ~*~3N)~U1 ~0000~ ~ ~cc~c * (**C~~(0(0C3~ 00N~-'.~*-~ C)C0~(0 00 PAGENO="0194" 180 TABLE B-LICENSING ACTIONS ON EXISTING PROJECTS LISTED IN HR. 8416(ASPINALL), 90TH CONG. . Annual Section of bill FPC project No. Name of project Owner River Installed capacity (kw) generation (million kilowatt- hours 5(a)(12) 5(a)(12) 5(a)(12) 5(a)(12) 5(a)(15) 1 2458 1 2458 1 2458 12572 1 2417 Dolby Great Northern Power Co~... West Branch, Penobscot_... - Millinocket do do North Twin do do Ripogenus do do Hayward Lake Superior District St. Croix Power Co. 14, 100 8, 000 8, 200 24,300 168 93~ 44 27 100~ 1 5(a)(16) 5(a)(18) 5(a)(18) 2 2343 3 1899 1 2455 MilIville Potomac Edison Co Shenandoah Oakland Pennsylvania Electric Co_.... Susquehanna Colliers New York State Electric & do Gas Corp. 2, 840 600 3, 810 , 4 2 8 Total 62, 018 279~ 1 Application for license pending. 2 Outstanding license; expires Dec. 31, 1987. a Outstanding license; expires June 30, 1970; application filed to surrender license. PAGENO="0195" Section of bill River and State 3(a)(1) Salmon and Middle Fork, Idaho 3(aX2) Middle Fork, Ciearwater, Lochsa and Seiway, Idaho 3(aX3) Rogue, Oreg 3(a)(4) Rio Grande and Red, N. Mex 3(aX5) Eleven Point, Mo 3(a)(6) Cacapon and Lost, W. Va 3(aX7) Shenandoah, W. Va 3(a)(8) Green, Wyo 3(aX9) Klamath, Calif 3(aXlO) Missouri, Mont.3 3(a)(11) Skagit, Cascade, Suiattle, Sauk, and North Fork, Sauk, Wash 3(aXl2) North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork, Flathead, Mont 3(aXl3) Hudson, N.Y 3(aXl4) Wolf, Wis 3(~)(15) St. Croix and Namekagon, Minn. and Wis 3(a)(16) Suwannee and lchetucknee Springs, Fla 62 3,511,900 10,528 904,000 3,995 400,000 1,570 34,000 90 `240,000 315 237,000 66 202,000 1,170 1,114,000 2,518 640,000 3,506 424,000 1,100 41,987,000 1,090 221,200 258 p...L 47,500 200 ~ 9, 562,600 26, 206 4,200 25 262,200 812 5,000 15 85,000 130 15,900 64 240,000 355 340,000 642 61,777,000 2,279 73,943,000 14,915 4, 192, 000 9,778 TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS AFFECTED BY H.R. 90, 90TH CONG., NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM (HR. 493, 90TH CONG.) Existing and under construction Number of plants Installed capacity, kilowatts Annual generation (million kilo- watt-hours) Number of plants Undeveloped Installed capacity, kilowatts Annual generation (million kilo- watt-hours) 18 2,840 4 405,025 1,566 340 2 1,368 8 409, 573 1,580 Total, sec. 3(a) 5 3(bXl) Buffalo, Tenn 3(b)(2) St. Croix, Mine 23,200 114 3(b)(3) Niobrara and Snake, Nebr 3(bX4) Susquehanna, N.Y. and Pa 4, 860 11 3(bX5) Allegheny, NY. and Pa u386,000 518 3(bX6) Big Blue, Ind 3(b)(7) Little Miami, Ohio 3(b)(8) Little Beaver, Ohio 3(bX9) Pine Creek, Pa 3(bXlO) Delaware, Pa. and N.Y ~ 3(bXll) Clarion, Pa ~ 28,800 34 3(bXl2) West Branch Susquehanna, Pa o 3(bXl3) Little Tennessee, leon ~ 50, 000 186 3(bXl4) Buffalo, Ark ~ 3(bXl5) Colorado, Utah, Cob., Ariz., Nev., and Calif 6 2,599,400 6,514 3(bXl6) Columbia, Mont., Wash., Idaho, and Oreg 11 10,419,250 73,041 T~f,I ~. 25 13,511,510 80,418 See footnotes at end of table. 24 10,864,300 29,015 PAGENO="0196" 182 I - a ø~ Ej r3 i ~ cCg D~ !W2 14 . `-a a I ~g o~g2~ ~2 ~~flS ~ ~ S !~~r%wo~e c-~ ` ~ ~cnoe4N- $ `Lfl~ 8 : :8~888888S :g . , :8S~2 : :ss : : : s: LC) ~ OON~CJOOOLflO 0 ~ ` COL000 ` `LflC .$tfl~ U) ` flCDflC4C~C) 0 $ ` Lfl~-~-LC) ` COO~ - Cfl o~ : ~ :~ : ~ :~2~ : °`~- a: ~OOC%1WO4COC%12LOOmO C oootD~toooM~O 0 0 OLflO c-JLnto rn : ~ :~, : : : :~ ~ : ~ ; : : ~ ea- g; ~ "`9~ `no) ~ !~JJ~ ~ !! ~ ~ ~oLno ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~2 : : : : :~., ~ : ; : :~ :::::~:i'-; :M S E~ :~ ::~`.:°.::`:° `ia~ta0.a-~ ,~.,=2 c~! ~oo~z >~% = E2 `Zn 1;:~L~a-5 ~zS~ n=~ ~ ~ ~ `C `C C,, A~AoR&R~0~ PAGENO="0197" 3(cX32) - Potomac, Mci, Pa., W. Va., and Va_ 3(cX33) - Queets, Wash 3(cX34) Sacramento, Calif 3(cX35) Saintioe, Idaho 3(cX36) Salt, Ariz 3(cX37) San Juan, Utah and N. Mex 3(cX38) Savannah headwaters, Ga. and N.C 3(cX39) Shenandoah, Va 3(cX4O) Smith, Calif 3(c)(41) Snake, North Fork, Idaho" 3(cX42) Tangipahoa, La 3(c)(43) Teton, md. and Wyo 3(cX44) Upper Iowa, Iowa 3(cX45) Wacissa, Fla 3(cX46) Wapsipinicon, Iowa 3(cX47) White, North and South Forks, Coin 3(cX48) Wind, Wyo 3(cX49) Yellowstone, Mont. and Wyo 3(cX5O) Youghiogheny, Md. and Pa Total, sec. 3(c) 70 Total 148 ` Includes 120,000 kilowatts of reversible capacity. Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon hydroelectric project sites on the Colorado River, and Project 2 Includes only the net gain from redevelopment of an existing plant. No. 2272, covering Bridge Canyon. The poteatialcapacity and generation atthese sites are included 3 The extent of the reach of this river to be included in the system is indefinite. The projects listed in the Colorado totals. would occupy the entire Fort Peck-Fort Benton reach. 8 Includes 675,000 kilowatts of reversible capacity, consisting of 150,000 kilowatts at the Beaver 4 Includes the capacity of 1,800,000 kilowatts at the Cornwall pumped storage site (Project No. I-tote site and 525,000 kilowatts at FPC Project No. 2477, Rowlesburg pumped storage development 2338). This project is before a Commission hearing examiner as a result of judicial instructions to A preliminary permit has been issued by the Commission for the latter project, which will be located hold further hearings in the case. at the Federal Rowlesburg Reservoir. 5 Includes 360,000 kilowatts in reversible capacity as part of development under license at FPC ~ A license application has been filed with the Commission for 5 undeveloped sites on the Middle Project No. 2280, Kinzua (Seneca) development. Construction of this development, which is located Fork, Feather River, Project No. 2134. at the Federal Allegheny Reservoir, has been initiated. ~0 Section 3(a)15 of the bill also includes the Namekagon River and its projects are listed therein. o Includes 31,000 kilowatts reversible at a federally proposed project plus 2 pure pumped storage "identification of this river reach is not clear. Available maps do not show a North Fork of the developments, which would have a total installation of 1,600,000 kilowatts. Snake River. 7 License applications have been filed with the Commission for Project No. 2248, covering both 21 2,960 450,000 2,075 66,690 245 166,420 309 750 4 1,870 9 200 1 1,600 14 19,200 27 11 2387,040 21,287 27,000 119 207,000 1,002 29,000 117 122,200 179 222,000 1,004 110,000 97 22, 000 76 85, 000 400 1,940,000 9,434 137,000 438 2,465, 078 8,848 16,386, 161 130 90, 846 7,097,870 216 27,224 27, 524, 770 82, 445 PAGENO="0198" 3(aX7) MillviIle, W. Va 3(aXl3)_ Lower Mechanicsville, N.Y Upper Mechanicsville, N.Y Hoosic Falls, N.Y Fort Edward, N.Y Baker Falls, N.Y Moreau, N.Y Glen Falls, N.Y South Glen Falls, N.Y Sherman Island, N.Y Spier Fall, N.Y Stewarts Bridge, N.Y E. J. West, N.Y 3(aXl5) Hayward, Wis 2,840 4, 121 4,500 6,000 6,310 8,400 1,050 3,700 2,850 4,000 ~ 2,250 3,600 ~ 4,800 10,200 9,840 11,840 3,800 27,000 28,800 40,000 44,400 213,600 30,000 118,000 20,000 28,000 168 1,300 600 1,900 3,810 8,000 386,000 518,000 28,800 34, 000 50, 000 186,000 788,500 4,860,000 831,350 4,760,000 212,000 1,963,000 711,550 5,000,000 774,250 4,500,000 3,786,860 21,830,900 TABLE 2.-LICENSING ACTION ON EXISTING AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS LISTED IN H.R. 90 (SAYLOR) 90TH CONG. (H.R. 493, 90TH CONG.) Installed Section and item of bill Project and State Project No. Owner River capacity (kilowatts) Annual generation (thousand kilowatt-hours) 1 2, 343 Potomac Light & Power Co Shenandoah 22,500 Niagara-MohawkPowerCo Hudson 2 2, 443 West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co do 1 2, 487 Central Vermont Public Service Co Hoosic 2 2, 482 Niagara-Mohawk Power Co Hudson 22,482 do do 22,482 ~ do do S 2, 385 Finch-Pruyn & Co do 22,482 Niagara-Mohawk Power Co do 2 2,482 do do 22,482 do do 1 2, 047 do Sacondaga 12,318 do do 22,417 Lake Superior District Power Co Namekagon Total, sec. 3(a) 3(bX4) ------------------- Oakland, Pa __________________ 1 4 1, 899 Pennsylvania Electric Co Susquehanna Colliers, N.Y 22,455 N.Y. State Electric & Gas Co do 3(bX5) ------------------- Kinzua, Pa ____________________ I 2 2, 280 Pennsylvania Electric Co. and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co_ Allegheny 3(bXll) _____________~ Piney, Pa _____________________ 1 309 Pennsylvania Electric Co ______________________~__ Clarion 3(bXl3) _________~_ Chilhowee, Tenn _____~__ 1 2, 169 Tapoco, Inc Little Tennessee__~______ 3(bXl6) Priest Rapids, Wash _~____~ ` 2, 114 Grant County PUD No. 2 ____________~_________ Columbia Wanapum, Wash ______~_~ I 2, 114 ~do do Rock Island, Wash _________ `942 Chelan County PUD No. 1 ~ Rocky Reach, Wash 12, 145 Puget Sound Power & Light Co _ _____________~__~__ Wells, Wash _____________ 12, 149 Douglas County PUD No. 1 _ ________________~____~_ ___~do~_______________~ Total, sec. 3(b) 161,608 479,761 PAGENO="0199" 185 00 (Li (00 -~ 0 (0(0(0(0(0(r) (0(0(0(0(0(0(0 (0(0'-oOQ 00(00(0(0 ~ C)~C4~Ø) (~i - 00(t) (0000 0(000 (00(00 0000 Q(0~D C'1c~ (C) ~ (0Q(0(0(0~-RC)(0(000O ~oN~ 00 00 (0- ~o0 (0~©(0~ ~)O~4 C))Cr) C)) (0)C))C)) C)~ic~j C)4~-~C~4C)JC)4 040404040404040404040404 PAGENO="0200" 186 I DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE WILD RIVERS BILL S 119 90TH CONG (H R 39961 90TH CONG) I. REACHES OF RIVERS NAMED IN SEC. 3(A) FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL WILD RIVERS SYSTEM Project State Annual Installed River capacity (kilowatts) generation (thousand kilowatt hours) Gross head (feet) 1.Salmon River-Undeveloped: ~ ~ ~ LowerCanyon Idaho Salmon 1,280,000 4,380,000 665 Freedom do do 450 000 840 000 220 Crevice do do 1 015 000 2 000 000 725 Black Canyon do do 238 000 930 000 332 Pinnacle Peak do do 243 000 940 000 376 Shoup do do 14 000 110 000 90 Indinaola do do 71 000 280 000 248 Lewis do Middle Fork, Salmon 141, 000 550, 000 433 Pungo do do 8 000 66 000 170 Risley do do 5 300 44 000 135 Steelhead do do 5 400 45 000 145 Sheepeater do~ do ~ 7,700 65,000 240 Deerhorn do do 5 300 44 000 170 Fuller do do 5, 800 48, 000 ~ 190 Salmon Falls do do 3 900 32 000 140 Fall Creek do do 5 500 46 000 200 Chinook do do 5,200 43,000 200 BearValley do do 7 800 65 000 310 Total ~- 3 511 900 10 528 000 2 Clearwater River-Undeveloped Penny Cliffs Idaho Middle Fork Clearwater 292 000 1 787 000 590 Jerry Johnson do Lochsa 46 000 178 000 290 Wendover do do 105 000 450 000 718 Wolf Creek do Seiway 103 000 400, 000 286 Moose Creek do do 240, 000 720, 000 592 Running Creek do do 50 000 200 000 302 White Cap do do 68, 000 260, 000 483 Total 904 000 3 995 000 3. Rogue River-Undeveloped: . ~ ~ CopperCanyon Oregon Rogue 300,000 1,140,000 ~ 450 Ramey Falls do do 100 000 430 000 300 Total 400 000 1 570 000 4 Rio Grande (none) 5 Eleven Point-Undeveloped Missouri Eleven Point 34 000 90 000 127 Water Valley. 6 Cacapon-Undeveloped Edes West Virginia Cacapon 2 240 000 315 000 225 Fort. 7. Shenandoah: Developed: Mill- do Shenandoah 2,840 4,120 26 yule Undeveloped : Miliville do do a 37, 000 3 66, 000 50 Total, sec. 3(a): Developed 2,840 4,120 Undeveloped 5,126,900 16,564,000 II. REACHES OF RIVERS NAMED IN SEC. 3(b) FOR FEDERAL-STATE PLANNING FOR POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO THE SYSTEM 1. Buffalo (none). 2. Green (none). 3. Hudson: Developed: Cedar River New York Hudson 146 (4) Undeveloped: Hadley do do 82, 000 170, 000 67 Kettle Mountain do do 78, 000 180. 000 300 Chain Lakes do Cedar 5, 300 13, 000 Total 165,446 363,000 4. Missouri n-~Undeveloped: Low Rocky Point Montana Missouri 94,000 350,000 44 . High Cow Creek do do 720, 000 1, 480, 000 332 Fort Benton do do 300,000 688,000 177 Total~ --.-_- ~ 1,114.000 2,518,000 5. Niobrara and Snake (none). See footnotes at en(1 of table, p. 187. PAGENO="0201" 187 340 ~DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE WILD RIVERS BILL, 5. 119, 90TH CONG. (HR. 3996,' 90TH CONG.)-Continued Project State River Annual Installed capacity (kilowatts) generation (thousand kilowatt- hours) Gross head (feet) Skagit, Cascade, Sulattle, and Sauk-Undeveloped: The Dalles Washington Skagit 53, 000 370, 000 32 LowFaber do do 150,000 650,000 110 Copper Creek do do 83,000 470,000 152 Cascade do Cascade 66, 000 320, 000 686 LowerSauk do Sauk 94,000 473,000 220 Lower Sulattle do Sujattle 31, 000 240, 000 505 Buck Creek No. 1 do do 19,900 153,000 380 Downey Creek No. 1 do do 12,200 93,000 385 Upper Suiattle do do 18, 400 140, 000 625 Total 527,500 2,909,000 7. Susquehanna: Developed: Oakland Pennsylvania Susquehanna 600 1,900 9 Oneonta New York do 450 900 (4) Colliers do do 3, 810 8, 000 30 Undeveloped: Falls Pennsylvania do 250,000 760,000 150 Hallstead do do 12,200 52,000 36 Total 267,060 822,800 :8. Wolf: Developed : Keshena Falls_ Wisconsin Wolf 2, 000 14 Undeveloped: Keshena Falls do do ~ 5,200 ~ 13,000 37 Dalles do do 10,200 27,200 83 Shotgun Rapids do do 5. 800 15. 300 56 Total 21,540 57,500 9. Suwannee (none). ~10. Youghiogheny: Developed: Deep Creek Maryland Youghiogheny 19,200 27,200 437 Undeveloped: Dam C Pennsylvania do 15,000 49,000 50 Dam B do do 25, 000 80, 000 85 Dam A do do 25, 000 80, 000 85 Youghiogheny do do 24, 000 76, 000 126 Sang Run Maryland do 48, 000 153, 000 560 Total 156,200 465,200 11. Little Miami-Undeveloped: Oregonia Ohio ________ Little Miami 5, 000 15, 000 55 12. Little Beaver (none). `13. Pine Creek-Undeveloped: Cammal Pennsylvania _~__ Pine Creek ___~_______ 85, 000 130, 000 235 :14. Delaware-Undeveloped: Narrowsburg New York, Delaware 15, 900 64, 000 40 Pennsylvania. ==--- - 15_ Allegheny (none). 16. Clarion-Developed : Piney ___. Pennsylvania Clarion 28, 800 34, 000 83 Undeveloped: Foxburg do do 130,000 180,000 150 Mill Creek do do 110,000 175,000 225 Total 268,800 389,000 17. West Branch, Susquehanna- Undeveloped: Lock Haven Pennsylvania West Branch Susque- 80, 000 212, 000 82 hanna. Keating do do 260, 000 430, 000 278 Total 340,000 642,000 Total, sec. 3(b): Developed 53, 346 74, 000 Undeveloped 2,913,100 8,301,500 I HR. 3996 names the Wolf among the rivers designated in sec. 3(a) of the bill for initial inclusion in the wild rivers system. That bill also omits the Cacapon and Shenandoah from the initial group and adds the Cacapon to the list of rivers named for study in sec. 3(b). The Shenandoah, Little Miami, Little Beaver, Pine Creek, Delaware, Allegheny, Clarion, and West Branch, Susquehanna are not mentioned in HR. 3996. 2 Installation would include both conventional and reversible units. a Net gain from redevelopment of an existing project. 4 Not available. 5 The extent of the reach of this river to be included as a wild river is indefinite. The projects listed would occupy the ~entire Fort Peck-Fort Benton reach. PAGENO="0202" Project State River Annual Installed capacity (kilowatts) generation (thousand kilowatt- hours) Gross head (feet) 1. Salmon River-Undeveloped: Crevice Idaho Salmon 1, 015, 000 2, 000, 000 725 Black Canyon do do 238, 000 930, 000 332 Pinnacle Peak do do 243,000 940,000 376 Shoup do do 14,000 110,000 90 Indianola do do 71,000 280,000 248 Lewis do Middle Fork, Salmon 141, 000 550, 000 433 Pungo do do 8,000 66,000 170 Risley do do 5, 300 44, 000 135 Steelhead do do 5,400 45,000 145 Sheepwater do do 7,700 65,000 240 Deerhorn do do 5,300 44,000 170 Fuller do do 5,800 48,000 190 Salmon Falls do do 3,900 32,000 140 Fall Creek do do 5,500 46,000 200 Chinook do do 5,200 43,000 200 BearValley do do 7,800 65,000 310 Total 1,781,900 5,308.000 2. Clearwater River-Undeveloped: Penny Cliffs Idaho Middle Fork, Clearwater~ 292,000 1,787,000 590~ Jerryiohnson do Lochsa 46,000 178,000 290 Wendover do do 105,000 450,000 719 Wolf Creek do Selway 103, 000 400, 000 286 MooseCreek do do 240,000 720,000 592' Running Creek do do 50,000 200,000 302 White Cap do do 68, 000 260, 000 483 Total 904,000 3,995,000 ~ 3. Rogue River-Undeveloped: CooperCanyon Oregon Rogue 300,000 1,140,000 450' Ramey Falls do do 100, 000 430, 000 300' Total ~ 1, 570, 000 4. Rio Grande (none). 5. Eleven Point-Undeveloped: Missouri Eleven Point 34, 000 90, 000 127 Water Valley. 6. Cacapon-Undeveloped : Edes West Virginia Cacapon I 240, 000 315, 000 225 Fort. 7. Shenandoah: Developed: Millville do Shenandoah Undeveloped : Millville do do 2,840 2 37, 000 4,120 2 66, 000 Total 39,840 70,120 26 50 8. St. Croix and Nameka~on: Developed: Trego Wisconsin Namekagon Hayward do do Undeveloped: Kettle do St Croix Nevers Minnesota- do Wisconsin. Total 9. Wolf: Developed: Keshena Falls Wisconsin Wolf Undeveloped: Keshena Falls do do Dalles do do Shotgun Rapids do do Total Total, sec. 4(a): Developed Undeveloped 1,200 168 27, 500 20,000 7,000 1,300 120, 000 80,000 48,868 208,300 340 ~ 5, 200 10,200 5, 800 2, 000 2 13, 000 27,200 15, 300 21,540 57,500 4, 548 3,465,600 14, 420 11,599,500 30' 18 78 45, 14 37 83' 56 See footnotes at end of table, p. 192. 188 I DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE SCENIC RIVERS BILL, 5. 1092, 90TH CONG. (H.R. 6166 AND H.R. 6588, 90TH CONG.) I. REACHES OF RIVERS DESIGNATED IN SEC. 4(a) AS NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER AREAS PAGENO="0203" 189 DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE SCENIC RIVERS BILL, S. 1092, 90TH CONG. (H.R. 6166 AND H.R. 6588, 90TH CONG.)-Continued II. REACHES OF RIVERS DESIGNATED IN SEC. 7(a) FOR FEDERAL-STATE PLANNING FOR ADDITIONAL NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER AREAS Installed Gross Project State River capacity (kilowatts) generation (thousand kilowatt- hours) head (feet) 1. Animas River: Developed: Tacoma Colorado Animas 8,000 21,600 983 Undeveloped: AnimasGorge do do 13,500 110,000 625 Lime Creek do do 70, 000 294, 000 1, 155 Howardsville do do 12,000 52,000 542 Total 103,500 477,600 2. Big Fork-Developed: Big FaIls Minnesota Big Fork 600 3,000 35 3. Big Hole (none). 4. Buffalo (Tennessee) (none).° 5. Chatooga-Undeveloped: CampCreek SouthCarolina__ Chatooga 100,000 75,000 180 Rogues Ford do do 120, 000 77, 500 246 Sand Bottom Georgia do 66,000 43,000 141 WarWoman SouthCarolina do 80,000 50,300 182 Chatooga do do 44,000 54,000 (4) Total 410,000 299,800 6. Delaware--Undeveloped: Narrowsburg New York-Penn- Delaware 16,000 64,000 40 sylvania. Barryville do do 30,000 126000 70 Total 46,000 190,000 7. Deschutes: Developed: Pelton Oregon Deschutes 108,000 400,000 151 Round Butte do do 247,000 946,000 365 Cline Falls do do 1,000 5,300 43 Bend do do 1,000 7,500 17 Undeveloped: Moody do do 64,000 380,000 132 Lockit do do 34,000 200,000 70 Reclamation do do 46,000 270,000 95 Sinamox do do 43,000 250,000 90 Oak Brook do do 31,000 184,000 65 Sherar Falls do do 36, 000 210, 000 75 Oak Springs do do 13, 000 79, 000 35 Maupin do do 48, 000 280, 000 120 Frieda do do 58, 000 340, 000 145 White Horse do do 38, 500 290, 000 138 Total 768,500 3,841,800 8. Feather-Developed : Oroville ____~_~.___ California Feather I 1, 288, 000 1, 009, 000 675 Thermalito do __~~___ do ____~. `115,100 329,000 86 Total 1,403,100 1,338,000 9. Flathead: Developed : Kerr Montana Flathead ________ 168, 000 1, 100, 000 187 Undeveloped : Buffalo Rapids No. 4 do do 120, 000 300, 000 164 Buffalo Rapids No. 2 do ____~___ do 120, 000 300, 000 (4) Coram do do 114,000 290,000 108 Total 522, 000 1, 990, 000 10. Gasconade-Undeveloped: Rich Fountain Missouri Gasconade 35,000 96,000 78 Arlington do _~_ do 30,000 120,000 101 Richiand do do 25, 000 49, 000 97 Total 90, 000 265, 000 11. Gila (none). 12. Green-Developed: Fontenelle_.. Wyoming Green 10, 000 51, 000 111 13. Gros Ventre (none). See footnotes at end of table, p. 192. PAGENO="0204" COCa C,, C, wa~>~'~~ ~ ~!. ~ ~ ~-&: a CD ~ -~` CD ~ ~:: -1 COCTh)~-J r'~ Q~O~CDCaCO (DC) C)C)C,C,C)QC) 0 0 0 C) 0 C,, < 00 (0 0 C) OC) C) C,j = 0 C) ~ ~ 0)0 - 0 -4 ~ C) m o ~ C', C) rn go C CD -4 0. C,) C) C) Cd, C, COO) ~CO~ O-~ ~(0~400 CO `~C) PAGENO="0205" 191 DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMES IN THE SCENIC RIVERS BILL, 5. 1092, 90th CONG. (HR. 6166 AND H.R. 6588, 90TH CONG.)-Continued Annual Installed Project State River capacity (kilowatts) generation (thousand kilowatt- hours) Gross head (feet) 20. Penobscot, East and West Branches: Developed: Medway Maine West Branch Penobscot_ 3, 440 31, 000 18 Dolby do do 14,000 93,000 49 Millinocket do do 8,000 44,000 110 North Twin do do 8, 200 27, 000 29 Repogenus do do 24,300 100,000 186 Undeveloped: Debsconeag do do 15, 000 69, 000 58 Sourdnahunk do do 24,000 109,000 95 The Arches do do 22, 500 94, 000 90 Meadow Brook do East Branch Penobscot_ 12, 000 48, 000 50 Whetstone Falls do do 30, 000 117,000 135 Total 161,540 732,000 2L Pare Marquette (none). 22. Pine Creek-Undeveloped : Pennsylvania Pine Creek 85, 000 130, 000 5 Cammal. 23. Potomac,South Branch: . Developed: Royal Glen WestVirginia South Branch, Potomac.~. 370 1,000 9 Undeveloped: Springfield do do 60, 000 124, 000 178 RoyalGlen do do ~23,600 °63,000 175 Total 83,970 188,000 24. Salmon 7-Undeveloped: LowerCanyon Idaho Salmon 1,280,000 4,380,000 665 Freedom do do 450,000 840,000 220 Total 1, 730, 000 5, 220, 000 25. Salt: - Developed: Stewart Mountain Arizona Salt 10, 400 25, 000 116 Mormon Flat do do 7, 000 35, 000 131 HorseMesa do do 30,000 125,000 266 Roosevelt do do 19, 290 60, 000 226 Undeveloped: Livingston do do ii, 500 72, 000 150 Gleason Flat do do 43, 500 280, 000 625 Mule Hoof do do 13, 500 75, 000 200 WalnutCanyon do do 25,200 136,000 375 Knob do do 28, 500 136, 000 440 Total 188, 890 944, 000 26. Shenandoah-Developed: Virginia Shenandoah 750 4, 200 12 Warren. 27. Skagit: Developed: Gorge Washington Skagit 134,400 903,000 380 Diablo do do 120,000 756,400 330 Ross do do 360, 000 699, 800 395 Undeveloped: The Dalles do do 53, 000 370, 000 32 Low Faber do do 150, 000 650, 000 110 CopperCreek do do 83,000 470,000 152 Total 900,400 3, 849, 200 ~ ~ 28. Snake, North Fork 8 (none). 29. Susquehanna: Developed: Muddy Run e Pennsylvania .~ Susquehanna_ ~ 800, 000 411 Holtwood do do 107, 200 590, 000 51 Safe Harbor do dd 230, 555 920, 000 54 York Haven do do 2, 500 16, 000 21 Do do do 19,620 115,000 22 Oakland do do 600 1,900 9 Onionta New York do 450 900 Colliers do do 3, 810 8, 000 30 See footnotes at end of table, p. 192. PAGENO="0206" 192 DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE SCENIC RIVERS BILL, 5. 1092, 90TH CONG. (H.R. 6166 AND H.R. 6588, 90TH CQNG.)-Continued Annual Installed Project State River capacity (kilowatts) generation (thousand kilowatt- hours) Gross head (feet) 29. Susquehanna-Continued Undeveloped: Marysville Pennsylvania Susquehanna 180, 000 520 000 32 Half Falls do do 160, 000 850, 000 75 Falls do do 250,000 760,000 150 Hallstead do do 12, 200 52, 000 36 Holtwood 10 do do 40, 000 180, 000 51 SafeHarbor'° do do 140,000 54 York Haven 10 do do o 5 Do.10 do do ` Total 2, 224, 835 4, 863, 800 30. Suwannee (none). 31. Upper Towa (none). 33. Wacissa (none). 33. White-Undeveloped : Rangely Colorado White 6, 300 55, 000 180 34. Wind: Developed: Pilot Butte Wyoming Wind 1, 600 14, 000 106 Undeveloped: Bull Lane do do 75, 000 370, 000 850 DuNoir do do 10,000 30, 000 600 Total 86, 600 414, 000 ~ 35. Yellowstone-Undeveloped: T Big Timber Montana Yellowstone 80, 000 380, 000 190 Allenspur do do 250, 000 679, 000 380 Chicory do do 80, 000 380, 000 ~ ~ 230 Yankee Jim do do 50, 000 205, 000 200 Greycliff do do. 120,000 580,000 250 Benson Bluff do do 110, 000 530, 000 220 Laurel do do 150,000 780,000 280 Billings to Glendive do do 900, 000 4, 800, 000 3, 250 Intake do do 200, 000 1, 100, 000 180 Total 1, 940, 000 9, 434, 000 Total, sec. 7(a): Developed 3, 985, 543 9, 045, 900 Undeveloped ,- 7,696,200 28,785,950 1 Installation would include both conventional and reversible units. ~ 2 Net gain from redevelopment of an existing project. a Included as sec. 4(aXlO) in H.R. 6588. 4 Not available. n Oroville and Thermalito projects are under construction. 6 This reach includes the undeveloped Knowles project (512,000 kilowatts) which would be an alternative to the Buffalo Rapids Nos. 2 and 4 developments. 7 This reach of the Salmon River would extend from Riggins, Idaho, to the mouth. 8 Identification of this river reach is not clear. Available maps do not show a North Folk of the Snake River. 0 Muddy Run project is a pumped-storage development utilizing the pool of Conowingo Reservoir on the Susquehanna River for its lower pool. The project is presently under construction. 10 These 4 existing projects could be expanded by the capacity and generation shown. Faasz&L POWER CoMMISSIoN, Wo~8hington, D.C. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Ch~airma~s, Committee on Interior and Insular Affaira, House of Representa~tives, Washington, D.C. ~ Dic~n Mit. CHAiRMAN : On March 7 the Commission forwarded to the Commit- tee, for inclusion in Its hearing record, its report on H.R. 8416 and related House Scenic Rivers bills. As part of those reports we noted the existing and potential hydroelectric developments on each of the affected rivers. We now forward a simi- lar tabulation with respect to S. 119 which is also pending before your Committee. PAGENO="0207" 193 S. 119 would establish a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Section 3(a) `of the bill designates seven rivers, or sections thereof, as "national wild river areas." Section 3 (b) designates five rivers, or segments thereof, as "national scenic river areas." Section 4(a) lists 28 river reaches which are to be studied for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our staff study of the hydroelectric potential of these various rjver segments indicates tiiat they contain considerable amounts of developed and undeveloped hydroelectric power capacity. The attached table shows in detail the power sites nnd capacities for each of the listed stream categories. The amounts of hydro- electric power involved are summarized below: Number Developed or under construction Undeveloped Annual Annual Section of bill of streams Number of plants Installed capacity, kilowatts generation million kilowatt- hours Number of plants Installed capacity, kilowatts generation, million kilowatt- hours 7 2 1,540 9 27 1,826,300 7,653 5 2 23,368 116 2 38,200 115 28 18 108,938 398 68 7,967,700 22,511 40 22 133, 846 523 97 9, 832,200 30,279 Hayward Lake Superior District Power Namekagon Bi~ Falls Minnkota Power Cooperative, Big Fork Inc. Oakland Pennsylvania Electric Co ___ Susquehanna Colliers New York State Electric & ~_do Gas Co. Piney Pennsylvnaia Electric Co Clarion Do~by Great Northern Paper Co West Branch, Penobscot. Mlllinocket do do North Twin do do Bald Rock No. 5 Richvale Irrigation District___ Middle Fork, Feather Milsap No. 4 do do Dogwood No. 3 do do Minerva No. 2 do do Nelson Point No. 1 do do 28,800 34 14,100 93 8,000 44 8,200 27 75,000 347 54,000 275 36,000 175 40,000 173 20,000 75/ 289,278 1,257 1 Application for license for constructed project pending. 2 Outstanding license; expires Dec. 31, 2003. 3 Outstanding license; expires June 30, 1970; application filed to surrender license. 4 Outstanding license; expires Oct. 12, 1972. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance to the Ooinmittee. Sincerely, 3(a) 3(b) 4(a) Total There are no licensing actions in the seven "wild river" reaches listed in see- ~tion 3(a) of the bill. As to the five "scenic river" reaches included in section 3(b), only the existing Hayward project, already constructed, is being considered for licensing. In the 28 river reaches listed In section 4(a) for study, twelve projects have been licensed or have license applications pending. The following table sum- marizes the river reaches (and projects) in which licensing actions have occurred: Section of bill FPC project ~ Name of project Owner ~ Installed River capacity (kilowatts) ~ Annual generation (million kilowatt- hours) 3(bX5) 1 2417 4(aX3) 2 2089 4(aX8) a 1899 -4(aX8) 1 2455 4(a)(17) 4 309 4(a)(24) 1 2458 4(a 24) 12458 4(a 24) 1 2458 4(a 27) 12134 ~4(a 27) 12134 4(3 27) 12134 4(a 27) 1 2134 *4(a 27) 1 2134 168 600 600 3,810 1 3 2 8 LEE 0. WHITE, Chairman. PAGENO="0208" 194 DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT, S. 119, 90TH CONG. I. REACHES OF RIVERS NAMED IN SEC. 3(a) DESIGNATED AS NATIONAL WILD RIVER AREAS Annual Installed generation Gross Project State RIver capacity (thousand head (kilowatts) kilowatt- (feet) hours) 1. Salmon Middle Fork, Idaho- Undeveloped: Lewis Idaho Middle Fork Salmon 14, 1000 550, 000 433 Pungo do do 8,000 66,000 170 Risley do do 5, 300 44, 000 135 Steelhead do do 5, 400 45, 000 145 Sheepwater do do 7,700 65,000 240 Deerhorn do do 5, 300 44, 000 170 Fuller do do 5, 800 48, 000 190 Salmon Falls do do 3, 900 32, 000 140 Fall Creek do do 5, 500 46, 000 200 Chinook do do 5,200 43,000 200 BearValley do do 7,800 65,000 310 Total 200,9001,048,000 2. Clearwater, Middle Fork, Idaho- * Undeveloped: Penny Cliffs Idaho Middle Fork, Clearwater_ 292, 000 1, 787, 000 590 JerryJohnson do Lochsa 46,000 178,000 290 Wgndover do do 105, 000 450, 000 718 Wolf Creek do Selway 103, 000 400, 000 286 Moose Creek do do 240, 000 720, 000 592' RunningCreek do do 50,000 200,000 302 White Cap do do 68, 000 260, 000 483.. Total 904, 000 3, 995, 000 3. Rio Grande, N. Mex. (none). 4. St. Croix, Minn. and Wis.- Wisconsin Namekagon 1,200 7,000 30 Developed: Trego. Undeveloped: Swiss do St. Croix 2, 700 17, 900 35 ` Kettle River Rapids do do 27, 500 120, 000 78 N~vers do do 20, 000 80, 000 45 Total 51,400 224,900 5. Wolf, Wis : Developed: Keshena Falls do Wolf 340 2,000 14 Undeveloped: Keshena Falls do do 1 5, 200 1 13, 000 37 Dalles do do 10, 200 27, 200 83 Shotgun Rapids do do 5, 800 15, 300 56 Total 21, 540 57, 500 6. Rogue, Dreg-Undeveloped: CooperCanyon Oregon Rogue 300,000 1,140,000 450 Ramey Falls do do 100, 000 430, 000 300 Total 400, 000 1, 570, 000 7. Illinois, Oreg.-Undeveloped: do Illinois 250, 000 767, 000 550 Buzzards Roost, Total, sec. 3(a): Developed 1, 540 9, 000 Undeveloped 1, 826, 300 7, 653, 400 See footnotes at end of table, p. 197 PAGENO="0209" 195 DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED iN THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT, S. 119, 90TH CONG.-Continued II. REACHES OF RIVERS NAMED IN SEC. 3(b) DESIGNATED AS "NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER AREAS" Annual Installed Project State River capacity (kilowatts) generation (thousand kilowatt- hours) Gross head (feet) 1. St. Croix, Wis., and Miun.: Developed:St. Croix Falls Wisconsin-Mis- St Croix 23,200 114,300 59 nesota. Undeveloped : Stillwater do do 4, 200 25, 200 20 Total 27,400 139,500 2. Eleven Point Mo-Undeveloped: Arkansas-Mis- Elsveri PoinL 34, 033 90, 000 12 Water Valley. souri. 3. Rogue, Oreg. (none). 4. Illinois, Oreg. (none). 5. Namekagon, Wis.-Developed: Hayward Wisconsin Namekagon 168 1,300 18 Total, sec. 3(b): Developed * 23,368 115,600 Undeveloped 38,200 115,200 III. REACHES OF RIVERS NAMED IN SEC. 4(a) FOR JOINT FEDERAL-STATE PLANNING TO ASCERTAIN FEASIBILITY . OF ADDING TO WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM 1. Salmon, Idaho-Undeveloped: LowerCanyon Idaho Salmon 1,280,000 4,380,000 665 . Freedom do do 450,000 840,000 220 Crevice do do 1, 015, 000 2, 000, 000 725 Black Canyon do do 238, 000 930, 000 332 Pinnacle Peak do do 243,000 940, 000 376 Shoup do do 14,000 110,000 90 Indianola do do 71,000 280,000 248 Total 3,311,000 9,480,000 2. Buffalo, Tenn. (none). .3. Big Fork, Minn.-Developed: Big Falls Minnesota Big Fork 600 3, 000 35 4. Hudson, N.Y.-Undeveloped: Hadley NewYork Hudson 82,000 170,000 67 Kettle Mountain do do 18, 000 180, 000 300 Chain Lakes do__ . Cedar 5, 300 13, 000 Total ~ 165,300 363,000 5. Missouri, Mont.~-UndeveIoped: Low Rocky Point Montana Missouri 94, 000 350, 000 44 High Cow Creek do do 720, Q00 1, 480, 000 323 Fort Benton do do 300, 000 688, 000 177 Total _~~___~_ 1,114,000 2,518,000 6. Niobrara, Nebr. (none). 7. Skagit, Wash-Undeveloped: The Dalles __________________ Washington _______ Skagit _______~~___ 53, 000 370, 000 32 Low Faber -______________________ do ~__________~_ do ___~____ 150,000 650,000 110 CopperCreek ~___________________ do _________~~ do _~_____________ 83,000 470,000 152 Cascade ___~_______~ do --~--~-~___ Cascade _____ 66, 000 320, 000 ` 686 LowerSauk ~~___________________- do __________ Sauk ______~_____~_ 94,000 473,000 220 . Lower Suiattle ___________________ do ~________ Suiattle ______________ 31, 000 240, 000 505 Buck Creek No. 1 _ _____~____ do _____~..__ do 19,900 153,000 380 DowneyCreekNo.1 do do 12,200 93,000 385 UpperSulattle do do 18,400 140,000 625 Total 527,500 2,909,000 See footnotes at end of table, p. 197. 92-560-68-14 PAGENO="0210" 196 DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT, S. 119, 90TH CONG-Continued Annual Installed Project State River capacity (kilowatts) generation (thousand kilowatt- hours) Gross head (feet) 8. Susquehanna, N.Y. and Pa.: Developed: Oakland Pennsylvania Susquehanna 600 1,900 9 Oneonta New York do 450 , 900 ` (3) Colliers do do 3, 810 8, 000 30 Undeveloped: Falls Pennsylvania do 250,000 760,000 150 Hallstead do do 12,200 52,000 36 Total 267,060 822,800 9. Suwanee, Ga. and Fla. (none). ~ 10. Youghiogheny, Md. and Pa.- Undeveloped: Dam C Pennsylvania Youghiogheny 15,000 49?000 50 Dam B do do 15,000 80,OQO 85 Dam A do do 25, 000 80, 000 ~ 85 Youghiogheny do do 24,000 76,000 126 SangRun Maryland do 48,000 153,000 560 Total 137,000 ~ 438,O~0 11. Little Miami, Ohio-Unde- ~ ~ veloped: Oregonia. Ohio Little Miami 5,000 15,000 55 12. Little Beaver, Ohio (none). . 13. Maumee, Ohio (none). 14. Pine Creek, Pa-Undeveloped : Pennsylvania Pine Creek 85, 000 130, 000 235 Cammal. 15. Delaware, Pa. and N.Y.-Unde- New York, Penn- Delaware 15, 900 64, 000 ~ ~ 40 veloped : Narrowsburg. sylvania. ~ 16. Allegheny, Pa. (none). ~ 17. Clarion, Pa.: Developed: Piney__ Pennsylvania Clarion 28,800 34,000 ~ 83 Undeveloped: Foxburg do do 130,000 180,000 ~ ~ 150 MillCreek do do 110,000 ` 175~000 225 Total 268, 800 389, 000 18. West Branch Susquehanna Pa. : Undeveloped: Lock Haven do West Branch, Susque- 80, 000 212, 000 82 hanna. ~ do do 260,000 430,000 ~ 278 ,~(" 340,000 ~ 642,000 ~ 19. Chattooga, NC., S.C., and Ga.- Undeveloped: Camp Creek South Carolina ~ Chattooga 100, 000 75, 000 180 Rogues Ford do do 120,000 77,~l00 246 Sand Bottom Georgia do 66, 000 43 000 141 War Woman South Carolina do 80, 000 50, 300 182 Chattooga do do 44,000 54,000 (3) Total 410, 000 299, 800 20. Flathead, Mont-Undeveloped: Canyon Creek Montana North Fork, Flathead 116, 000 260, 000 154 Smoky Range do do 220, 000 510, 000 350 Spruce Park do Middle Fork, Flatheath~ 88,000 330,000 860 Total 424, 000 1, 100, 000 . 21. Gasconade, Mo.-Undeveloped: Rich Fountain Missouri Gascobade 35, 000 96,000 78 Arlington do do 30,000 120,000 101 Richland do ~do 25,000 49,000 97 Total 90, 000 265, 000 See footnotes at end of table, p. 197. PAGENO="0211" 197 DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF RIVERS NAMED IN THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT, S. 119, 90TH CONG-Continued Annual Installed generation Gross capacity (thousand head (kilowatts) kilowatt- (feet) hours) 22. Guadalupe, Tex.-Developed: H-5 ~ Texas Guadalupe 2,400 7,700 28 H-4 do do 2, 400 7, 700 27 Guadalupe hydro do do 308 1, 500 9 Nolte, TP-5_~_~ do do 2,480 7,000 27 Sequin do do 250 1,600 (8) TP-4 do do 2, 400 7, 800 29 Abbott, TP-3 do do 2, 800 8,900 30 Dunlap, TP-1 do do 3,600 13,400 (8) Undeveloped: GB-6 do...._ do 5,000 11,000 38 GB-5 do do 5,000 11,000 45 GB-4 do do - 5,000 10,000 35 Retention No.2 do do 5,000 11,000 53 Canyon do do 20,800 8,400 153 Auxiliary No.1 do do 80,500 101,700 231 Auxiliary No. 3 do do 122,600 156,600 250 Dam No. 7 do do 21,400 8,650 140 Total 281,938 373,950 23. KlamatJ~Calif.-Undeveloped: Happy Camp California Klamath 135,000 790,000 476 67,000 380,000 388 Total 202,000 1,170,000 24. Penobscot, Maine: Developed: Medway __~___ Maine __~_____ West Branch, Penobscot 3, 440 31, 000 18 Dolby do do 14, 100 93, 000 49 Millinocket do~ .~_._____~ do 8,000 44,000 110 North Twin do do 8, 200 27, 000 29 Ripogenus do do 24,300 100,000 186 Undeveloped: Debsconeag do do 15, 000 69,000 58 SOurdnahunk do do 24, 000 109,000 95 The Arches do do 22, 500 94, 000 90 Meadow Brook do East Branch, Penobscot~ 12, 000 48, 000 50 Whetstone Falls do do 30,000 117, 000 135 Total 161,540 732,000 25. Pere Marquette, Mich. (none). 26. Upper Iowa, Iowa (none). 27. Feather, Calif-Undeveloped: Bald Rock No. 5 California MiddleFork, Feather_.__ 75,000 347,000 710 Milsap No. 4 do do 54, 000 275, 000 785 Dogwood No. 3 do do 36, 000 175, 000 582 Minerva No.2 do do 40,000 173,000 710 Nelson Point No. 1 do do 20, 000 75,000 360 Total 225, 000 1, 045,000 28. RIo Grande, Tex.-Unde- veloped: Aqua Verde Texas____________ Rio Grande 45,000 150, 000 365 Total, sec. 4(a): Developed 108,938 398,400 - 7,967,700 22,511,150 I Project State River 1 Net gain from redevelopment of an existing project. 2 The extent of the reach of this river is indefinite. The projects listed wOuld occupy the entire Fort Peck-Fort Benton reach. a Not available. PAGENO="0212" 198 STATFMENT OF PEXAS WAThE CONSERVATION ASSOOIATION The Texas Waiter Co~serva~ion Association opposes this legislation. WIW AND SCENIC RIVERS The principles an~l objeetives of the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act," as con- tamed in S. 119, as passed by the U.S. Senate in 1967, seriously infringe upon the k~ng established concept of multiple use of land and waiter resources by pros viding thait certain areas, including streams, tributaries, or rivers be designated as i~atkrna1 wild river areas without sufficient consideration o~ the value of alter- nate beneficial uses and wlthouit sufficient recognition o~ water rights. The "Wild and Scenic RiVers Act" also proposes to establish "i~at1onal scenic river areas," some at which include ~ within their boundaries potential water development sites which are essenti&l to the maximum use o~ our water and related land reaioiii~es under a multi-purpose concept. The suhject o~ d~terniining the potential future needs of the various reclamation states, including Texas, is now beiri~g made b~ the various states. Thereitore, the Texas Water Conservation Association recommends that no legislationbe enacted which could authorize the designation of an area as a wild or scenic river area without first obtaining the approval of the affected states. Mr. TAYLOR. We are honored to have with us this morning two Mem- bers from the other body, two of our Senators, Senators Church and Jordan of Idaho. We will ask for them to come up jointly to the table and make their individual statemeTits, and then we can ask questions of the two of you jointly. Senator Church. STATE~MENT OF HON. PRANK CHURCH, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE STATE OP IDAHO Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say first of all that I appreciate your consideration in allow- ing me to express my views~'ou proposed wild and scenic river legisla- tion this morning. Although I have been the chief sponsor of the bills in the Senate, including S. 119, I am well aware that a number of additional measures have been introduced in the House and are pres- ently before your committee, ~but all of these proposals have the same goal, Mr. Ohairman, that of establishing a national river system that will preserve certain wild and sceitio rivers for posteritiy. Mr. TAYLOR. Do we have copies of your statement? Senator ChuRcH. Mr. Chairman, I regret this was hastily prepared and I htwe not had an opportunity to provide the committee with the copies. Mr. TAmoit, We will li~ter~ rather than read. ~ Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a country ~where nature has been so lavish and whete we have been so spendthrift of indigenous beauty, to set aside a few rivers in their natural state should be considered an obligation. I know that you are well aware of the background which led to this proposal. You are also aware, I am sure, of the rivers prOposed for inclusion in the system. In S. 119 and most of the other bills, Idaho would provide more than half of the proposed wild river mileage in the initial system. On this basis, Idaho has a major interest in the final form of this legislation. PAGENO="0213" 199 The Idaho rivers involved are segments of the Salmon and the Clear- water. The Salmon, often called The River of No Return, rises in the high country of central Idaho, and many of its reaches churn through deep, steep-walled mountain canyons. It has enticed white water boatmen from throughout the world, eager to accept the chal- lenge of boiling rapids remote from civilization. Presently, there are no dams on the Salmon, and its complex of forks and smaller tributaries provide the last major spawning ground in the Columbia River watershed for anadromous fish-the migratory salmon and steelhead trout. S. 119 includes only the Middle Fork of the Salmon. The 105 miles of this spectacular stream flow northward through the Idaho Primi- tive Area, its crystal-clear waters abundant in fish, and its rugged banklands abounding in wildlife. In S. 119, the main Salmon River would be studied for possible future inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Dur- ing the final session of the 89th Congress, the Senate passed another wild rivers bill which I introduced, S. 1446. This bill, in final form, included, besides the Middle Fork, the Main Salmon downstream from the North Fork to its confluence with the Snake River. As a result of recommendations by the Idaho Water Resource Board, the State agency charged with appraisal and planning of Idaho water resources, and of my colleague, Senator Jordan-and with my own endorsement-the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee agreed to amend S. 119 and place the main stem of the river in the study category with the added protection of another amendment which provided that no dams would be constructed on streams in the study group for a period of 5 years. Mr. Chairman, I have long been concerned with the need for "bal- anced development" of our Idaho resources, with some of our rivers or their segments devoted to reclamation and the production of hydro- electric power, and others dedicated to recreation. I do not believe we should construct dams on the main Salmon as long as the fish-passage problem remains unsolved. A dam on the mainstream of the river would halt the migration of salmon and steelhead into this great nursery and destroy the runs. However, I do believe we should afford the Idaho Water Resource Board the opportunity to complete its study of the river. I also believe that the importance of the main Salmon as a recreation asset will increase considerably in the next few years, and I hope will lead to its eventual inclusion in the proposed national wild river system. The second Idaho river proposed by S. 119 and other bills to be included in the initial system is the Middle Fork of the Clearwater and its two tributaries, the Lochsa and the Seiway. This amounts to 186 miles of beautiful and historic mountain streams which are also prime spawning grounds for salmon and steelhead. It was down the ridges above the Lochsa and the Middle Fork that the explorers Lewis and Clark came in 1805 to reach the main `Clearwater, which afforded them the first leg of a water route that led them all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Their most successful exploration gave the United States a valid claim to the Oregon country. PAGENO="0214" 200 These are the Idaho rivers in the bill, although no doubt there are others that are qualified-at least to be studied for possible inclusion. The St. ~Joe, Priest, Bruneau and Moyie Rivers in Idaho are all worthy of study and I commend them to this conunittee for inclusion in the study category of the bill. There has recently been a threat of dredging in the upper St. Joe, a beautiful little river in northern Idaho internationally known for its excellent fly-fishing. Acting at the request of many constituents, although this is a. matter presently for the State of Idaho to decide, I filed a protest against the dredging proposal with the Idaho State Land Board. I would be happy to see the ~t. Joe included in the study category of the legislation. I think it would make an admirable addi- tion to the system, where it would be protected from dredging and other threats of despoilation. Mr. Chairman, I did not come here this morning to belabor the par- tic'ulars of S. 119, but I would like to point out that the bill is the distillation of a tremendous amount of work in the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. For example, many long hours were spent in executive sessions hammering out the condemnation and water righth provisions. You will note that subsection 5(d) places a limitation on condemnation. It provides that where 50 percent or more of the acreage within the entire national wild or scenic river area is owned by Federal, State or local governments, neither secretary could condemn in fee title but could condemn for scenic easements. This language was adopted because the conmiittee believed that where rivers flow through this amount of public land there would be ample bank-land areas for pub- lic access and public facilities without the need for fee `acquisition of private property. Great care was exercised in the final language concerning water rights in subsection 6(f). It would preserve the status quo, and the committee report on S. 119 stresses that no change is intended. I would be the last to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that S. 119 is the per- feot answer to save some of our wonderful American rivers, but Sen- ator Jordan and I recommend it to you as the bill favored by Idaho, and one that met with the unanimous approval of the Senate, and since Idaho has made so large a oontribution to the initial system, we thought it proper to emphasize that the bill does have the support of Idaho. Sen- ator Jordan and I joined in the support of the bill in the Senate, and that understanding was the basis for the unanimous approval of the Senate by a vote of 84 to nothing. So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy of giving me this opportunity to appear here this morning. Mr. TAYLOR. Senator, I commend you on a fine statement. You do have a beautiful State and you do have some rivers that lend them- selves to the purposes of this bill. Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. Senator Jordan, we will be glad to hear your statement. PAGENO="0215" 201 STATE1~~ENT OP HON. LEN B. JORDAN, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE STATE OP IDAHO Senator JORDAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the op~ portunity to express my views on wild and scenic rivers. At least six bills in the House of Representatives are being considered here as well as S. 119 which has been passed by the Senate. I will not go into detail on each one, but there are variations in some sections of each bill which I would like to discuss with you. Mr. Chairman, I have always been a strong believer in the wild rivers concept. I have stated on numerous occasions that I hope every State contributes a river or segment of a river to this great system. This is still my hope. I want to see people enjoy these unspoiled areas. As evidenced by various bills, there are real differences of opinion as to what constitutes a wild or scenic river and the locations for the desig- nation of such rivers. One bill lists 16 rivers in the reserve category, class 1, with 82 others being recommended in some type of wild or scenic river study. The Senate bill lists seven rivers for designation as wild rivers, five as scenic and 27 proposed for further study. We have differing views in Idaho. Some people want more rivers included in the system, some want no wild rivers at all. As I have stated before in considering this legislation, I have had serious res- ervations that we are trying to move too fast too soon. In this country and especially in the State of Idaho we are currently engaged in a mass effort to inventory and assess our water resources and to direct planning to the most comprehensive sorts of consideration about future needs, designation, and uses to insure that we deal wisely with this most precious resource so that we do not penalize coming generations through the failure to exercise every bit of foresight we can. The whole emphasis in the water resource field is on using such vision as we possess to plan as comprehensively as possible for the fu- ture. Congress has certainly been aware of our need for more study on our land and water resources. Public Law 89-80, the Rii~er Basin Planning Act, is barely going into operation, but we do have now the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission in its first year of activity in the Pacific Northwest. Public Law 88-379 authorizes coordinated programs on water re- search. Under stimulus derived from this law, the University of Idaho Water Resources Research Institute has submitted a research proposal to the Office of Water Resources Research in the U.S. Department of the Interior so that a model or methodology for the evaluation of wild and scenic rivers may be developed. I hope it will be approved. I am sure it will be of help to us in evaluating the various rivers we now have under discussion. Public Law 88-606 was the basis for the establishment of the Public Land Law Review Commission. it is the purpose of the Commission to review all land and related resource laws and regulations. The life of the Commission has recently been extended by Congress. A water study plan for the use of this Commission is now about ready to `be activated. A weather modification bill, S. 2875, in the 89th Congress has been PAGENO="0216" actively consider~c1 in the Senate. This would authorize studies, ie.- search, and tests for increasing water use from atmospheric sources. . Public Law 82-448 and Public Law 90-18 deal ivith water desaliniza- tion so we may use water tlmt is now saline and so we may eventimily reuse our water resources. In iL(1(.IitiOfl to iiationai interest. there is groat activity at the State afl(1 regional level. Eleven \Ve.stern States have implemented a West- em States \\Tq~~~ Council through which they hope to iuirs~ie coopera- tively ]ong-range ~)]anning ob~ectives. The Northwest St~ites have for many years been discuissiiig a Coluuiibia Basin interstnte WTa.ter Coin- I)act. We do have some compacts with other States which have been ap- proved by the Congress. Iii. Idaho the citizens voted an amendment to the. State's coiistit.u- tion to create a State water agency charged with the study and in- ventory of the State's water and land resources, in order that planning may proceed in au orderly and ooin1)re11ei~sive way. I believe we all recognize that once a river is officially designated as "wild" or "scenic" or "natural," t;hat classification will be mOst difficult to change. One iieed only point to the unsuccessful efforts to change the boundary of `a national park or even a wilderness area. One must assume that the rivers selected will be free-flowing in perpetuity. Therefore we must be sure that we have all the facts and information before we commit them. We cannot limit our research to a particular river alone. Just to say "Here is a beautiful, free-flowing river-let us ~i.l ~vays keel) it SO" 15 not enough.. We must consider also the alternate uses of this river, the options, if you please. We must consider a river in its total context-including its relation- ship to the other water supplies of the area and to the total economy of the State or region. Only then will it be possible to strike a proper balance between preservation and development. Only then will it be possible to make a lasting judgment as to the highest and best use of a river resource. I have studied the Batteile report, an economic and social evaluation of establishing portions of the Salmon and Clearwat.er Rivers in Idaho as wild rivers. I am frank to say this study was entirely super- ficial. It is limited to a study area of approximately 231 miles of stream and 924 square miles of adjoining land. Little or no considera- tion has been given to the possibility of flood control downstream or to the effect the designation of the Salmon River as a wild river would have on the Snake River Basin which joins it on the south. Until further studies are made, we do not know how many acres of Idaho html have l)~)te~tial for irrigation ai~cl we do not know definitely what our water needs will be. We now irrigate about 3.4 million acres and it is estimated that 4 to 6 million more acres ca.n be put under irrigation. Most all of it is in the Snake River drainage. But how about water for such an irrigation potential ? Dependable water supplies must be available in the most critical water years, not just the average years, Mr. Chairman, but in our critical water years. In our 6 years of lowest water less than 8 million acre-feet of water flowed by the gage at Weiser, Idaho. There are downstream commit- 202 I PAGENO="0217" 203 ments for about half of that amount of water for fishing, boating, other recreational needs and power. With depletion allowances for less than half of our new irrigation potential the Snake River Basin will be a water~:deficient area. We must look to other water supply sources to supplement Snake River flows. In other words, we shall be importing water to the Snake River Basin to meet out own needs in the State of Idaho. As further evidence of the critical water shortage in the Snake River, I quote excerpts from a letter from the regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation as follows: The average annual flow at Murphy gage- That is on the Snake River in Idaho- ufl(ler present (1960) conditions, as reported in the Bureau-Army Joint Report of 1961, is 7,048,000 acre-feet. This same report shows a potentially irrigable dry- land area above Murphy gage in excess of 4 million acres. The estimated net annual consumptive-use requirements for irrigation in the above area is 1.9 acre- feet per acre, or 7,600,000 acre-feet. This, of course, is in excess of available Snake River supplies, even assuming complete theoretical upstream regulation and integrated use of the entire surface-groundwater yield. This again applies to the average annual flow, not to the critical years. We have low water cycles when precipitation is below average 50 we must gear our development to those critical low water years. Some of the points I consider important in this legislation and which is of concern to the people of Idaho are: ( 1 ) that rivers now under study but which have some potential as wild and scenic rivers should be I)rotectecl while such study is beii~g made ; (2) that jurisdiction of the various States and the TJnitecl States over the appropriation of water is clearly spelled out and that the in- tent of the act definitely protects established water rights ; (3) that it is intended that the language bearing on water rights I)erlnit the Fed- eral Government to reserve only such unappropriated waters as may be required for the purposes of the act ; (4) when a river is in a study category, and it is ProPosed to place it in the system, the legislature of the State where the river is located, should have an opportunity to consider the inclusion of such a river and to make recommendations. \Vhen Idaho was admitt&1 as a~ State in 1890 on an "equal. footing with the. original States" it took title to the beds of all. navigable waters as (lid other States. No legislation should be passed which will alter this prilnary responsibility. It would 1)e. contrary to our State admis- sion act and to our State c.onstit.utioll. Another feature which I wish to call to your attention is the need for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Board. Such a Board could be the mechanism through which changes of circumstances and needs affecting the rivers designated as wild or scenic may be brought to the attention of Congress, so that long-range planning for water usage in the Nation may remain flexible and not be foreclosed in the consiclera- tion of alternative uses which the future requires. This Board should be also authorized and directed to conduct continuing studies which would measure the benefits and detriments of each wild river as it per- tains to the reclamation development of such State. Mr. Chairman, as my distinguished colleague has said, because Idaho is cont.ributing so generousi.y to the scenic and wild rivers sys- PAGENO="0218" 204 tern, I should like, at this time, to insert a table showing the relative mileare of the rivers placed in the "instant" section of the bill which passed the Senate unanimously. This does not include the main Salmon River as your House bills do. I hope you will not include the more than 1~0 miles of the Salmon River from the town of North Fork or to its confluence with the Snake River in the system but rather in the study section. The Battelle report which is oriented to scientific, esthetic, and recreational values states that the 50-mile stretch of the lower Salmon River from Whitebird to its mouth at the Snake River does not qualify as a wild or scenic river. . . Mileage of rivers included in the wild and scenic rivers system in S. 119 as follows: M~le8 Lochsa River Seiway Middle Fork of Oletarwater 21 Middle Fork of Salmon 105 Total Idaho Rivers 290 Rio Grande, New Mexico 50 St. Croix, Minnesota and Wisconsin 100 Segment of Namekegon, a tributary of ~t. Croix River in Minneosta and Wisconsin - 100 Wolf in Wisconsin 25 Illinois in Oregon Rogue in Oregon Total of all other States 255 Total mileage 545 miles. Idaho's contribution 53 percent. Many of us in Idaho feel that with a proper methodology possible stretches of other rivers in our State may qualify as wild or scenic. Segments of the St. Joe, Priest, Bruneau, and. the Moyie should be considered. These are the same rivers that my colleague mentioned. I was the first to mention that the St. Joe was the first that had great potential as a scenic wild river and should be included in all studies and now we have come to realize that that is very true indeed with the threat of dredging in that very beautiful scene. They run through beautiful scenery and are practically free of pol- lution. With the exception of a very small tributary of the Bruneau all of the rivers mentioned, including the Lochsa, Selway, the middle fork of the Olearwater, the main Olearwater and the Middle Fork of the Salmon and the main Salmon are all Idaho rivers. (As a matter of fact, the Salmon is the longest river in the United States that is com- pletely from the headwater to its mouth wholly in one State. It is a great resource for our State. We want to study it.) They flow entirely within Idaho from source to mouth. Idaho certainly should have a real voice in their use and management. You do not allow your heritage to be foreclosed without full and proper study. The Governor of Idaho, the Lieutenant Governor, the State Water Resource Board, the Idaho Reclamation Association, many other groups and individuals, in- cluding both U.S. Senators, agree that more studies are needed before committing the main Salmon at this time to a wild or scenic river category. We further believe that all the other rivers mentioned should be protected from development until such studies are made. PAGENO="0219" 205 Mr. Chairman, we are hopeful that you and other members of your committee will give consideration to the views my oo'11eagu~s and I have expressi~d. Your consideration will be appreciated and I wish you success in formulaiting a sound and practical Wild and Scenic Rivers bill. Than1~ you. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. I judge that both of you are satisfied with the provisions of the Senate bill S. 119 as it applies to Idaho. Senator CHURCH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are. Sena~tor JORDAN. Yes, we are, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. That places a section of the Salmon River and a section of the Clearwater River in the wild river category and a section of the Salmon River in the study state. Senator JORDAN. That is right. Mr. TAYLOR. You have before you a copy of the House bill 5. 8416. It also places sections of both of these rivers in the category to be desig- nated as scenic rivers. It describes them usually in different language. Will you comment as to, or maybe point out the difFerences as to, why you prefer the Senate version? Senator CHURCH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. You can use the map. Senator CHURCIL I would be glad to do thwt. The main fork of the Salmon River is depicted here in yellow, that is, that portion of it running from North Fork to its confluence with the Snake. The middle fork is depicted in blue. Now, the bill that originally passed the Senate 2 years ago included the middle fork and the main stem from the North Fork all the way to its confluence with the Snake. In the bill that passed last year, on which Senator Jordan and I reached full agreement, the middle fork Was included in the initial system, but the main stem from North Fork to the point of confluence was placed in the study category for further consideration by the Idaho Water Resource Board and the other study groups. The House language in the bill before you, Mr. Chairman, is still a little difFerent. The House language would include the middle fork, which we have included, but it would also include the main stem from the North Fork to Riggins. Let me say that my personal hope and expectation is that, after all the studies are made, it may prove feasible to include this stretch of the river in a wild river system, but we would hope that the House would place this segment in the study category as we have done in the Senate, so that further consideration can be given to the use of the river. As Senator Jordo'n said, this is very important to Idaho, a very important resource. We want to be sure of its best use, and for that rea- son we would hope that you would place this segment of the river in the study category. Mr. TAYLOR. In regard to the clearwater River are we in agreement? Senator CHUROn. Yes, we are in full agreement. Senator JORDAN. We are in agreement on the Clearwater. Mr. TAYLOR. Have any other members any questions? PAGENO="0220" 2Q6 I recognize the gentleman on our committee from Idaho. I know he has the same concern and interest in this as you have:. Mr. MCCLtmE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me say that I am very proud this morning to have the Semi- ators from my great State appear before this committee to make the presentation that has been made. I don't think that any introduction of either of these gentlemen needs to be made to this comniittee or to the persons within this hearing room. Senator Church's position in the field of preservation of natural resources has been well known for a number of years. I am certain that Senator Jordan's preeminence as an authority in the field of water development and water use in the United States is equally well known. I did have one or two questions I would like to direct. Senator Church, you mentioned in your statement time need for a balanced development of all of our resources, including water re- sources. Would it be correct `to say that this would require a balancing of the economic factors with respect to the use of segments of a. river, a wild river, as compared to other uses to which it might be put witlim the State or within the region? Senator CHURCH. Yes, I think the economic impact is certainly one of the important factors that would have to be considered in any evaluation of any river. Mr. MCCLtuu~. And you would agree ais~, wouldn't you, that in the study section, these rivers which are under study, that this womild be one of the very important factors to be included within those studies? Senator Cl-lURCH. Yes, I would agree with that. I would also point; out that there is great economic value in `the recreational use of rivers, and that in Idaho in the past 10 years the fastest growing industry has been recreation and tourism. It has jumped from about eighth place to third place as a money earner for Idaho people. So I do think that the economic impact of the use to which any river is put j5: one of the very important factors in any evaluation. But our recre:at.ion attractions have an economic impact of very considerable importance. Mr. MCCLURE. Senator Jordan, you referred in your statement. to the Battelie report that you had studied. Were these reports made available to your office? Senator JORDAN. No, they were not. In the two sessions that we were discussing the wild rivers legislation in the Senate, I never had acce,ss to the Batteile report. I saw it for the first time within the last 30 days. It :j5 a very superficial report. Mr. MCCLURE. Did you make attempts to obtain a copy of that prior to that time? Senator JORDAN. I asked upon wbat basis the studies were made and I never oould get any satisfaction. `Mr. MCCLURE. What is `the relationship of these various boards you are referring to in resource development. studies in Idaho, the Water R:e:s'oiirce Board, Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, the West- em States Water Council particularly? Senator JORDAN. The re1~ition hip cf t.he~e various boards engaged in resources development studies in I(lallo is that they are `trying at long last to inventory the water resources of the area, and to try and arrive at some recommendationt; a.s to their greatest `and highest misc. PAGENO="0221" 207 Mr. MCCLURE. These are relatively recent activities on the part of this area? Senator JORDAN. Yes, indeed, they are, within the last 2 or 3 years. `Mr. MCCLURE. I think you stated that it was your desire th~t these other segments that are j~daced in the ~udy section of the bill have prot&~tion during the period of study so there would be no cJiange in use. Senator JORDAN. By nil means. They are just as secure in the study section as they are in what I call the instant section. I want them protedted against development by anyone until we compiite our re- source studies. Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. chairman, I want to state to the committee that Senator Jordan and Congressman George Hansen and myself have announced the intention to ask the inclusion of the rivers in the study section which were referred to both by Senator Jordan and by Senator Ohureh, and I am glad to know `that we have united support. I welcome Senator Church and his support to the efforts to get the St. Joe, the Moyie River, the Priest, River, and the Bruneau River included within the study sedtions of this bill, so that they, too, can have that protection during the period of time that the studies `are taking ~lace. I t~iink with an honest view that these will be found fit for inclusion within the bill and the national scenic rivers system when it is expanded. Mr. TAYLOR. I judge you are then in `agreement with their position Conoernino' the Salmon River also? Mr. Mc~Luiu~. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. As to the section that should be ~ut in the instant divi- sion and that which ~h'ould be put in the study division. Mr. MoCLum~. Very definitely so, Mr. Ohairman. Senator `CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, may I say one further word about S. 119. Being my bill, I have a natural author's pride in it, I suppose, but I want to speak to a section of the bill that was added by my colleague, Senator Jordan, as an amendment, and that is the section that relates to the establishment of a natural wild and scenic rivers review board. It is the feeling of the Senate committee that this board would play a very important role in the continuing review of the wild rivers sys- 1:,em. It is in the nature of rivers and the developing economy of this country that a judgment that is sound when made., may not always remain sound. Changing conditions need to be constantly taken into consideration, and this review board we think would give that flexi- bility to the system, and would serve the public interest. Now, the administration has not seen fit to give its endorsement or support to the review board, but the Senate felt it very important, the Interior Committee that studied his bill felt it very important, and I just wanted to say a world in behalf of retaining this provision. Mr. TAYLOR. That board contains, as personnel, certain public offi- cials. Senator ~nuRcH. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. And the Governors of the States involved? Senator CHURCH. Yes. The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Fed- eral Power commission, and the Governors of the several States involved. PAGENO="0222" 208 Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have my colleague endorse the review board amendment which he did promptly when it was presented in the Senate, and we stand together on that. I was the author of it and I think it is essential to any legislation in this area. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much. Mr. MoOLimE. Mr. Chairman, could I just add one or two other things? Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. McCLuiu~. First, I wish to express my thanks to Senator Church for bringing that point out, because I think that is a very important point to be emphasized before this committee. I also want to comment concerning the statement Senator Jordan made about the water shortage within the Snake River Basin. While I realize that we are not talking about the Snake River directly, never- theless the impact of water resource development within the region does have a bearinghere before us today, and the fact thatthe Salmon River Basin is immediately adjacent to the Snake River Basin is a matter of great concern to people in southern Id&ho. Now, I know that our friends in California assure us throughout all .f our various considerations of water resource developmentthat they have no desire to take water that we can put to use within our State. I have before me the Idaho Daily Statesman of Saturday, Febru- ary 24, 1968, in `which the California PublicWorks Director, Samuel B. Nelson, was quoted as having said in Coronado, Calif., that he again endorsed the plan to divert water from the Snake River in Idaho, and that of course is headlined in my capital city. I want to underline the statement that was made by Senator Jordan here, that the studies by the Bureau of ~ Reclamation and any other independent agency that has ever made these studies will indicate that the Snake River Basin is iii' an area of potential water deficit, and not an area of water surplus. I think we need to emphasize and re- emphasize this fact in the hopes that our friends in California, in their desperation for water, will learn to look somewhere where there is water instead of where there is not. Mr. JOHNSON. Willthe gentleman yield? Mr. MCCLURE. I will be happy to yield. Mr. JOHNSON. I believe the gentleman sat with the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation when we were considering the Colorado River legislation, and I think you should be satisfied that Mr. Nelson might be talking about something in the future, but at present at least the legislation as perfected in the subcommittee does not seek water from the Snake River. Mr. TAYLOR. This legislation doesn't solve that problem. Mr. MCCLURE. It bears on it, however, Mr. Chairman, because the fact that we are willing to commit segments of our rivers to the rec- reational purposes encompassed by this legislation should not be taken by the people of California or any other area as being a state- ment that these are waters in which the State has no other interest I think this is emphasized by the fact that the main stem of the Salmon is being placed in the study section where we may study the interrelationship between this basin and the Snake River Basin in the south. That is my point in bringing it up at this time. PAGENO="0223" 209 Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Senator Church and Senator Jordan. Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. There is agreement among the Idaho delegation. Our next witness is John A. Baker, Assistant Secretary of the Dc. partment of Agriculture. Mr. Cliff, you will accompany him, will you not ~ Mr. Edward P. Cliff, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. STATEMENT OP JOHN A. BAICER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD P. CLIFF, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT' OF Ac+RICUL- TURE Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Baker, we welcome you before the committee. You may proceed. Mr. BAKER. Thank you, sir. ` We are glad to have this opportunity to speak to you about a scenic rivers system. This proposed nationwide system is an outgrowth of a joint study of America's scenic rivers initiated in 1963 by the Depart- ments of Agriculture and the Interior. The bills before you would start us on our way to insuring protection of our remaining unspoiled rivers and streams. In our August 11, 1967, report to your committee, we recommended that Chairman Aspinall's bill, H.R. 8416, be enacted, with certain amendments. These amendments are described in detail in our report. Their major purposes are to insure that the Secretary of Agriculture has appropriate responsibility whenever National Forest lands are involved, and to make the provisions of the bill consistent with on- going resource programs of the Department of Agriculture. Much of our national scenic rivers system will be managed and pro- tected in connection with the National Forest System administered by the Forest Service. Over 400 miles of the rivers proposed for the initial system in H.R. 8416 are within the boundaries of the National Forests. These include the Salmon and Clearwater in Idaho, and the Rogue in Oregon. Within the National Forests scenic waterways have long been ad- ministered in accord with the scenic rivers concept. The National Scenic Rivers Act will give congressional recognition to this type of management. More importantly, for National Forest lands, it will give statutory assurance that designated scenic rivers will remain free- flowing. We have the authority now to manage related land areas under sound conservation principles. We are able to fully protect the values of streamsides. By restricting the future construction of thajor river barriers, this legislation will make our ability to protect these streams complete. The Department of Agriculture is vitally concerned with rural America. Scenic rivers are a part of the rural countryside-its economy and its environment. A national scenic rivers system will give rural Americans the opportunity to furnish facilities and services needed to enhance use and enjoyment of components of the scenic rivers system. PAGENO="0224" 210 This will meafl new business and new jobs and a boost to the local economy. I knowyou are interested in the question of scenic river boundaries, and our acquisition plans within these boundaries. I would like to describe how these will be determined in the areas managed by our Department. We do not contemplate that large areas of National Forest land will be designated for scenic river purposes. If amended as suggested in the report of the Secretary of the Interior, H.R. 8416 would limit the area that could be included within boundaries of scenic rivers system components to a total of not more than 320 acres per mile. This would work out to an average width of one-quarter mile on each side of a scenic river. However, we are sure that scenic river area widths will vary-depending on the terrain, existing developments, natural vege- tative screens, and needs for access and public use facilities. For instance, where high, steep banks or dense vegetation adjoin the river, the designated river area would be narrow. It would prob- ably not extend more than a short distance beyond the top of those banks or th~ dense vegetation because areas beyond would be out of view from the river. A wider area would be needed in flat or continu- ously rising terrain to potect the view from the river. We have a unique situation where scenic rivers flow through na- tional forests. Often the bulk of surrounding lands are already in pub- lie ownership, and are already being managed in a way that enhances scenic river purposes. Here, the actual chosen width of a scenic rivers system. component would have little, if any, effect on management practices. We will generally restrict fee acquisition for scenic river purposes to those cases where it is necessary to make the areas of greatest use demand accessible to the public, and to provide for public use facili- ties. In other cases, scenic easements can be used to fully protect scenic river values. We want to make it clear that many land uses are compatible with scenic river management. Livestock grazing, farming, forestry, and simple, rustic recreation developments are all part of a picturesque rural environment. These kinds of land uses should continue. Whe~i viewed from the streams, they will foster an understanding of wise land user-of how man can improve nature's productivity and use. its bounty, without impairing its quality. ~ Mr. Chairman, I believe our time is running out if we want to fully protect some of our remaining free-flowing streams. I strongly urge the establishment of national scenic rivers system to assure unspoiled, unobstructed waterways for all of us, for all time. As you have so graciously already recognized, Mr. Chairmar~, Chief Cliff of the Forest Service is here with me. Ed knows all of these pro- posed rivers quite intimately from personal experience. He knows the rivers in detail. He and I together will be glad to answer any questions that the committee may have. . Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Cliff do you have an additional statement? Mr. Cr~ir~r. No, Mr. dhairman, I do not, but I am ready and willing to answer questions to the best of my ability. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall. PAGENO="0225" 211 Mr. ASPINALL. Isn't it true, Mr. Baker and Ohief Cliff, that in youi overall authority to supervise the National Forest System, you can keep these rivers clean, you can keep. them freeflowing, and that your real difficulty perhaps is whether or not a license is granted upon the river for power installation? Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the river is completely surrounded by national forestlands, that is correct. Mr. ASPINALL. You have no responsibility outside of the area which comes under your jurisdiction in the National Forest Service? Mr. BAKER. That is correct. Mr. ASrINALL. Where there is some adjacent land which is controlled by the State or some other Federal agency, you might have some inter~ est in that particular part of the river as it relates to the river that is within your jurisdiction, is that not ri~ht? Mr. BAKER. Particularly, Mr. Chairman, where it would be the eye in a doughnut or an inholdiug, otherwise surrounded by national forest land. Mr. ASPINALL. You already have the authority, Mr. Secretary, as I understand it, to exchange wherever possible and get rid of that inhold~ ing, or to purchase it with moneys that are now at your disposal, per~ haps not timely moneys, but moneys that are at your disposal for some type of use, isn't that correct ? ~ f Mr. BAKER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. No further questions. Mr. TAYLOR. Subject to the amendments that you suggested and which are suggested in the departmental report, are you satisfied with the provisions of H.R. 8416 ? Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir. . . Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Skubitz. Mr. SKTJBITZ. No questiofts. Mr. TAYLOR. Any other members of the subcommittee have any ques- tions ? The gentleman from Idaho. . . . Mr. McCttnu~. You indicate you are satisfied with H.R. 8416. I would direct this question to you concerning at least one of the rivers in Idaho, the Salmon River, which is under the provisions of this bill included down to the town of Riggins as a wild river. Tinder the definition of that bill, it is to be managed as a portion of a true wilderness environ- ment, and all private properties purchased, all inholdings extin- guished, all buildings eradicated. . . . . ... Your understanding of that river would nol~ fit with this concept, would it, in at least the lower reaches Of that river ? Mr. BAKER. Congressman McClure, we would prefer the language as we have recommended and would prefer to have the main stem of the Salmon down to Riggins in the instant provisions of the legislation. However, it is quite tnte that if a segment, as the Senators and you have suggested this morning,. were included in the study section of the bill rather than the instant s~ction of the `bill, it would `still be protected from dam construction until such time as the study is completed, up to 5 years, so that we could not really object to such an amendment, Mr. Chairman. . Mr. MoOLuim. Would it be your preference that these buildings that do exist and have for years, be eradicated from that area? 92-56O--6S-i~S PAGENO="0226" 212 Mr. BAKER. Ed, you have seen those buildings th~vt Congressman McClure is, talking about. Would you respond to that? . Mr., Oi~p. I am glad that this has cOme up, because that is not our interp~eitation of the Aspinall bill as it applies to the Salmon. If that is the interpre~tion, I would want to try to get it modified because I do no~ think the whole ~tretoh of the mainstream of the Salmon from North Fork down to Rigginsshould be managed as a wilderness river. It just is not that kind of a situation. Using the classifications in the bill, and starting at North Fork, there is a considerable stretch of the river that would qualify as a natural environment or pastoral river, but not as a wild river, because there are already developments along it. There are* roads, there are private resort~, some .$nch: and farmlands and residences, and that part of the river just would not qualify as a wild river. Then you get into a stretch of the river that does go through wild country. It borders on the Idaho primitive area on one side and the Salmon Breaks Primitive Area on another, and that section would qualify as a wild river. Then you emerge from that section to an area that jS relatively undeveloped, accessible only by trail, but not in a wilderness, and may not `be put in a wilderness, and we would not want to have the manage- ment of that land prejudged by the classification of this stretch as a wild river. And then you emerge near Riggins and another developed section ofthe stream which might qualify `as a pastoral river but not as a wild river. So this mainstream of the Salmon would be a scenic river in its entirety, but it may fit in three categories in this section of the river. That is the way we would intend to manage it, according to the land use patterns that are there and that might evolve. Mr. MOCLiiaE. Would `the similar situation exist on some o~ the lower sections of the Clearwater 9 Mr. CLnrr. Yes, sir ; very definitely. Mr. MCCLURE. And to classify the entire stretch clear down to Kooskia as a wild river within the definition of a wilderness, would be inappropriate, would it not? Mr. CLIFF. It is entirely inappropriate. The part within the Selway Wilderness Area would qualify as a wild river, the part of the Selway, but below Selway Falls, would not, because that part of the river is accessible by road. There are developments along that river which would be compatible in a natural environment or pastoral river, but incompatible if it is elassified a wild river. And from the forks of the Seiway down to Kooskia, there is a major highway. There are improve- ments and residences and some farmlands that certainly would not be compatible in a wild river. The entire Lochsa is paralleled by a trans- mountain highway. `There are intensive recreation developments along that stretch of the highway along the river. It could qualify as a natural environment river under the definition of this bill, but not as a wild river, so that would be an inappropriate classification. Mr. MCCLURE. And it wouldn't be your thought that these develop- ments, at least in the main, but not wholly, that the developments which exist now along these lower stretches, the stretches on the river which you have designated as being inappropriate to the designation wild river or wilderness area. PAGENO="0227" 213 Mr. CLn~'r. Tt is our thought, Mr. McClure, that most of those de~ velopments could be maintained. There is some need for controlling developments, and there may be a need to remove some for scenic preservation, but that is a very minor part of our total program. Mr. BAKER. Congressman McClure, just to tie this point down a little further, in our recommended amendments to Chairman Aspinall's bill, we recommended that section 2(b) , the beginning language, be amended to insert after the words "following types of rivers" the words "or river segments," so that each river segment would be con- sidered separately for classification into the several types that you and Chief Cliff have been discussing. Specifically we recommend that seg- ments of the Salmon River, be classified in accordance with section 2(b) of the bill instead of the entire river being assigned one classifi- cation or the other. Mr. MCCLURE. And that would require an amendment in section 3 and section 4 also, would it not? Mr. BAKER. If the bill is amended as suggested in the departmental reports, subsection 3 (a) (3) , "Salmon River," and subsection 3 (a)4~ "Clearwater," would both be amended to accomplish this. Mr. MCCLURE. Yes. I thank the gentleman for making that distinction. It would also be your intention in the main to follow a pattern of multiple-use management of these segments where they are within the administrative authority of your department? Mr. CLIr~'. Yes, sir ; where they are in a wilderness, we would man- age thelands according to wilderness principles, of course. Wilderness is considered to be a part of multiple-use management. Outside the wilderness areas, we would continue to manage the land for other resources, but would give emphasis to the protection of the scenic and recreational values along the river itself. Mr. MCCLimE. And when you speak of "within the wilderness areas'~ you mean a presently d~signated wilderness area? Mr. CLIFF. Yes ; and, of course, within the primitive areas until a final determination is made on their reclassification. Mr. MCCLURE. You would manage the banks of these rivers in the same way which you are presently managing the banks of the rivers within the area of your authority? Mr. CLIrr. That is correct. Mr. McCLuai~. And under existing laws? Mr. CUFF. That is correct. Mr. MOCLnmE. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from California has a question. Mr. JOHNSON. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Baker, and Mr. Cliff, in the reference to the Klamath River in California, I think the reference in both the House versions here, the chairman's bill, 8416 and the bill H.R. 90, the reference in there as far as the Kiamath it says, "Study from Scott River downstream to Klamath Falls." I think that is an improper reference in both the bills. Now, in the Senate bill it says this, and it comes under the study provision: Klamath in California segment from the Scott River downstream to the point 3 mIles upstream from the United States crossing. PAGENO="0228" 214 I think that is the proper reference to the portion of the Kiamath River to be studied. Mr. CrjFF. That is correct, Mr. Johnson. I hadn't picked up that error, but the intent was to be down to the town and settlement of Kiarnath near the mouth of the river. Mr. JOHNSON .Yes ; near the mouth of the river. Mr. Cim'. Not Kiamath Falls. Those of us who have lived out there know it wouldn't be Klamat,h Falls. Mr. JOHNSON. You do expect to recommend that that be in the bill for study at this time? Mr. CLIFF. In H.R. 8416. MiS. JohNsoN. H.R. 8416 and then H.R. 90 are the two House bills before the committee. Mr. C~iri'. The Kiamath would be in the study category in H.R. 8416 and in the instant category in H.R. 90. Mr. JOHNSON. And this would protect them from any activities on the part of the Federal Power Commission until these studies were made and reported and the Congress had an opportunity to act? Mr. CLIFF. rfhat is correct. Mi~. JOHNSON. Fine. That is all. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Secretary Baker and thief Cliff. Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Uiairman, if you don't mind, I would like to ask the witness a question. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has a question. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I would like to ask you about the St. Croix, the Namekagon, and the Wolf Rivers, the Minnesota and Wisconsin corn- plex. The administration said last year that it supported what in essence became H.R. 6166 because the Reuss bill put into language the Presidential recommendation. As to H.R. 6166 and S. 119, presum- ably they are quite similar with respect to the Minnesota-Wisconsin complex of rivers. What is the Department position now with respect to H.R. 8416, which apparently eliminates these rivers, in terms of the amendments now offered by the Department. Mr. CUFF. Mr. Kastenmeier, as you know, the administration orig- inally recommended the designation of St. Croix and the Wolf in the original administration proposal. In H.R. 8416, these rivers are listed in the study category. I understand this question came up yesterday when the represent- ative of the Department of the Interior was testifying, and that Dr. Crafts indicated that there would be no objection to putting it in a designated status rather than a study status, if that is what the eon- gre.ss desired to do. The administration at one time recommended that these rivers be designated. In this bill they are listed for study. We would accept it either way. A small part of the St. Croix system is in the Chequamegon National Forest-only a small part-and we have agreed to include this upper part of the Narnekagon in the scenic rivers system. We have an understanding with the Interior Department as to the manage- ment of this segment if it becomes a scenic river. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you very much. That is all. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you again, Secretary Baker and Chief Cliff. PAGENO="0229" 215 Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. KAZEN. This is on something else, not on the testimony of these witnesses. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you have a question of these witnesses? Mr. KAZEN. No ; I want to make a statement to the committee. Mr. BAicj~xt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KAZEN. On yesterday during the hearing it was brought out that the Guadalupe River in Texas included in this bill for study purposes runs through three congressional districts. Congressman Fisher was here and he testified and I gave my view to the committee, and since then I have been in touch with Congressman Young who also takes the same position that Congressman Fisher and I have taken, and he indicated to me that he would send a letter to the chairman so stating. All three of us join in the requests that we make to the corn- mittee for the elimination of the Guadalupe River from the section in which it appears in this bill. Mr. TAYLOR. We will be glad to receive that letter and make it a part of the record when it comes in. Mr. KAZEN. Thank you, sir. (The letter referred to follows :) CONGRESS OF THE UNrrFD STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 7, 1968. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, Chairman, House Committee on Interior anã Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : My presence in Texas today on business important t~ my Congressional District prevented my requesting an opportunity to appear personally at the hearing on H.R. 8416 with my colleagues, Congressmen 0.0. Fisher and Abraham Kazen. I have received an overwhelming expression of opposition from local interests in my Congressional District to the inclusion of the Guadalupe River in this bill. Since I am unable to appear personally today before your Committee, I trust you will accept this letter as my urgent request that the desire of local interests be adhered to and that the Guadalupe River be excluded from H.R. 8416. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, JonN YOUNG. Mr. TAYLOR. At this time, in the absence of objection I would like to place in the record immediately after the statement of the other Congressmen, the statement of Hon. Don Fuqua concerning the legis- lation. (The statement referred to will be found on p. 107.) Mr. TAYLOR. Our next witness is Mr. Martin K. Bovey, president of Trout Unlimited. I come from a section where we have a lot of ardent trout fishermen. STATEMENT OP MARTIN K. BOVEY, PRESIDENT, TROUT UNLIMITED Mr. B0vEY. You were our lunch speaker at Anvil where we had a delightful time in enjoying your hospitality. Mr. TAYLOR. I think your organization has a mighty fine name. I regret we are tied down here so closely that we do not get to share in that "trout unlimited." PAGENO="0230" 216 Mr. Bovi~ir. Neither does the president. He does not get time to fish either. Mr. Chairman, I am Martin K. Bovey, president of Trout Un- limited, a national organization dedicated to the preservation of cold, clean, free-flowing streams and the splendid sport of trout fishing. We are primarily interested in quality as opposed to quantity fishing, which means that we are infinitely more interested in fishing for smart stream-reared fish than for easily-caught trout fresh out of a hatchery. An important part of what Trout Unlimited means when we speak of quality fishing is the attractiveness of the surroundings amidst which we fish. Hence, Trout Unlimited earnestly hopes that the 90th Congress will pass either a wild or a scenic rivers bill and thus make possible at least a start on the preservation of some of our relatively few remain- -ing unspoiled, free~flowing rivers. A priceless part of Our American heritage was our great wealth of gin-clear rivers flowing unmarred and unobstructed through beautiful country of various types. Every year such rivers grow scarcer as one after another of our streams are jammed or their banks are altered by lumbering, farming, building, or highway construction. Just as we have set aside as national parks or national seashores outstanding examples of the various types of pri- meval America that greeted the first explorers and settlers, so we should set aside some of our outstanding rivers of various kinds. Thus, Trout Unlimited warmly applauds the interest that the ad- ministration and the Congress is showing in the need to protect scenic and wild rivers. We are hopeful that the objectives of S. 119, H.R. ~o, H.R. 6166, H.R. 8416, and other related measures that are now be- fore the committee will be realized in this session of Congress. We do not pretend to have the necessary detail and expertise that will be required in distinguishing between all the specifics of these proposals. We would be less than honest, however, if we did not indicate that we should like to see more rivers classified immediately and placed `in the system than any of the present measures would authorize. We realize that such aspirations may not be attainable but we are hope- ful that a system can be established embodying the basic principles of preserving the fast diminishing number of free-flowing streams. We would like to see a bill that would prevent the Federal Power Qommission from approving any new project not related to an existing project on any wild or scenic river without specific authorization from the Congress. Also, we hope the restrictions upon mining as provided for in H.R. 8416 would be in the final version. We especially urge that the final bill contain a carefully worked out classification system that would permit the inclusion of rivers that range from true wilderness streams to others that are easily accessible and have some development along their shores. The bill should be SO worded, Trout Unlimited believes, that rivers currently truly wilder- ness in nature be kept free of road construction and developed into camping or picnic grounds. Trout Unlimited also would like to suggest that the rivers and adja- cent lands set aside under the bill remain open to hunting. The principal purpose of preserving wild rivers is to protect their free-flowing status much in the way that the national parks system PAGENO="0231" 217 affords protection of certain natural wonders. The major threat has been impoundments and the hope for some system that would designate or classify rivers as wild and scenic was paramount in our considera- tiion. We were not fully conversant with the problems that contiguous lands presented. It may be that the committee in its wisdom would prefer to establish a system where the problem of land ownership is not a primary problem. Wherein such land use becomes a problem, these rivers may be incorporated into the system `after `serious consid- eration and proper hearings have been afforded all concerned. May I add one other comment, Mr. Chairman ? Two `streams in which Trout Unlimited is particularly interested are the Middle Fork of the Feather, in California, and the Big Hole in Montana. Both are threatened by impoundments which we regard as currently unneeded. We would urge that the Feather and the Big Hole be given early con- sideration in any bill that is reported out of this committee. May I thank you and the members of the committee for this op- portunity to appear before you. Mr. TAYLOR. You would recommend that Feather `and the Big Hole be included in the study category. Mr. BOVEY. Yes, very definitely. Mr. TAYLOR. I commend you on a very fine statement. You recom- mend that the rivers and adjacent lands be opened for hunting. Mr. BOVEY. Yes, `sir. Mr. TAYLOR. I thought you would add to that "and fishing." Mr. BOVEY. We `are interested in fishing, but many of our fisher- men `are also hunters, and we do not feel that there is anything incon- sistent between having a lovely scenic river on which people `are free to hunt birds or deer or other game. We think the two are completely compatible. Mr. TAYLOR. In other words, open to fishing would be assumed. Mr. Bovi~y. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. Have `any of the other members `of the committee questions? The gentleman from California. Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank you for a very fine `statement in con- nection with the legislation that is here before us now. In your first paragraph you talk `about the quality of the fishing. Mr. BOVEY. About what, sir ? Mr. JoHNSO~. The quality of the fishing. Mr. Bovsy. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. We in California must have a hatchery program in `order to keep some fish in the rivers at certain places. Mr. BOVEY. That is certainly true. Mr. JOHNSON. So I presume that you do not want to place a ban on putting fish in any of these rivers from the hatcheries out there. Mr. B0vEY. Sir, let me put it this way. It is Trout Unlimited's belief based on pretty sound biological information from our board of scientific advisers that a river that contains a native population of trout that is adequate to provide good fishing under the existing fishing pressure need not be stocked,. indeed that stocking such a river is one of the greatest wastes of hatchery fish and taxpayers' money, licensed buyer~thdney, `that there is. We want Mother Nature to do as much PAGENO="0232" 218 of the work of providing the future fishing for the ever-increasin hordes of fishermen as possible, and we feel that hatchery fish shoul go in the streams in which there are not existing adequate populations of wild fish that can take care of themselves under reasonable regulations. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that is argued both ways, and we have a very large hatchery program, as you know. I belong myself to Gammuts Unlimited trying to bring gammuts around and the same with steel- head trout. We are doing a pretty good job with our hatcheries out there, both Federal and State. I just want to get the answer whether you would restrict placing the fish in any of these rivers. Mr. Bovi~y. Congressman Johnson, I would just like to say by way of approval of what is being done in California that Trout Unlimited a year ago this past September gave its award for the professional who had done the most for trout fishing during the year in our opinion to Alex Calhoun, chief of fisheries of your State department. Mr. JOHNSON. I know it, but you still have not answered the question. I am asking if you would absolutely ban the placing of hatchery fish in any of the rivers of the scenic river system. Mr. BovEy. Most certainly not. Mr. JohNsoN. All right. Mr. Bov~y. If the fishing authorities of the State felt that the waters should be stocked, needed stocking. Mr. TAYLOR. I would say there is nothing more compatible with a scenic river than fish. Mr. BOVEY. Right, sir. We are, however, primarily interested, as I hope I made clear, in catching wild trout rather than chasing hatchery trucks. We think it is a superior brand of fishing. We are infinitely less concerned about hatchery fish in marginal rivers than we are about quality fishing for wild trout, because so long as the American license buyers are willing to pay to run the hatcheries and itJ~e hatchery trucks, so long as we have water that is something a little less lethal than pure acid, something in which a trout can live for a few clays or a few weeks, we can have this so-called put-and-take. fishing. But to a real fisherman there is all the difference in the world, as I am sure you are fully aware, between that type of fishing and the type of fishing that Trout Un- limited means when they talk about quality fishing. Mr. JOHNSON. That is quite true. We realize that. We have many fine streams where reproduction is very good by nature, and we have had tests run there by the university for a number of years on the heaviest fish stream. At the end of the fishing season there is still an adequate supply of fish in some of these streams but in other areas they are pretty well fished out. Mr. Bovi~y. Right. Mr. JOHNSON. And the hatchery fish train a lot of fishermen. a lot of yo~mgsters coming along. Mr. BOVEY. Please do not misunderstand me. We are not opposed to hatchery fish used in waters that will not support a truly adequate population of wild fish. Mr. JOHNSON. Now another matter that you referred to here is the Middle Fork and the Feather. Several States in the Union have ap- proved this program and have utilized the funds from the water and I PAGENO="0233" 219 land conservation fund moneys where the Government has made money available to the States and the States have matched and pro- vided a wild or a scenic river or a natural river, and I presume that most of the Feather would come under the category of a wild river for the most part, because, being familiar with the area, it is quite rugged in there and most of the adjacent lands are Forest Service lands, and there is not too much in the way of roads in there. I do not know why the State has never moved ahead with this, with land and water conservation moneys, because this has been No. 1 on the minds of many people in the State to provide for a wild river on the Middle Fork and the Feather. I am wondering if your organization had ever approached the State on moving aihead, because the land acquisition there is not too much, and I am sure there would be cooperation between the Forest Service and the State of California, through the fi~h and game department. There is a considerthle amount of money going in California from the land and water conservation fund moneys and what the State has matched. I am sure they can spend everything they can get, but this has been on a high priority list, because the legislature has taken action. Mr. Bovny. I cannot positively say that our California Council- we have four chapters with the council coordinating their elf orts-I cannot positively say that they have attempted to work with your fish and game people to get these moneys, but I would strongly suspect that they have, because there is no more alert, active, dedicated group of Trout Unlimited members anywhere in the country than in Cali- fornia, particularly in the San Francisco Bay area section. So I would suspect that is true. I shall certainly make inquiries as to whether it is or not. Mr. JOHNSON. That is all. Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions ~ Mr. MoCtuiui. Mr. Chaimian. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Ida~ho. Mr. MoCLuio~. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say something which I am sure does not need to be said to this ~entlem~an, that we do in the State of Idaho have many hundreds of m~les of gin-clear rivers flow- ing unmarked and unobstructed through `beautiful country. Mr. Bovn~. You do indeed. Mr. TAYLOR. I would say to the witness, a time or two, I have made the statement that we have the finest trout fishing in the Nation in my district. I ran into trouble with the gentlemen from Colorado and Idaho and several other places. Mr. Bovi~y. I expect to be fishing in your district, sir, at the end of April. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very muøh, Mr. Bovey. Mr. BovEY. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Our next witness is Spencer M. Smith, secretary, Citi- zens Committee on Natural Resources. Mr. AsPINALL. Mr. Ohairman, inasmuch as the chairman of the sithcommittee must return to North Carolina this afternoon, I ask unanimous consent that the presentation and the questioning be limit- ed to not more than 15 minutes on each of the witnesses from here PAGENO="0234" 220 on out, and thai the time after the presentation be divided between the members of the committee if they wish to ask questions. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered. Mr. Smith, will you proceed. STATEMENT OP SPENCER N. SMITK, SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMi~~ITTtEE ON NATURAL R~SOUB~CESI Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Nat- ural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C. The declaration of policy contained in the several proposals the committee has under consideration is of such significance that it is almost sufficient reason unto itself to snpport the legislation. Though one may `have reservations relative to particular details and prefer one section of one bill to another, in certain instances, the passage of this legislation would be another significant milestone because of this declared policy. Our organization, in cooperation with many other conservation organizations, `has opposed the construction of certain dams and reser-' voirs from time to time but our position has not been doctrinaire op- position to any and all such construction, such as flood control, hydro- electric power, et cetera. We have been concerned for some time, how- ever, that `other values of our water resources have not been considered fully and our efforts to articulate the merits of such values have been constrained because of their negative posture. The scenic rivers bills should not only be commended for their intrinsic worth `but also for the opportunity `of evaluating and discussing the many values involved in water resources that have heretofore not been weighed sufficiently. The establishment of any such system as proposed is difficult. First, as to whether the uses to which the free-flowing rivers or parts thereof are paramount to uses that are not allowed. Second, the complexity of administration in evolving fully the system in all its aspects'. The logic appears evident in support c~f the legislation. No system of rivers preserved in their free-flowing state `can `be guaranteed against some future necessity for impoundments or similar development. If at some subsequent time such development is necessary, no determination by this Congress can prevent such a possibility. We hasten to point out, however, that the contrary is not true. If no preservation or res- ervation of these rivers from the various plans of development are made and construction does take place, a subsequent determination that the interests `of the puiblic could best be served if the river was free flow'in~ has been precluded. In short, the Congress `can at any time authorize an undeveloped river to be developed. It cannot, however, authorize a developed river to be undeveloped. It would appear, there- fore, that though the enactment of this legislation would make con- struction more difficult, it would not make it impossible. The legisla- tion, in making development more difficult, would place `the burden for development on those who supported `development because of the ir- revocable nature of the development decision. It would aJ?pear to us that this is a proper placement of the `burden of responsibility. PAGENO="0235" 221 Secondly, it appears that a prima facie case makes the consideration of this legislation appropriate. Since the beginning of our develop~ ment programs, a great deal has been done-so much so that relatively few rivers can qualify for inclusion in a scenic system. Also, alterna- tive sources of power have caused a reduction in the dependence upon water power. The need for impoundments is not of the same magnitude today that it has been historically. The principal problems in establishing a scenic system, as we are able to judge, are those dealing with contiguous land areas and estab- lishing criteria and terms of reference that have a common meaning in dealing with different types of rivers. It is not our purpose within these remarks to detail each measure that has `been introduced in both the House and Senate but rather to generalize these problems within the time allotted to us. The major thrust of all the legislation seems clear, that is, "to pre- serve selected rivers or sections thereof in their natural or free-flowing condition." The problems of accomplishing this are obviously related to the control of land areas immediately contiguous to the river. This immediately raises questions as to how much land, how far back should control extend, or what kind of control ? Should acquisition by the Federal Government be in fee simple or less than full title interest? What provision should be made for lands owned by local, county, and State ? Should condemnation be authorized for acquisition in both fee and less than fee? It appears that most of the legislation has dealt quite properly with the elements of all land acquisition or agreements with local, county, and State, as well as the jurisdictional problem at the Federal level. The most vexing problem of all, however, is the acquisition of private lands, or interests therein, for the purposes of the act. The major op- position, in many sections of the country to the act itself, is the man- ner in which this problem is handled. The need for land use in pre~ serving scenic rivers is primarily visual and protective. It is protec~ tive in the sense that it provides the setting through which the river flows. It would be almost impossible, therefore, to separate the charac- ter of the land from that of the river. In the overwhelming number of instances, however, the need for the land to provide this setting is not the same need that is evident in the use of land for constructing buildings, highways, or any other type of activity that requires total and exclusive use. It appears to us that new and imaginative techniques must be de- veloped by the Federal Government if the recreation needs of our land and water resources are to be met properly. It is doubtful whether society will ever be sufficiently affluent to afford `the acquisition in fee simple title to all the areas that will be required. It would not seem prudent to do so even if the funds were available, since in many in-. stances the use to which the Government desires to place the land is not an exclusive one. A number of legal tools have been available to us' for a considerable period of time. We do not, however, have a consider- able backlog of experience, either in time or quantity, that allows us to speak with some certainty about all the effects. The taking of less than fee presents considerable administrative problems in constructing a document that is suitable in all iustances. It is difficult to draft a PAGENO="0236" 222 -document and negotiate it individually within certain broad criteria, which will be sufficiently embracing yet possess the flexibility for in- ~ dividual differences. The task, though far more arduous on the part of the administrative agencies, would save the funds of the Federal Gov- ~ ermnent and result in greater acceptability by the private landowner. We do not propose to provide the committee with any definitive list of tools or a procedural manual dealing with land acquisition in less than fee. Some thoughts do occur to us, however, in anal yzing the ~ activities of a number of States, Wisconsin in particular, that devices ~are available and should be tried-such as scenic easements, reciprocal ~covenants, purchase and lease back, et cetera. Whether the committee finds favor with H.R. 8416, }-I.R. 90, S. 119, H.R.. 6166, or any of the other measures that it has before it, we hope that a classification of types of rivers to be included in a wild or scenic rivers system will be a part of the statute. Whether there are six classi- fications, as indicated in I-I.R. 8416, or three, as noted in 1-1.11. 90, is not as significant as determining, at least, the different characteristics of streams and rivers that will qualify as a part of the system. As a con- sequence, it appears axiomatic that the manner in which these rivers will be administered will be different because of the variation of rivers and streams themselves, as well as the different patterns of land use. While it would be our hope that a number of rivers could be added to the longest list of any of the measures before the committee, we are acutely aware, especially in this session of Congress, of the art of the possible. We do not consider that we are striking our colors in this admission, but it appears intuitively obvious to us that those rivers that are highly controversial as to ultimate use may have to be brought into the system at a later date. Such cases will be determined more equitably and effectively if a plan has been accomplished. Also, we are nware that there are instances wherein a paradox results. If a river happens to be of special quality which, all other things being equal, would qualify automatically for inclusion into the system and con- troversy rages about its ultimate use, a difficult determination would have to be made as to the possible risks of attempting to incorporate it. Another difficulty that faces any student of this problem is the rapidly changing plans that involve local, county, and State jurisdic- tions as well as different Federal agencies. A decision by a Fedeia[ agency to initiate plans for water impoundments or the clecisioii by a Federal agency to abandon their plans for water impouiidments have to be considered in all their aspects as the legislation evolves. ilence, an almost constant review is necessary if one is to keep current as to the particular status of these rivers. The provisions of both H.R. 8416 and H.R. 90 preclude the Federal Power Commission from licensing installations on rivers in the wild rivers system. We hope such a provision will be maintained and that the language be explicit so that the congressional intent cannot be questioned. By the same token, the rivers in the system are afForded far greater protection if the provisions in section 9 of H.R. 8416 are adopted. Such protection applies not only to the setting of the river itself but also maintains a high water quality. S. 119, H.R. 90, H.R. 8416, and H.R. 6166 coiit*ain provisions which will permit the States or local governments to designate wild or scenic PAGENO="0237" 223 ~rivers under ce~thin sp~eific conditions and/or restriotions. W~ support this procedure. Since the passage of the Land and Water O~nservati~n Funa Act, States have accelerated their interest and ~ctivitie~ in pro- vidrng necessary recreation lands and waters It would seem only appropriate to effect the States' cooperation and respect their initiative in this matter. We would feel, however, that particular restric~ion~ would be necessary if such State-designated rivers, wholly within the boundaries of that State, were to become a part of a Federal system.. We have no quarrel with the proviso that where the waters are wholly contained that acquisition or encompassing into the system by the Federal Government could be achieved only with the consent of the State. By the same token, the rivers should not be included Into the scenic rivers system without the consent of the Federal Government. Our attitude in no way demeans or restrains the fullest cooperation that can be effected by the Secretary and the various local politicali subdivisions. We are appreciative and not without understanding of the difficult~ decisions with whi~h this committee is confronted. We~ wish to add ail of our encouragement to the committee's efforts in resGiving a number of these difficulties which appear inherent in all legislation that seeks to break new ground, for we feel the purposes of the legislation rank with the most important achievements in the history of natural resources policy. Primarily we feel that the logic of this legislation, and its various forms-and it is somewhat complex because of the number of bills before the committee with different provisions-~we fee~l the logic cer- tainly does support the basic purposes of the legislation. There are two features with which we have had. great difficulty in the past. We can present our cases either for or against impoundments. it is often the iatter. But we are not in a posture except by negativism to really establish any forward-looking and basic understanding of protection of some of the values that we think are very important. I think the logic of the legislation is important in the second in- stance. If we dam a river or if we otherwise develop it and we find out at a later date that the public interest would best be served in its free-flowing form, there is nothing we can do to change that situation. It is an irrevocable situation. On the other hand, if we declare a river a preserve in scenic form in one of the many classifications, and at a later time it is determined that there is a water shortage, there is need for impoundment there i~ need for other type of dev~lopment, the burden of proof t~ien, Mr.. Chairman, is on the developer, if this act becomes law, and then a full forum is convened and before this committee an analysis is made as: to which of the various uses to which this water and land can he put is then determined. It appeats to me that specifically this is extremely important. In developing the whole wild river system Dr. Crafts mentioned yesterday-and I was in the chamber and heard him say-that this kind of a measure has to go through a series of stages and ultimately matures. Well, I think maturation is about complete, and I think that in all probability, and hopefully, we will be able to see this legislation. become law in some form. PAGENO="0238" 224 We have no strong reactions to the differences of the bills excepting in terms c~ what rivcrs ~ are included in the study sectioii and what rivers ai'e included in the instant section as it has been referred to. We do feel, however, that the four wajor riyers that are included in all the measures-ILR. 8416, S. 119, H.R. ~ 90, H.R. 6166-~ertainJy are classic types, and if the system is to start off, we can think of no better wayof starting it off than with these rivers. H9pefuHy there may be others that could be~ added. The Wolf River that `was discussed seems to in a very good po~t~ire. It also is helpful because this is indicative of a State showing initiative, which I am sure this committee wants to foster. The problems that are in the process of being worked out regarding the ,Name1~agon and the St. Croix, hopefi~lly this may be something, before the committee corn- pletes deliberation, that they will `want to act upon, but in any event we `feel strongly that this is an important measure, and we would recommend certainly the passage of either JLR. 8416 as modified let us say by some features of H.R. 90, and I am not going to take the committee's time to go into detail. By this time they ar~ far more familiar with it than I, I am sure, but we would prefer either of the House bills in strong preference to the Senate bill, Mr. Chairman. . ~ One of the reasons for this primarily is we are very much opposed to section 6 in the Senate bill, which establishes a National Wild Rivers Review Board to make reviews and furnish reports to the Congress as herein approved. The ohairman of the full committee and the ranking minority mem- ber convinced `me some years ago `about the inadvisability of these kinds of boards, especially as they applied to the old Wilderness Council which was discussed. I will say one thing very candidly, for which I may come under some serious criticism later. But we have, as citizens groups, had access to these boards. Now this makes a very fine sounding democratic procedure by which all of these individuals are to be on the board : The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, and the chulrm'an of the Federal Power Commission, and the Gover- nors of the several States. But my experience has been that these gentle- men will never get together. These meetings will be attended by the bureaucratic professional meeting-goers, who go to these particular meetings, and they sit and they protect each other's particular rights or provinces, and there is no real review that takes place. 1 would much prefer to have the `bureaus that have this responsibility make their recommendations and come to this committee, and this coin- mittee has oversight in most instances `here, and I would trust my luck on whatever happens in terms of these `rivers under this process rather than putting in this other layer, which to me is rel'ative'ly meaningless. That completes my comments, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. We commend you `on a very fine statement. I think you are the first witness who has spoken out in opposition to this review board. Mr. SMrm. Mr. Chairman, I have been on more review boards, citizen advisory boards, and most of them are not worth `a wit. PAGENO="0239" 225 Mr. TAThOL And the Senators this morning were the first ones I think who said tffiey were in favor of it. The gentleman. from Colorado. Mr. A~PINALL. Mr. Chairman, this section, of course, is g~ing to he in controversy when the committee takes it up. May I say, Dr. Smith, that I consider your organization, and you as its spokesman, to be one of the most constructive of all conservation groups. I appreciate your statement, a statement with reasoned judgment. It is given by one with experience. I have no questions whatsoever. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. Have any other members questions? The o~entleman from Arizona. Mr. 1~DALL. I want to echo what the gentleman from Colorado just said about the responsible posture that you `and your organization have taken and the great help you have been to this committee. I was im- pressed by your comments on boards and committees. I have had somewhat the same experience, and I `thought of the words of one of the great poets-I have forgotten who it was ; maybe it was I, I do not know-who said, "Search all the parks in all your cities, you will find no statues to committees." [Laughter.] With that happy thought, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. TAYLOR. Have any other members any questions ~ The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. MCCLtrRE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment on about three points. First, your emphasis on the balanced economic evaluation that ought to be applied before any of our natural resources are applied to any use. I certainly wish to commend you on that statement. I think this is very significant, and I think it is the kind of thing that we ought to be concentrating on. Mr. SMITH. I agree. Mr. MCCLURE. You also make a statement in here in regard to the possible position of future water power use, future use of water for the development of electrical power. I am sure you are aware, al- though this statement does not indicate it, that there are correspond- ing difficulties in other kinds of power developments such as air pollu- tion or the pollution of water due to heat transfer and things of that nature. Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. So you cannot just simply shift the development of power away from water and solve all your problems. Mr. SMITH. Oh, Mr. McClure, I hope the statement did not give that impression. Certainly not. There are going to be needs of a wide variety. In some instances, even if you have a thermal plant for the generation of electricity, this may mean a great deal of water just for cooling purposes, and we have the new problem of thermal pollution, which is now being discussed not only in another committee of this body, but I understand discussed today in the other body, so these are real problems, and I am not suggesting they are not. Mr. MoCLtmi~. But, Dr. Smith, my only point is to bring it out so that we are not misled at all concerning the problems that are apparent. As far as the review board is concerned, you have indicated that you think it is at least meaningless and perhaps worse than meaning- PAGENO="0240" 226 less. Would you rather have a bill with the review board or no bill at all, if it should come to that? Mr. SMITH. I am always reluctant to respond candidly to these iffy questions because they always get me in trouble, but I will try to be as responsive as I can. Obviously, though, I am very much against this review board proce~ dure I would not sacrifice the bill because of it. I think this would be highly irresponsible, if a decision came to that. I am not even criticizing the framers, the people who put the review board in. I heard some of the colloquy in the Senate, and I understand their thinking on the matter, and if it would work that way, I do not think I would be quite so hostile to it. But I just think as a matter of pragn~aitics it just is not going to work that way. Mr. MCCLURE. I believe you were present this morning when Senator Church testified? Mr. S~r~n. Yes ; I was present when Senator Church and Senator Jordan testified, and I have great affection for both of them. They worked at this long and many hours in trying to hammer this out. While I respect them and understand what they are trying to do, I just do not think their section 6 is going to do what they want it to do. This is all I am saying. Mr. McCLtmi~. I thank the gentleman. Mr. ASPINALL. Will the gentleman yield to me? What you are saying is that the veto power that goes into this would more than likely be harmful to any kind of program. Mr. SMITR. I am afraid this would be the result. Mr. ASPINALL. Let me ask you one other question for complete understanding. You heard yesterday the. `statement by the represeiita- tives of the Bureau and the Department that they had some 600-plus rivers recommended to them and that they cut them down and they cut them down and they cut them down. Did you or your organization take any part in these recommeiidations in the first place or in the final operation? Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, we did discuss some of these rivers with the Department. At what stage it was or what stage they were at in their thinking, I could not really tell you-whe'ther we were at the 650 level or the 40 level or where we were-but we did. Mr. ASPINALL. Did you discuss them or did you name the rivers or did you do both? Mr. SMrrH. I think we did both. I am a little hazy on this. For example, we had one problem regarding the Eleven Point River iii Arkansas. I know the gentleman who represents this district was be- fore you and I know the people from the Eleven Point Basin will be in here on the 18th and 19th to discuss this for themselves so I will be brief. Part of the difficulties in this instance and others is trying to obtain from knowledgeable people information about these rivers and what the contiguous land use is. When you have this number of studies, it seems to me this is where we have gotten into difficulties. Now the original bill started out with the idea to put the burden of proof on people who were going to build impoundments. This was oi.ir idea. B~~t we ran into all of the varied problems of contiguous land use that becomes immediately apparent, PAGENO="0241" :227 and this is why I indicated in my statement that I thought if we started out where these problems were at a minimum, and then have a master plan as to precisely what you are going to do w ith this land, not saying we want so much per mile but how far are you going back at this point of the river for each additional river added to the system. I think this is what is going to happen. I would assume that the committee in its oversight function will want to see that kind of an analysis. Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman is correct. Mr. MCCLURE. I just want to add my comment to what you have said, that this is precisely the objection that many people find, that there is no plan developed prior to authorization, and this runs counter to what this committee has done in every other field of resource development. Mr. SMITu. Mr. McClure, I will say there are some detailed, care- fully laid-out plans. I agree with that. But we are dealing with so many iivers, some in the study category and some in others, and then there are some rivers that flow practically all through Federal land where this is not a problem. I think as we add rivers inito the system, we are going to have to identify these problems, and this has been the postm'e of this committee over a I ong period of time, and we recognize this. For example, I have been to the Eleven Point River, and talked to a significant number of landowners on the Eleven Point River. I think they would like to have this river in the study section. They want to know what the Government is going to do. This is what their action is. They say what are they doing to do. "What does this mean to me `~ " There is no development on the area right now. I think ultimately it might be a wild river, but ii would be reluctant to recommend to this committee that we just put in the whole thing through Arkansas right now, because 1 think these people would revolt against it. They have already been stuck 011 the Water Valley Dam, which was recommended by the corps. They brought the case that there had not been a public hearing but the corps backed them down. There had been a public hearing. Of course it was held on December 8, 1941, and a number of people had not been aware that it was going on. So they are a little suspicious of the Federal Govern- ment right now, and 1 think they want to see cimpter and verse. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Your testimony h a.s been very constructive. Mr. SMITH. rfl~aflk you very much, and I thank the committee. Mr. TAYLOR. We now have another of the Nation's leaders of con- servation, Mr. Joseph W. Penfold, coi~servatioi.i director of the Izaak \?~Talton League of America. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to second what the chairman has said. Mr. Peiifold comes before the committee after being very helpful. Although he represents a group that sometimes gets rather far off in the. ether, Joe has done his best to work with the Congress, and I personally want.to also commend him and state to the committee he has been very helpful to the committee and especially to the chair- man. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Penfold, would you like to put your entire state- ment in the record and t.hen cover such sections of it as you wish? I 92-560-68-16 PAGENO="0242" 228 Mr. PENFOLD. That would be fine, Mr. Chairman. ~ Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objeetior~, the entire Statement is im~de part of the record a~t thispoint. ~ (The st~aternent referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF J. W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIREOTOR, ~ IZAAK WALTON LE~OU11 OF AMi~icA Mr. Chairman, I am J. W. Penfold, conservation director o~ the Izaak Walton League of America. The League is a national organization of citizens dedicated to the conservation and wise use of America's natural resources. From its founding in 1922 the League has had a primary concern with water and aquatic ~environments. Water pollution abatement and control, fishery improvements, estuary and shoreline protection, river `basin planning have been ~riorit~ projects with us. We know the importance of protecting some of our diminishing supply of free flowing streams. We are grateful to the Committee for scheduling these ihearings and for providing the opportunity for us to appe~ir. ~e are grateful to Senator Ohurch and the long list of co-sponsors of S. 119, and to Representa- ~tives John Dingell and Henry Reuss who have sponsored scenic rivers legislation. We are especially grateful to the chairman of the full Committee and the ranking minority member for their sponsorship of KR. 8416 and H.R. 90. This encourages us to hope that the scenic river legislation will have the same strong ~i-partlsan support which has characterized a decade of highly meaningful leg- islatlon produced by this Committee. The outstanding leadership of both gentle- men is recognized, respected and appreciated throughout the land. The concept of a scenic rivers system goes back a long time. I'll leave the details to some historian. But, it is interesting to note that the area set aside today as -the Boundary Water Canoe Area, in the Superior National Forest, bad its begin- .iilng in the successful public effort to protect the area's myriad lakes with their fabulous connecting ~streamis, ~ from proposals to destroy them with power dams and reservoirs. In effect, under the Forest Service, we have had a scenic river region for more than 40 years. Its contribution to the enrichment of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people is incalculable. During the 1950's the concept was rather closely entwined with the wilderness system concept, though many thoughtful leaders in the outdoor field were begin- ning to see its broader implications. In 1961 the Senate Select Oommittee on National Water Resources recom- mended "-~that certain streams be preserved in their free-flowing condition because their natural scenic, scientific, esthetic and recreational values out- weigh their value for water development and control purposes now and in the future." During that same period the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commis- sion was giving attention to the scenic river concept as part of the total outdoor Teereation pattern. Its specific recommendation was that "certain rivers should be preserved in their free-flowing condition and natural setting". It is quite clear in its summary recommendations that ORRRC believed this is a respon- sibility not `only of the Federal Government but of State and local jurisdictions as well. I believe It was the ORRRO study and report which provided the Impetus for expanding the original concept of a "wild" river system-the wilderness ~onnotation-th a system which would embrace not only wilderness environ- ments but free-flowing streams In other types of environments. This was en- lightened progress. Certainly the wilderness characteristics of the Salmon and -the Rogue are Immensely worthy of being protected and preserved in their pristine condition. But, this in no way diminishes the value to the public of re- taming the Susquehanna In its different but equally charming environment, or the values of the Little Miami to serve the needs of the heavy populations of southwest Ohio. It is gratifying that the Senate In S. 119 accepts the classification principle by providing both "wild" and "scenic" categories. H.R. 90 Is more precise In that it provides for three classes: Class I being essentially wild or primitive, Class II being natural but accessible by road; and Class III being rivers readily ac- ~essible with some development. PAGENO="0243" 229 H.R. 8416 goes back to the land classification recommended by ORRRO which have been accepted and are now used In ~ilann1ng by the Federal land managing agencies. These clas~slfications in H.R~ 8416 are not listed in the same order as those in the ORREC system, but they eo~ld be very easily. The corresponding classes of both s~tems follow: ORRRC, Class I-High Density Recreation Areas. H.R. 841~-Sec. 2(c) (ii)- High-Density-Use Areas. ORRRO, Class 11-General Outdoor Recreation Areas. H.R. 8416-Sec. (b) (iii)-Pastoral Rivers. ORRRC, Class 111-Natural Environment Areas. H.R. 841G-Sec. 2(b) (ii)- Natural Thivlronxnent Rivers. ORRRO, Class IV-Unique Natural Areas. H.R. 8416-Sec. 2(c) (i)-Unique Natural and Historic River Areas. ORRRO, Class V-Primitive Areas. H.R. 8416-Sec. 2(b) (i)-Wild Rivers. ORRRO, Class VI-Historic and Cultural Sites. H.R. 8416-Sec. 2(b) (iv)- Historic and Cultural Rivers. It should be noted that the three classes of rivers described in H.R. 90 cor- respond rather closely with the basic three classes of ~LR. 8416. Class I of H.R. 90 corresponds with "wild rivers" of H.Th 8416 ; Class II with "natural environ- ment rivers" of H.R. 8416 ; and Class III with "pastoral rivers" Of H.R. 8416. H.R. 8416 has a 4th basic class, "historic and cultural" rivers in which res~r- voirs, canals and other man made structures of great historic or cultural sig- nificance might be included. I expect the Potomac River with its C&O Canal, the even earlier canal started by George Washington, Harpers Ferry, the Paw Paw tunnel and other features, might fall into this category. H.R. 8416 also would identify specific sites of natural and historic significance and specific sites where facilities for public recreation might be highly developed, On the Potomac Mt. Vernon and Harpers Ferry illustrates historic sites ; Great Falls of the Potomac illustrates a site of nittural significance ; and East Potomac Park is an existing highly developed recreation site. It should be noted parenthetically and very importantly, here, that policy and purpose language of S. 119, H.R. 90, H.R. 8416 and the others recognize two prin- cipal factors-that the river shall be reserved in its free-flowing condition, and that the adjacent riparian lands also be protected, because both are essential to the total environments the legislation seeks to protect. ( S. 119 ". . . free.flow- ing . . . and related adjacent land areas." H.R. 90 ". . . free-flowing . . . and shore environment." H.R. 8416 ". . . rivers . . . immediate environments. . . Preserved in free-flowing condition.") The several bills have provisions to achieve the free-flowing objective by limiting the authority of the Federal Power Commission. As~. 11~94ifts the authority of FPC' to license a dam or other project in a wild or scenic river area unless specifically authorized by Congress, nor on any river in the "study" category during the 5 year period following enactment. H.R. 90 provides that no dam or other project shall be constructed, operated or maintained, or authorized in any scenic river or any river in the "study" category by FPC, the Army, Interior or TVA unless authorized by Congress, after enactment of the scenic rivers bill. H.R. 8416 lifts the authority of FPO to license a dam or other projects on a scenic river or a river in the "study" category. Additionally, H.R. 8416 prohibits any Department or agency of the U.S. from assisting in the construction of water resources projects in any scenic river by loan, grant or otherwise, nor to recom- mend authorization of such, or request appropriations for such whether here- tofore or hereafter authorized without advising the Secretary of Interior in writing at least - days in advance~ These latter restrictions apply also to river areas in the "study" category for a 5-year period, plus a further period for Congressional or Secretarial consideration for their 1nclusiot~ in the scenic river system. H.R. 8416 further provides that FPO and all other agencies upon enactment shall inform the Secretary of Interior on any proceedings, studies or other activities which are in progress which might affect rivers in the "study" cate- gory, and to inform him of any such that may commence or be resumed in the future. Each of the bills provides for removal of the restrictions on "study" category rivers, when the Secretary determines that a particular river should be dropped from consideration. PAGENO="0244" 2a0 We like the forthright la~guage of H.R. 90-no Federal darns or other projects ulaless specifically autisorized hereafter by Congress. it says. We like the provi- sions of HR. 8416 in probibiting loazis, grants or other assistance by Federal agencies to others for the construction o~ water resources projects, and in requiring written notification tQ the Secretary of Interior before such are recommended 1~or authorization or the subject of an appropriations request. The combining of these provisions of H.R. 90 and H.R. 8416 would come as close as possible to guaranteeing the free-flowing objective, with Congress alone having the authority to determine otherwise in the future. Protection Qf the scenic river environment requires protection of the adjacent lands, and, as mentioned earlier, all the bills contain provisions to accomplish this objective. One of the most knotty problems in protecting western streams in the scenic river system is the ajplication of the mining laws to Federal public lands. It it self evident that a mining operation in the bed, on the banks or immediately adjacent to a scenic river, with its access roads, construction, tailings, pollution would be seriously damaging. Recognizing this fact: S. 119, though affecting the applicaNlity of the ininthg and mineral leasing laws not at all, provides for the Secretary of Interior (or Agriculture) to issue regulations to protect wild and scenic river values. H.R. 90, provides the same and provides further that mining claims brought to patent shall convey title only to the mineral deposits, but granting the right to use the surface as reasonably required for the operation, subject to Secretarial regulations. H.R. 8416, goes beyond this by providing that minerals located in the bed banks or within a quarter mile of any river designated in the "wild" river class. shall be withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws and from opera- tion of the mineral leasing laws. It provides further that such minerals shall be withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws for rivers in the "study" category. In the case of the "study" category rivers, the operation of the mineral leasing laws continue to operate subject to such regulations as the Secretary find `appropriate to safeguard the area. The implications of these sections of H.R. 8416 are important. First of all, the withdrawal of lands in the "wild" river category serves to make the policy abundantly clear that mining operations in the scenic river system, where per- mitted, shall *be carried out so as to avoid entirely or minimize damage to the scenic river environment. It serves to make very precise the inviolability of "wild" rivers, in contrast with other categories. It should make it clear to mining and other development interests that the scenic river system legislation Is not some great "lock up" of vast resource areas. If the criteria for "wild" river status are kept `at a high and meaningful level, and they should be, there will not be a great many rivers in this class. It would `be tempting to urge that all classes of scenic rivers be withdrawn. I am confident that we could prove the desirability of this, particularly in por- tions of natural environment and historic `and cultural rivers, and in unique natural and historic sites and high density-use sites. But, I would point out, that all rivers in the "study" category will in the future have to come before Con- gress for approval In legislation. These proposals, under H.R. 8416, will be presented in detail, at which time justifications can be presented for with- drawing portions of a river, or sites on a river, In terms of the specific pro- gram and development plans for that river. Each such instance can then be considered and debated on Its individual merits. This concept is applicable, actually, for all the provisions of HR. 8416 with respect to rivers in the "study" category. We believe this flexibility adds strength to the scenic rivers objective. And this In turn leads to consideration of acquisition policies for the scenic rivers system. 2. 110 provides that the Secretary shall establish the boundaries of each river, after its authoririati'on, hut that `it may not include on both sides more than 320 acres per mile, or 100 acres per mile of acquired land, nor may condemnation of land or interests in land be used, without the owner's consent, when 50% or more of the land within the entire river area is governmentally owned. We don't care for that kind of formula. It sounds good, but it gives no promise whatsoever that it will accomplish the objectives of the legislation with respect to an individual scenic river proposal. PAGENO="0245" 231 HR. 90 takes a different approach. It refers to spe~4&~ map~ in the us~ of "ins1ant" rivers, and provides for sttbmission of specific ftiformation as to land; ~scefllc ease~inellts or other interests in land required lndividuall3r Thr each "study" river that is reeon~mended for inclusion in the syst~In. Where the power of eon~ ~demnation ~s author1~ed it may not evtend more than one mile on either side of river, in the ease of acquisition in fee, nor more than tw~ miles in ~t~ie ease of acquisition of scenic easements or other interests other than In fee. ER. 90 provides, as does S. 119, that Indian lands may not be acquired withont th~r consent. Further, land within any incorporated city, village or borongh may not be condemned if sat1sfaetory. zoning ordinances are in force, nor county lands acquired, if a satisfactory plan for ~ management, zoning and protection Is being followed. H.R. 8416 provides in more detail for the submission of `plans, maps, acquisition needs, costs, administration, potential alternative uses and other information which Congress, and the public, should have available at the time a "Study" river is ready to `be considered for inclusion `in the system. In our judgment, that should be the time to make the essential determinations which can then be tailored to *he characteristics and potentials of the individual river. These characteristics would among other things include the physical topography of the valley, r~o~puia- tion pressures, development pressures, existing land and water uses which may or may not lend themselves to scenic or other types of easements, `and the ability and extent of cooperation to be expected from local jurisdictions. ELR. 8416 provides that lands and interests in lands may not be acquired, ~without the consent of the Indian tribe, the State or the political subdivision in which located, unless there are not in effect valid zoning laws, or a plan of `man- agernent that will protect the land `and assure its use for purposes consistent with ~this Act. This language certainly does two things : it places the burden on the Secretary `to develop firm guidelines for zoning `ordinances and `plans `of manage- mont which will assure uses and activities c~onsistent with the purposes of the Act ; and it requires adoption and firm enforcement of such ordinances and man- ..agement plans by the local jurisdictions involved. If both follow through effec- itively, the purposes of the Act can be ac~ompiished, with a minimtim of disruption 1;o riparian owners, With a minimum effect on the local tax base, and With a mini- mum of Federal cost. Moreover, the prospect of expanding the scenic rivers system would be greatly enhanced, especially into areas where population pressures and zneeds may be the greatest. If such language is approved we would urge the addition of the words "unless otherwise authorized by law" following the words "case may be"-Sec. 6(a), page 12, line 11. This would have the effect of not withdrawing authorities to acquire land granted heretofore or hereafter by Congress for purposes other than scenic rivers. It is noted that the 4 rivers in the "instant" category of H.R. 8416 are western `and largely in Federal ownership now. Their inclusion in the system ought to be accomplished with a minimum of the kinds of problems that 4~an be expected In regions outside the public land states. We recognize the need for detailed study and individual consideration of rivers subsequently proposed for Inclusion in the system. Membership of League units across the country will contribute in the years ahead to such studies and will work for the Inclusion of as many qualified streams as possible. We believe, however, that it would be desirable to hiclude a couple of eastern rivers in the initial legislation. The Department of Interior suggests, and S. 119 provides that a paragraph be inserted authorizing the Secretary to declare the Allagash or the Wolf National Scenic Rivers upon application from the governor ~of Maine or Wisconsin, respectively. This is in addition to the procedure outlined in sections 2(a) (ii) and 4(c) of HR. 8416 for designation as `a National Scenic River a stream protected and designated scenic by state law. The committee will probably hear from these governors or their representatives later this month as to which procedure is best suited to needs of the particular cases. Of those in the "study" category of H.R. 8416 we understand that the St. `Croix-Namekagan has been most thoroughly studied and is ready for constldera- tion for inelu~ion. We believe these additions would be of tremendous help in encouraging scenic river planning and action at the state and local level. One tangible result of the discussion of a national scenic rivers system Is the decision of many State governments to study and develop their own scenic river PAGENO="0246" 232 systems~ Wisconsin enacted a scenic rivers bill in 1965. Maine voters approved a bond issue in 1966 to estab1is1~ the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. The Call- fornia legii4ature in 1967 adopted a resolution asking Congress to include the Middle Fork of the Feather River in the National Scenic Rivers System. This year, the pace has aeee1~tated : bills to authorize scenic rtver systems are being considered in Ohio (reportedly near passage) . Tennessee, Missouri, and Maryland, and studies are asked in West Virginia ( bill approved) and Virginia. These efforts have generally been made in anticipation of a 1?ederal program for scenic rivers. Thus, authorization o1~ a National System will probably lead to greater State involvement in scenic river protection. The bill written in this committee should encourage as much State participation as possible. Some points to consider tEn providing such encouragement are- Extending the prohibitio~i against dam construction to State scenic' rivers. H.R. 90 makes this provision explicitly in section 6(a). H.R. 8416 points in the same directionby providing for addition of State-maintained scenic rivers to the National System. ll.R. 90 would provide a moire direct and guaranteed protection to the States. It is also broader in coverage-some free-flowing rivers might not have national significance sufficient to warrant addition to the National System, yet if the States wished to protect them, the rivers should be protected. Assisting State planning. All bills direct the Secretary of the Interior to assist State planning effortsi with Land and Water Conservation Fund grants and technical assistance and advice. The Secretary has sufficient authority in existing statutes to handle these duties, and to the extent per- mitted by the size of the staff, these activities are being carried on by B.O.R. The proposed language would strengthen these activities. Involving the States in the "study" category rivers. Many rivers are in that category because the States involved are generating their own ideas and approaches to preservation techniques. National legislation should en- courage the best meshing of Federal and State study and planning activities on the "study" category rivers. H.R. 8416, Sec. 5(b) , provides that when the Governor of a State in which a "study" river is located certifies that the State will study the stream to deter- mine whether It should be added to the National System, then the Secretary of the Interior will not undertake the study. Assistance, however, may be furnished the Statesi acting in thisi capacity, and the Secretary may step in if the State does not in fact pursue the study with diligence. The other blilsi direct the appropriate Secretary to consult with the Governors and State officials to determine whether a joint Federal-State plan is desirable and feasible to conserve segments of the listed rivers. Recommendations developed by the appropriate Secretary are to be accompanied by the comments of State and other Federal agencies consulted during the studies. On at least some of the "study" rivers, local sentiment can be expected to favor State or local control of the rivers'. Placing primary planning responsi- bility upon the Federal agencies would not allow sufficient flexibility. However, if the study procedure of HR. 8416 is adopted, the agencies will be able to work with the States on a basis tailored to individual situations. We favor the HR. 8416 approach, adding that it should apply with equal force to the Secretary of Agriculture. We also prefer sees. 4(a) and 4(b) of HR. 8416, which provide for the printing of detailed study reports and comments thereon as House or Senate documents. All bills recognize that the scenic river system would become a new factor, a new alternative in the river basin planning process. The Secretary of the Interior is given general, ongoing authority to study rivers outside the "study" category and to submit scenic river recommendations from time to time to the President and Congress. In the future, the committee can anticipate receiving bills from Members of Congress to authorize the Secretary to study particular rivers-much as study authorizations for Army ~ngineer projects are now submitted on an individual project basis to the Committees on Public Works~ The Hudson River was the subject of such bills' in the 8th Congress. This committee may wish to set up a procedure for handling such requocts. For example, the authorization could be contained in a simple Hbuse Resolution as recommended by the committee. Such a resolution should temporarily suspend, from application to the named river, the Federal Power Act and the public land entry and mineral laws for PAGENO="0247" 233 a perioa similar to' that provided for the rivers in . the "study" category. If a public law is' needed to accomplish these results', procedures should be plannet. accordingly. We suggest that experts in the rules of Congress consider this~ question. One important sentence fo~ind in the other bills does not appear in H.R. 841& This is the provision (see. 3(d) in Hit. 9~, sec. 4(b) in S. 119) that "in all planning for the use and development o~ water and related land re~ources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential national ( S. 119 : wild, or) scenic river areas, and all river basin and project plan~ reports submitted to the Congress shall consider and discuss any snch poten- tials." This language is vitally necessary to insure that Congress sees both sides~ of the coin in every water resource report it receives. We are in accord with language that would require all reports on scenic river proposals to discuss fully the development potentials, flood problems, water supply needs, and so~ forth. It is only equitable to have all reports on proposed construction projects on rivers diseussi the preservation values in those rivers. In this way the Congress can weigh all the values and make the decision as to what constitutes the highest use of the river. Mr. Chairman, this is a long statement for me. It only hits the major highlights of the legisiation. I have refrained from putting in a plug for a long list of rivers very close to my own heart, or to a still longer list which could be corn- piled from the wishes ~of League members and other conservationists across the country. I didn't see that as a useful function for me today. Your patience is apprecIated as your interest in scenic rivers is applauded. Mr. PENPOLD. Mr. Chairman, as you know, many of the conserva- 1:ion organizations are already down in Houston for the meeting of the North American Wildlife Conference and the National Wi1d1ife~ Federation meeting. Mr. C. R. Gutermuth asked me to submit to the committee copies of a statement on this legislation and Tom Kimball of the National Wildlife Federation asked me to do the same for his statement. ( The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF C. R. GUTERMUTH, VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INsTITUTE Mr. Chairman, I am C. It. Gutermiith, vice president of the Wildlife Manage- ment Institute. The Institute is one ~f the older national conservation organiza- tions, and its program has been dedicated to the restoration and improved~ management of renewable natural resources in the public interest for more than fifty years. The Institute is pleased to join with other groups and conservation-minded individuals in supporting the creation of a national wild or scenic rivers system. A voluminous record has been compiled as the result of earlier considerations of the wild river concept, and the committee knows of the widespread interest in. designating Some `of this country's remaining free-flowing streams for perpetual protection of their natural character. The purposes of this proposal are consistent with actions taken to establish national parks and monuments, wildlife refuges, national sea and lakeishores `and other special areas. Authorization `of a scenic or wild rivers program Would `assure that future generations will have s~ome inkling of what sections of our country looked like in the beginning. I will not attem'pt to make direct comparisons of the features of the several bills before the committee. The members undoubtedly have tabulttr comparisons available to them. My comments will be restricted mainly to w~hat are believed to be necessary elements for a `sound bill. First, it is believed that the river classifications proposed in either HR. 8416 or HR. 90 are `su~erio'r to those suggested in other bills. It is hoped that the bill reported by the ~ommi,ttee will contain `a realistic classification `system, because thus would provide a helpful guide to the `agencies in determining the kinds of rivers that should be incorporated into the system as well as the management objectives for each. The Institute urges that at least nine river segments be designated as initial units of the system in the bill that is reported by the committee. Sufficient study PAGENO="0248" 234 iias been made of candidate rivers to indude more than the four mamed In H.R 8410. It is believed that the bill should contain, in addition to the four iiamed in }I.R. 8416, at least the Nalnekagon, Wisconsin ; Saint Croix, Minne~ota and Wis~ ~een*sin ; Suwanee, Georgia and Florida ; Eleven Point, Missouri and Arkansas ; and the Wolf, W~seonsln. . We realize that the easiest rivers to include in the system are those which flow through lands owned largely by the Federal Government. These rivers ahould be classified ais initial units wherever ~osaible, but the truly n'at1~n'al character of the wild or iscenic rivers system will not be achieved if the application of this authority i:s limited mostly to federal lands. The record shows that there are a number of rivers, in scattered sections of `the country, that do not flow entirely through federal lands, but which meet the ldgh standards that `are envisioned for national rivers. Oonservationists are hopeful that a number of these superior streams can be designated initially as units of `the system. The ~vild rivers study team in the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture ended up with `a lust of slightly more than 20 rivers believed qualified for designatIon as units of the wild Tivers system. The several bills differ in the acreage of lands that would be incorporated into any single river. The committee is urged to avoid setting inflexible distances or acreage limitations. The need for stream bank protection Is not uniform throughout the length of a river. This is influenced by streamside topography, land uses, ownership of land, and other factors. S. 119 and flit. 6166, for example, ~rovlde that not more than a total of 320 acres per mile may be included in a designated river. That appears to imply a uniform holding, mile after mile. Con- servationists believe that this stipulation would be more responsive to the need if the language were changed to stipulate an average of 320 acres-or whatever acreage the committee decides-per mile for each project. This would give the administrative agencies an opportunity to acquire lands at the points of need and to otherwise fulfill the objectives of the wild or scenic rivers system. The several bills take different approaches on the matter or listing rivers that would be studied for possible addition to the system. Our belief is that this initial list should be as comprehensive as possible. A federal team has been studying candidate rivers for a number of years, and the list has been narrowed con~ siderably. The rivers designated in H.R. 90 probably reflect those streams that have survived the team's screening process. It is believed that the inclusion of their names would be helpful, both to the agencies that will be implementing Congress' directions with respect to the wild or scenic rivers system and to the states, counties, and others who also will have a role in this new program. It Is entirely possible that some units of government do not realize that they possess :5 river resource of sufficient quality for national, state, or local designation. Interested local groups and Individuals also will have their positions strength- ~ened if the streams are named In national legislation. We can think of many more benefits than disadvantages that will accrue from making the list of study rivers as all-inclusive as possible. We wish to point out that Section 4(a) of H.R. 8416 apparently has a print- Ing error. As it now stands the language would restrict future additions to the system aside from the 20 rivers named in Section 5, to the types of rivers set forth In Section 2, subsectIon (c) , paragraphs (I) and (ii) . Section 4(a) refers to Section 2 subsections (c) and (d). There is no subsection (d) , and subsection (c) in itself would be unduly restrictive. It is believed that the reference should be to subsections (b) and (c) of Section 2. We believe that the bill that is approved should contain a timetable for ~completion of the required studies of candidate rivers. H.R. 90 has a timetable of sorts and H.R. 8416 could be construed as having one because of the limitations placed on the Federal Power Commission and others in Section 7 (b) . The ex- perience with the administration of the Wilderness Act of 1964 supports the value of requiring the executive agencies to comply with a specific time sched- ule for the completion of necessary reviews and recommendations. This is not In criticism, Mr. Chairman, but It should be recognized that only one federal agency has been able to comply with the wilderness act timetable. There are a number of reasons for this, of course, but there Is no question In my mind that the record of wilderness reviews would be even less satisfactory in the absence of the congressional timetable In the 1964 Act. PAGENO="0249" 235 It is believed that a timetable i~ destrable bec~ause it will help require a level o~ agency performance, will provkle Congress witl~ a scale against which to measure progress, and equally important, will give justification and urgency for the approprh~tions with which to carry forward the necessary studies. The provisions dealing with U.S. mining and mineral leasing laws appear generally adequate in all bills. ILR. 8416 goes beyond the other bills, however, and it is believed that its additional provisions are most reasonable and desirable. We hope they will be included in the bill that is reported from the committee. Finally, Mr. Chairman, all bills offer a measure of protection for designated wild or scenic rivers from the construction of dams and other water develop~ ments. We urge the committee to adopt language that will assure protection from the issuance of federal licenses as well as to prohibit the construction of federal or federally assisted projects. This same protection should be extended to the streams that are listed In the study category, with the prohibition either extended as streams are recommended to the President and Congress for in- elusion in the wild or scenic rivers system or lifted on streams that are found unsuitable for designation under the Act. Conservationists are pleased that the committee has scheduled its public hear- ings on this forward-looking conservation program so early In the session. It is hoped that a bill can be reported soon and that Congress will be able to authorize this vital program before adjournment. STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL ON BEHALF OF TflE NATIONAL WILDLIFE Fiuu~LPIoN Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas L. Kimball, Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation, which has headquarters here in Washington, D.C. The National Wildlife Federation is a private, non-profit organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. The National Wildlife Federation has affiliates In 49 States. These affiliates, in turn, are made up of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2,000,000 persons. We welcome the invitation and opport~unity to comment upon the establishment of a nationwide systein of wild or scenic rivers. The National Wildlife Federation long has supported the principle which would be established upon approval of these, or similar, bills. In 1962, our organi- zation went on record by resolution as believing that "Water resources planning should recognize outdoor recreational uses, including fishing, as the paramount public benefit to be derived from streams possessing scenic and recreational values. Streams so designated should be kept free of water development projects or other alterations adversely affecting outdoor recreation potentials." This same policy on nat~ural, wild, or scenic streams was enunciated In the Federa- tion's "priority program" In 19~33 and in 1964. In 1966, our organization called attention to the urgent need for the establishment of a national wild rivers system through a special resolution, a conviction re-emphasized in the annual convention held earlier this year. In short, we solidly support the principle of preserving streams with outstanding scenic or recreational values, believing they should be kept free of water development projects. And, we are elated at the attention now being given to these proposals. I should like to commend both the Chairman of the full Copimittee, Mr. Aspinall, and the ranking ~inor1ty member, Mr. Saylor, for their Interest in wild or scenic rivers. We were exceedingly pleased that they introduced bills on this topic. We are happy that these hearings have been scheduled. We are anxious that a national wild and/or scenic rivers system be established as soon as possible. In our opinion, recognition and establishment of the concept of a system of this sort Is at least of eq~ial importance with the designation of particular streams. I now would like to make a few general remarks, without any particular priority Intended, before going Into specific details. First, we have no strong convictions over whether this system should be called "Wild rivers" or "scenic rivers", or even "natural rivers." However, perhaps the word "scenic" is more truly descriptive of the wide variety of types of streame we believe should be a part of the system. PAGENO="0250" 236 Second, we believe one provision In several of the bills is of paramount impor~ ~tance. It restricts authority of the Federal Power Commission to issue lleense~ ~for any new project on a stream, or portion thereof, d~signated as a scenic river. Maintenance of a free-flowing, natural character to the streams is a ~ primary ~value oi~ this bill and there must be no threat of an FPO actio~i to upset it. Of ~course, the Congress would retain authority to change the designation by special ~act or separate action. Third, in our opinion, the Interior Department Is generous in drafting H.R. ~~6166 in not precluding all mineral activity. Most cetrainly, it is vital that the Fed- ~eral Government retain and exercise control sufficient to prevent mining opera- tion5 from damaging or destroying a designated stream. The same should hold true for any source of water pollution. And, we agree with the provisions which ~specify that scenic rivers shall be administered under laws and regulations appli- ~cable to wilderness areas, units of the National Park System, and the national wildlife refuge system when streams are located within those areas. Fourth, we are in agreement with the principle of authorizing that State and local scenic river areas be designated as parts of the system. We believe there are many streams of this nature which should be protected and approval of an authorizing provision is important. Fifth, the National Wildlife Federation is in accord generally with plans for administration of the system, and we are pleased that extensive cooperation with the States and local governmental agencies is ~on.templated. In this connection, I should point out that sections of some bills are weaker than we prefer. They merely point out that "Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction or respon- sibilities of the States under other provisions of law with respect to fish and wild- life." We recommend an amendment utilizing language the Committee drafted for ruse in the Ozark National Scenic Riverway and seashore bills, paraphrased in this manner : "Hunting and fishing shall be permitted on lands and waters admin- istered as parts of the system under appropriate State and Federal laws and regu- `lations. The administering Secretary may designate zones where, and establish period when, no hunting shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, and shall issue appropriate regulations on public safety after consultation with the wildlife agency of the State or States affected. Provided, this provision does not apply to lands and waters within national parks or monuments." And, now a word about two Buffalo Rivers. The Committee also has before it a bill establishing the Buffalo National River in Arkansas. It is our understanding ~that this superlative stream was not included in either S. 119 or H.R. 616~3 because of thl~ separate legislation. While we would prefer that the Buffalo be set aside as a national river because this procedure would allow for a larger area and a ~more comprehensive outdoor recreational program, it must be given consideration for inclusion in the scenic rivers system. We hope the Clommittee also can give ~early consideration to this bill (H.R. 493) in order that the Buffalo will get the protection it so richly deserves, either in separate legislation or through the ~sceuic rivers bill. In order that there will be no confusion, Mr. Chairman, we hasten to point out that there also Is a Buffalo River In Tennessee which Is proposed for study for ~addition to the system. I might say here that we are baffled by this recommenda- tion from the Interior Department. The Tennessee Legislature, the Governor, and the Executive Departments, plus numerous citizen organizations, are unanimous in their support of the Tennessee Buffalo for Inclusion In the system and the Department of the Interior has a mass of information on the stream. Why this beautiful stream Is not proposed for "instant establishment" is beyond our com- prehension. In fact, the Tennessee Valley Authority now is moving ahead with the State to set up a demonstration scenic riverway and this stream should be included in the national system. The national system would be initiated by the "Instant establishment" of several streams. hR. 8416 is the most modest, incorporating immediately only the Rogue, Rio Grande, Salmon, especially the main stream, and Clearwater. All of these streams are in the other proposals as well. HR. 6166 would add the Eleven Point, Cacapon, Shenandoah, Sair~t Croix, and Wolf. S. 119 adds the Jill- nois and Namekagon Rivers. HR. 90 and HR. 493 add others. We are in agree- ment that all of these streams merit preservation under the system and we hope the Committee sees fit to approve of them without delay. We also agree to the manner in which they would be administered by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, individually or jointly. PAGENO="0251" 237 Mr. Chairman, the National Wildlife Federation has no disagreement with the long list o~ streams which are proposed for additional study. Our organiza- tion, however, is solidly on record as particularly requesting wild or scenic river designation for portions of the Klamath and Smith Rivers in California. Iii fact, we believe preservation of these streams should be made an integral part of any ~consideration of a Redwood National Park. In conclusion, we express the hope that the Committee sees fit to approve of this proposal. We regard this as one of the most significant and far-reaching of conservation bills and we hope it can be an accomplishment of the 90th Congress. Thank you. Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, we are grateful to the committee for scheduling these hearings and for the opportunity to appear. We are grateful to all of the Members of Congress in both bodies who have in- troduced legislation Oil the scenic river. We are parI~icu1arly grateful to the chairman of the full committee and the ranking minority mem- ber for their sponsorship of H.R. 8416 and H.R. 90. This encourages us to hope that the scenic river legislation will have the same strong bipartisan support which has characterized the decade of highly mean- *ingful legislation produced by this committee. The concept of a scenic rivers system goes back a long time. I will leave the details to some historian to deal with it. During the 1950's the concept of the scenic rivers system was large- 1)7 entwined with the wilderness system concept, though many thought- ful leaders in the outdoor field were beginning to see its broader impli- cations. I point out that the Senate select committee in 1961 recommended that certain streams be preserved in their free flowing condition. Dur- ing that same period, the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission was giving attention to the scenic river concept as part of `the total out- door recreation pattern, and it recommended that certain rivers should be preserved in their free flowing condition. I believe it was the work study and report which provided the impetus for expanding the original concept of a wild river system, that is in the `connotation of wilderness to a system which would `embrace not only wilderness environments but free-flowing streams in other types of environments. We think this was enlightened progress. It is gratifying that the Senate bill S. 119 accepts the classification principle in providing both `wild and scenic categories. H.R. 90 is more precise in this respect. H.R. 8416, however, goes back to the land classifications recommended which have been accepted and are now used in planning by the Federal land management agencies. I then give the comparisons `between the ORRRC classification and the classes suggested by H.R. 8416. . Several bills have provisions to achieve the free-flowing objective by limiting the authority of the Federal Power Commission. ET.R. 8416, like the others, limits the authority of the FPC to license dams or other projects in the scenic river or study category. ELR. 8416 goes beyond this with respect to authorities of other bureaus of Government in this regard. Protection of the `scenic river environment requires protection of the adjacent lands, and, of course, all the bills contain various provisions to accomplish this objective. PAGENO="0252" 238 One of the most knotty problems in proteeting lVestern streams on the scenic river system is the application of the mining laws to Federal public lands. It is almost self-evident that a mining operation in the bed, or the banks, or immediately adjacent to a scenic river with the appurtenant roads, construction, tailings, pollution, and so forth, would be seriously damaging. S. 119 and H.R. 90 provide no limita.tions on the operation of the mining laws except that they be carried out under general regulations of the Secretary to protect the scenic qualities. But H.R. 8416 goes beyond this by providing that minerals located in the bed, banks or within a quarter mile of any river designated in the wild river class shall be withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws, and from operation of the mineral leasing laws. The implications of these sections of H.R. 8416 are important. First of all, the withdrawal of lands in the wild river category serves to make policy abundantly clear that mining operatiolis in the scenic river system, where permitted, shall indeed be carried out so as to avoid entirely or minimize damage to the scenic river environment. It serves to make very precise the inviolability of wild rivers in con- trast with other categories, which should make it clear to mining and other development interests that the scenic river system legislation is not some great lockup of vast resource areas. If the criteria for wild river status are kept at a high and meaning- ful level, and we think they should be, there will not be very many rivers in this class. It would be tempting to urge that all classes of scenic rivers he withdrawn, but I would point out that all rivers in the study category will in the future have to come before Congress for approval and legislation. These proposals under H.R. 841.6 will be presented in great detail, at which time justification can be prepared for withdrawing portions of a river or sites on a river in terms of the specific program and development plans for that river. Each such instance then can be considered and debated on its individual merits. This concept is applicable actually for all the provisions of H.R. 8416 with respect to rivers in the study category, and we believe, Mr. Chairman, that, this flexibility really adds strength to the scenic river objective. On a matter of acquisition I point out that S. 119, the Senate bill. provides that the Secretary shall establish the boundaries of each river after its authorization, and that it may not include on both sides more than 320 acres per mile and 100 acres per mile of acquired land nor may condemnation of lands and so forth be used, without the owner's consent. Frankly, we don't care. very inuc.h for that. kind of a. formula. It sounds good, but it doesn't give promise that it will actually accom- plish the objectives of the legislation with respect to any individual scenic river proposal. H.R. 90 takes a somewhat different approach, and H.R. 8416 pro- vides in far more detail for the submission of plans, maps, acquisition needs, costs, `administration, eventual alternative use, and other infor- mation which Congress and the public should have available at the time a study river is ready to be included for inclusion in the system. PAGENO="0253" 239 Iii our judgment that should be the time to make the essential deter- minations which can then be tailored to the characteristics and poten- tials of the individual river. These characteristics would, among other things, include the physi- cal topography of the valley, population pressures, development pres- isures, existing land and water use which may or may not lend themselves to scenic or other types of easements, and also the ability and extent of cooperation to be expected from local jurisdictions. If I could summarize our whole attitude toward the chairman's bill, we think that it gives the kind of flexibility that is necessary for a system that will really work in all parts. of the country, and actually accomplish the objectives which I think we are all after. It provides that these things must be fully studied before they are included, and I think this is absolutely essential to enactment of really meaningful legislation. I think that the opposition, and you will hear much more of it in your subsequent hearings, is going to come from people who are concerned because they don't know, they have not had specific proposals put before them. They are broad generalities, and they are fearful, they are suspicious, and just like any other human being, they will oppose when this is the case. So we strongly support the idea of the agencies coming in with very specific and detailed plans which Congress and the public can consider. Mr. Chairman, my statement is long, and I won't try to go further. I would just point out that I have deliberately refrained from put- ting in ~a plug for a long list of rivers which are very close to my heart, ~or a still longer list whh~h could be compiled from the wishes of league membership `and other conservationists, but I just didn't see that that would be a useful function for me today. We thank you very much. Mr. TAYLOR. We commend the gentleman for a very fine statement. I think we have 5 minutes time remaining, about a minute apiece for us. Do you favor the flexibility provided in ILR. 8416 in preference to the other bills? Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. I think H.R. 8416 goes far in this direction. Mr. TAYLOR. You have no objection to adding certain sections of the St. Croix RiVer and the Wolf River if it goes in the action stage? Mr. PENF0LD. I left this out of my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would like very much to see one or more rivers which are ready added to the instant category. ~ Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. Mr. PENFOLD. In the east, so that we can begin' to get specific ex- perience. It is my understanding that the St. Croix-Namekagon has perhaps been the most thoroughly studied of any of them up to this point. The Allagash and the Wolf offer separate kinds of opportunities which I think would be useful, if they could be put in in the first instance. Mr. TAYLOR. Why would you recommend placing the wild rivers and natural environment rivers in two different categories? I mean to me they are very similar. PAGENO="0254" 240 Mr. PENFOLD. Well, I don't think they are exactly similar, and I made thispoint with respect to the withdrawal of minerals which H.IL 8416 provides for wild rivers. This is a very, very important distinc- tion between a wild river and a natural environment river. Mr. TAYLOR. What is that distinction ? Mr. PENFOLD. The distinction is, one, the mining laws are prohibitedi and in the other the mining laws would be continued, but under regu- lations that would serve to protect the scenic values. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to commend Mr. Penfold~ onceagain for the fine and constructive work that he has done on many bills, especially upon this one, as is shown by his comments to the chair- man and his diagnosis of the bill, which I think is one of the best we could possibly get before this committee. . Mr. TAYLOR. Have any other members questions? The gentleman from California. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Penfold, I understood you to say that you recoin- mend the Allagash and the St. Croix and the Wolf come into the scenic rivers system. Mr. PRNPOLD. The Allagash presents the best opportunity right now for a State managed area to come into the scenic rivers system. The Wolf River, well, we don't know what is going to happen but perhaps the State of Wisconsin will come in with a specific request for this. If so, fine. This is another example. The Namekagon, or St. Croix, is perhaps of the eastern rivers the~ one which could most closely meet the criteria of specific information which the committee would require. Mr. JOHNSON. They would be a part of the national? ~ Mr. PENP0LD. That is right. Mr. JOHNSON. The national scenic rivers system? Mr. PENF0W. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. They would not remain under the operational juris- diction of the States? Mr. PENFOLD. The Allagash would remain under the operation and administration of the State. Mr. JOHNSON. In the Wolf River, a portion of that is~ now under State operation and maintenance, as I understand it, and a portion is within the Indian reservation there in the Indian country, and owned1 by the Indians in the, State of Wisconsin. That is yet tob~ agreed upon. Mr. PENFOLD. That might be a combination of the two. Mr. JoHNsoN. Of the two? Mr. PENFOLD. Part of it State, part of it national.. Mr. JO~N5ON. Now, the St. C~oix, the upper reaches tI~ere,. you ad~ vocate that this be a publicly acquired scenic river. Mr. PENFOLD.. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON. Placed in the system. Mr. PENFOLD. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON. That is all. Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions? Counsel has a question. Mr. WITMER. Just one short one, Mr. Chairman, ifI may. PAGENO="0255" 241 Joe, I would like to mention one idea that has occurred to me and see if you concur. Among the things that the Secretary has to study,. before a proposal is submitted for inclusion of a study category river in the system, is the reasonably foreseeable potential use of the land which would be enhanced, foreclOsed or curtailed if the area were included. What would you think of enlarging that to say the reasonably fore- seeable potential uses of lands and waters which would be enhanced,, foreclosed or curtailed ? Mr. PENFOLD. Well, Dick, I assume that this is what it meant. Mr. WITMER. And, therefore, would have no objectiofl t~ making it explicit? Mr. PENFOLD. No, sir, I don't. Mr. WITMER. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. That would just be clarifying language then.. Mr. ASPINALL. Keeping in mind that this in no way affects the State's rights to make the final determination as far as the use of the wa~tei~ is. concerned. Mr. PENFOLI. Or any other valid existing rights. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Penfold. Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you, sir. Mr. TAYLoR. You haye been very helpful as usual. Mr. PENPOLD. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. The next witness is Mr. Charles Callison.. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman-may I state that we are glad to have you here, Charles. Mr. TAYLOR. We are familiar with your fine contribution to conser-~ vation. We are glad to have you. STATE1~ENT OP CHARLES H. CALLISON, EXECUTIVE VICE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL. AUDUBON SOCIETY Mr. CALLISON. I am flattered and honored by this we1come~ My name is Charles H. Callison. Mr. TAYLOR. You may read your entire statement or put it in th~ record and comment. Mr. CALLIS0N. Mr. Chairman, my statement is quite brief and I think I could be more conciseif I stick to the text of it. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman will proceed. Mr. CALLISON. Congress has moved with diligence in ~eoent years to round out the Nation's conservation estate, recognizing that the wilder- ness, wildlife and scenic wonders with which this land was originally endowed by nature are dwindling rapidly before the accelerating forces of population growth and economic expansion. By processing and reporting the Wilderness Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and numerous acts to add important areas to the system of national parks and. recreation areas, this committee has led the way In providing all our citizens with opportunities for inspiration and recreation in the outdoors, and in assuring that future generations will be proud of the "varied splendor of American nature" tha~ so thrilled and at-. tracted the men who explored and settled this continent. I use a phrase, Mr. Chairman, from the writings of John James Audubon., PAGENO="0256" 242 The pioneer naturalist and painter of American birds and mammals once wrote a publisher friend that the only thing that sustained him in his prodigious and exhausting feats of wilderness travel and labor was a determination to leave to his countrymen a legacy of the "varied splendor of American nature" that he feared would some day be gone. In behalf of the National Audubon Society-our officers, directors, and 63,000 members-I thank this committee for its conservation leadership. Creating a national scenic rivers system will constitute an- other major and essential addition to what I call our national conserva- tion estate. This country was richly endowed with superb rivers that have fig- ured prominently in our history and development, helping shape our civilization and national growth. Relatively few of them remain in anything like their natural condition. It is time to set some of them aside in recognition of their beauty, their recreational value, and in order to conserve the natural ecosystems that unspoiled rivers support, and that is where the wild trout come in that Mr. Bovey spoke so elo- quently about. ~ The National Audubon Society re~p~ctfuly urges tile subcommit- tee to fashion a bill that combines the good features of H.R. 8416, which was introduced by Mr. Aspinall, and H.R. 90, by Mr. Saylor, both of which are superior in concept and in substance to S. 119, the measure passed last year by the Senate. Mining, particularly the kind usually practiced in streambeds, can be disastrous to th~ natural beauty and ecology of a river. The Senate bill would permit mining claims, patents2 and mining as presently al- lowed, although it does say that new claims located in wild or scenic river areas would be subject to "regulations"prescribed by the admin- istering Secretary. BothH.R. 90 and]E[.R. 8416 provide tl~at for new claims p~rhcted after date of the act, the claimant would secure title only to the mi~iierai. deposft~ not to the surface of the land. H.R. 8416 would withdraw from development the minerals in Federal lands un- der the beds or banksof the protected streams ; we recommend the in- elusion of this excellent feature in the bill that you report. We also recommend the superior provisions of either the Aspinall or Saylor bills with respect to the prohibitions against the licensing of dams or other projects by the Federal Power Commission or other Federal agencies on any~wild or scenic river and on streams designated for study. . The land acquisition authorization provisions of H.R. 8416 and H.R. 90 are both carefully and conservatively drawn, and either is better and more realistie than the similar provision iii the Senate bill. We prefer the classification system spelled out in section 2 (b) of H.R. 90, chiefly for its simplicity, but we beli~ve the classification pro- posed in s~tion 2(b) of }LR. 8416 is also practicable. An important substantive difference in the various bills is the desig- nation of specific rivers, or portions thereof, that would go into the scenic rivers system at once, and those that would he designated for study. Here, Mr. Chairman, we urge the subcommittee to be bold. We reconimend the immediate designatioit of all 16 of the streams listed in section 3(a) of H.R. 90 as scenic river areas under the authorized system. We further recommend the designation by name of all of the PAGENO="0257" 243 streams proposed for interim protection and study in H.R. 90 plus the Chattooga River in North Caro1i~ia and South Carolina and the I1h~ nois River in Oregon as additionally named in ILR. 8416. Following the principle written into the Wilderi~ess Act, time limits should be prescribed for completion of the studies, and the reports thereon to Congress, by the executive branch. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the National Audubon Society. Mr. TAYLOR. We thank you for a very clear and definith' statement. You state that you prefer the provisions of H.R. 8416 aiid H,R. 90, either or both, to the Senate bill. Mr. CALLISON. That i~ correct, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. I notice you also recommend that we place in the so- called instant stage all of the 16 rivers listed in ER. 90 for that purpose. Mr. CALLISON. Thait is our recommendation, sir. ~ Mr. TAYLOR. Are you of the opinion that sufficient study has been made on each of these? Mr. OALLISON. I do not know, sir, probably not, but we wou~ld strongly recommend that you put as many in as the committee feels it has information on. Mr. TAYLOR. Should `we put it in if a suffi~ient study has not been made ? Would that be your position? Mr. CALLIS0N. No, it wouldn't, sir, if this is the position of the committee. Mr. TAYLOR. Were you here ye~terday when the Congressman from Arkansas testified against the Eleven Point River section in Arkansas? Mr. CAr~i~IsoN. No, I wasn't, but I have long familiarity with the Eleven Point River. I grew up in the State of Missouri and cut my eyeteeth in the conservation game with the Missouri Conservation De~ partment, and later as the executive secretary of that Staite's conser- vation federation, and I well remember the fights with the Army En- gineers over the Eleven Point River. I hope, sir, that the action of this committee in determining whi~h rivers should go into this bill in either the instant category or the study category will be on the basis of the ~treams that de~rve to be in this system, and not o~i the basis of those that are controversial. Many good things are controversial, but the country does deserve a `weil- rounded national scethc rivers system with the best of the remaining unspoiled streams in it, whether in the West, the Midwest, or the East. Mr. TAYLOR. But you would recommend that we listen to all the groups involved in the controversy? `Mr. CAuisoN. Indeed, sir. Mr TAYLOR Understand their contentions aud their posil~ions ~ Mr. C~tr~i~iso~. That is right. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman `from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Would you ghre `to `us, Mr. C~llison, a l~ of those 16 in priorities, One, two, three, four, five, rjgh~ on 4own the line `as to the ones you think should oome first, because I can tell you very frankly you are not going to get all 1~. Mr. CALLISON. I know that, `Mr. Chairman. 92-560-68-----17 PAGENO="0258" 244 Mr. ASPINALL. I want to know what you consider to.be the ones that are available, because I consider yon to be informed on thismatter, but from the way ~ou answered the Chairman I g~t the impression that you didn't l~nôw whi~h had bé~en really studied and which hadn~t. I want you to give us that. Mr, CALLISON. All right, sir, may I do that. Mr. ASPINALL. I want you to furnish it. Mr. OAu~IsoN. May I submit that for the record? Mr. ASPINALL. Yes. Mr. OALLISON. I will be happy to. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, it will be placed in the record at this point. (The information referred to follows:) NATIONAL AUDUBON Socr~ri~, New York,~ N.Y., 4pril 16, 19~38. Hon. Ro~ A. TAYLOR, Uhairman, Subcon~n~ittee on Na~ti~na~ Parks and Recreation, OommSttee on Imtertor and Insv~la'r Affairs, Longwortlv House Office 1~tuilding, Washing- ton, D.C. DEAR MR. TAYLOR : During the hearings op~ scenic rivers legislation Mr Aspiiiall asked that I submit for the record the National Audubon Society's specific recoin- mendations as to the rivers that we believe should be given "instant" scenic rivers status in a bill to be reported by your subcommittee and the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Accordingly, we recommend the fo]iowing: Rogue River, Oregon ~ The segment between the mouth of the Applegate I~uiver and Lobster Creek Bridge. , ,, Rio Grande, New Mexico : The segment between the New Mexico-ColOrado State line nnd State Highway Number 96, `and the lower four miles of the Red River. Salmon, Middle Fork, Idaho : From its origin to its confluence with the main Salmon River. Clearwater, Middle Fork, Idaho : `The Seiway from Its origin to the town of Lowell, the Lochsa from the Powell Ranger Station to the town of Lowell, and the Midd~e Fork from the town of Lowell to the town of Kooskia. E'even Point, Missouri : The segment of the river extending from a point near Greer Spring downstream to State Highway 142. Green, Wyoming : The segment extending from its origin in the Bridger Wilder- ness Area south to its confluence with Horse Creek. Missouri, Montana : The segment extending from Fort Peck Reservoir upstream to near the town of Fort Benton. Skagit, Washington : `The Skagit River from near the town of ~edro Woolley upstream to the Gorge powerhouse near the tOwn of Newhalem ; the Cascade River from fts mouth to the junction with its north and south forks and up the South Fork to the boundary of the G~1ac'ier Peak Wilderness Area' ; the Sui'attle River from `its mouth to the Glacier Peek Wilderness Area boundary at Milk Creek ; the Sauk River from its mouth to the junction with Elliott Creek, ~nd the, North Fork of the Sank River from its junction with the South Fork of the ~auk to the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area bOundary. Flathead, *Moi~tan'a : North Fork from the Canadi'an Border downstream to confluence With Mi&l'le Fork ; Middle Fork from `headwaters to confluence with South Fork ; and South Fork from `its 9rigin to the Hungry Hor~e Reservoir. Wolf, Wisconsin : The segment reaching frodn the confluence of the Hunting River downstream to the town of Keshen'a. tSt. Croix, Minnesota and Wisconsin : Beginning at the dam near Taylors Falls, Minnesota, ` and extending upEtreain to the dam near Gordon~ Wisconsin, and its. Namekagon trIbutary. ` Suwaimeê, Georgia and Florida : E~itire river from its source in the Oke~enokee Swamp In Georgia to the gulf and `the outlying lchetuckn'ee Springs, Florida. Buffalo, Arkansas: The ei~tire liver from its source in Newton Ounty to its confluence with the White River. PAGENO="0259" CHARLES H. CALuSON, E~vecutive Vice President. Mr. ASPINALL. I do want you to understand that the provision in the wilderness bill relative to studies of the primitive areas has not worked out satisfactorily, that the Department is behind time at the present time, and it is understandable that they are, and eyen the work that `they have done on some of those that they think ar~ ready has been superficial. What we want for this committee, when we begin to study these wilderness programs that are to be authorized, is corn- plete studies. This is what is bothersome when someone asks for the whole pie and the whole pie is not available, because it has to be divided ~ and it `has to be completely baked before it is edible. Mr. CALLIS0N. May I comment on that, Mr. Aspinall ? Mr. ASPINALL. Yes. Mr. CALLIS0N. I know the stucliesare behind schedule under the Wilderness Act, and I am as unhappy `about that as anyone is, and probably more unhappy than many. But I think they would have been even further behind had not the schedule been written into the legislation, and I doubt that they would have been as complete as they are had not that schedule been written into the legislation. Mr. ASPINALL. I think you are right, Mr. Callison, but I want you to know this, that if that formula hadn't been put there and it was the formula of this committee, if that formula hadn't been put there, there would have been a great clamor for the designation of wilderness areas `that were a long way from `being in a position to be considered by Congress. So I don't take offense that they are behind. I do think that this is ~a good provision in the bill. That is all. Mr. TAYLOR. Are there other questions? Mr. Callison, thank you very much. Mr. CALLIS0N. Thank you, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. On our list of witnesses we have listed the National Recreation and Park Association. Would you state your names, please? Mr. THOMPSON. I am Ben Thompson, executive secretary of the Na. tional `Conference `on State Parks, which is a branch of the National Recreation Park Association. And I would also like to have with me Mr. Barry Tindall on the staff of the association. Mr. TAYLOR. We welcome you both before the committee. Will you proceed? 245 Susquehann'a, New York and Pennsylvania : The segment of the Susquehanna River from a dam at Oooperstown, New York, downstream to the town of Pitts- ton, Pennsylvania. I believe that all of the foregoing listed rivers have `been adequately studied, or that studies concerning them are now near enough to completion, by the agencies of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to~ warrant their being placed at this time in the national scenic rivers system. `The National Audubon Society also reiterates its recommendation that a longer list of study streams be listed in the bill and given the kind of interim protection proposed in Mr. Aspinwall's H.R. 8416 or Mr. Saylor's H.R. 90. Sincerely yours, PAGENO="0260" 246 STATEMENT OP BEN K. THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STATE PARKS; ACCOMPANIED BY BARRY ¶UNDALL Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. To save the committee's time aM to be as precise as possible, I am going to read the pertinent excerpts from the statement. Mr. TAYLOR. In the abseiice of objection, the entire statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. SAL ~. P1tEZIOSO, EZEOUTTVE Vic~ PItRSmENT, NA~oNAL Ri~cEZATrow AND PARJ~ AS5OOIATIO1~ ~tr: C~itdrman and Meithers ó1~ the Oommlttee : I ~tm Ben H. Tho~iipson, Exiecutive t5~Fi~j~y cxf the ¶?~ationa1 Conference ~n Sta~e Parks appearing for Dr. Sal ~T. PreZiu~, Exeeu±ive Vice President, Natic~al Recreation and Bait Assciato~,with 1iea4~arters at ITOO Peirnsylva~itt Avenue, N.W., W~tst~ington, D.O. The Natbnal Conf~renoe on State Parks is a branch of the National Recre- atLton and Park Association. Dr. Prezioso has asked me to express his regret that previous otit.ot-town eo~mitments precluded his being here personally to testify. ¶t'he N4t1on5~ Recreation and Park Association Is a private, i~ionprefit, sers4ee organization dedicated to the advancement of parks and recreation and related resource conservation. It is our understanding that the Committee has received from the Department o~ the Interior extensive data on the above listed bills compa~r4ng th~ir major previsiOi~s and r~~omm'ending clarifying and perfecting amiendm:en~ts of HR. ~4$, wiitt~ wbWJ~ we generally agree. W]ilie we do not address our~elves to spoelfic rivers or waterway sy~tems, but rather to the conoept behind this legislative package, we believe that state and f~ederal st~tdies of wild and ~een1e rivers niade in ~~e'ce~at years justify tJ~e initi~1 designatiOi~ as s~~en1~ rivers, ait least the nine rivers or segments thereo~ j~icluded in thie Admth~strWbiou hill, H.R. 0166 and ILR. 00. These rivers include Rio Grande, Rogue, Salmon, Oaeapon, Eleven Point, ~t. ~roix~NIamekagOn, Wolf, and 1~h~ Shenandoah. These rivers would total approximately 1,000 miles and would ~nake a sLgnift~ant 1egim~ing for a national waterwa~s systew~ The 4~oci'at~on urges that additional rivers, particularly `those near centers of high p~u~attion densities, be studied by `the Secretaries o~ Agriculture and the Xi~terior, In cooperation with the `~tatos~, as soon as possible, to formulate recoin- menda~t1ffiiS for the tlesignation of additional scenic rivers. It is particularly ~~eotEragin~ ~G se~e many midwest and eastern rivers nuder `eonstdieratLion. We feel that the final form of le~islatiOnSIlould aut1~iortze an4 dira~t the appropriate agency to study any rivers, whi~h iii that agency's opinion, may be eligiihLe for ineluston in the system. We further urge that every agency ~f the Federal government concerned with structures on or affecting the flow of esthetics of ~~ty potenjial iuldltion to a national waterway system ~e required to eo~uit t~ E~ederal an~ State ngeneies a~~wi~l~ a~mtuist~ing the system. The *diulnistering agency would deter- mthé *I~ther Or not ~ueh proposals are in keeping ~s~1t~ the. objectives of the national waterway system. This provision sho~.ild not be li~nlted to those rivers in the h~itial study classification. w~ ~liev~ l~ha4 ce~tain ~ivors or segn~ents tbeeco~ ~are of such ou~standing ~ni~auee It1~a43 the Qo~ress may wish to c'ou~ider individual bills a~d `special inea~ures f~fr their ~p~otec~tion aM pubThie use. We have in mind such projects a~s the proq~o~t T~othomac Natioz~at R(ver, propoised Suwanoe National River in Georgia and Florida, the ~rovosed Lew~s and `Cia~k WWletrxwss Waterway in MO~1t~tUfllj a1Th~ *th~ .j~r~oPose& Buffalo National JUve~ i~i 4~rkaus'as. There are doithtless ótliecs. ~ueh rivers, in due course, should become part o~ a national waterway system. We endorse Section 12, (a) and (b) of H.R. 4816 which recognizes the need for the establishment ott state and local scenic river areas and directs the Secre- tary of the Interior to encourage their planning and financing under the Land PAGENO="0261" 247 and Water Conservation Fund Act. We feel that this provision will greatly stimu- late scsrnd river basin planning at both the state and local level. The acquisition of `bordering lands or interests in lands averaging 320 acres per mile for protection and public use seems a reasonable standard, with specific boundaries to be designated as soon as possible after more detailed surveys on the ground. Finally we question whether the land acquisition ceiling of $6.5 million con- tamed in IT.R. 8416 will be adequate. We suggest that the Committee may wish to consider raising that limit, particularly if nine rivers or segments thereof are to be authorized forinitial establishment. We respectfully ask this Coaximittee to continue its fine record by reporting favorably legislation which wiuld set aside, for all time, a select group of our nation's waterways. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Dr. Prezioso, the executive head of the agency, war~tod to be here, but unavoidably could not be, so he asked me to express his regrets to the. committee. The National Recreation and Park Association is a private, non- profit, service organization dedicated to the advancement of parks and recreation and related resource conservation. It is our understanding that the committee has received from the Department of the Interior extensive data on the above listed bills comparing their major provisions and recommending clarifying and perfecting amendments of H.R. 8416, with which we generally agree. While we do not address ourselves to specific rivers or waterway sys- tems, but rather to the concept behind this legislative package, we be- lieve that State and Federal studies of wild and scenic rivers made in recent years justify the initial designation as scenic rivers, at least the nine rivers or segments thereof included in the administration bill, :[I.R. 6166, and H.R. 90. These rivers include Rio Grande, flogue, Sal- mon, Cacapon, Eleven Point, St. Croix-Namekagon, Wolf, and the Shenandoah. These rivers would total approximately 1,000 miles and would make a significant beginning for a national waterways system. The association urges that additional rivers, particularly those near centers of high population densities, be studied by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, in cooperation with the States, as soon as possible, to formulate recommendations for the d~sigu.ation of addi- tional scenic rivers. It is particularly encouraging to see many mid- western and eastern rivers under consideration. We feel that the final form of legislation should authorize and direct the appropriate agency to study any rivers which, in that agency's opinion, may be eligible for inclusion in the system. We further urge that every agency of the Federal Government con- cerned with structures on or affecting the flow or esthetics of any potential addition to a national waterway system be required to con- sult the Federal and State. agencies charged with administering the system ; that is, to notify them of plans for any structures so that they would be in a position to appraise the effect of that on their pro~ct. The administering agency would determine whether or not such proposals are in kee~ung with the objectives of the national waterway system. This provision should not be limited to those rivers in, the initial study classification. We believe that certain rivers or segments thereof are of such out- standing significance that the Congress may wish to consider individ- PAGENO="0262" 248 ual bills and special measures for their protection and public use. We have in mind such projects as the proposed Potomac National River, proposed Suwanee National River in Georgia and Florida, the proposed Lewis and Clark Wilderness Waterway, or national river, whichever it is called, in Montana, and the proposed Buffalo National River in Arkansas. There are doubtless others. Such rivers, in due course, should become part of a national waterway system. We endorse `sections 1~»= (a) and (b) of H.R. 8416 which recognizes the need for the establishment of State and local scenic river areas and directs the Secretary Of the Interior to encourage their planning and financing under `the Land and Water Conservation Fund Aèt. We feel that this provision will greatly stimulate sound river basin planning at both the State and local level. The acquisition of bordering lands or interests in lands, that is for the designated scenic . river, averaging 320 acres per mile for protec- tion and public use seems a reasonable standard, with specific bound- aries to be designated as soon as possible after more detailed surveys on the ground. Finally, we question whther the land acquisition ceiling of $6.5 million contained in H.R. 8416 will be adequate. We suggest that the com~inittee may wish to. oonsjder raising that limit, particularly if nine rivers or segments thereof are to be authorized for initial establishment. We respectfully ask this committee to continue its fine record by reporting favorably legislation which would be set aside, for all time, a select groupof our Nation's waterways. I think that covers the main points. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Thompson, we thank you for your sta~ement. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, all of us realize `that Mr. Thompson has one of the better records of service with the great National Park Service. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you Mr. ASPINALL. And we appreciate having you here before us. With that, may Ichide him just a moment as to part of `the recommendations that have been made. We had some evidence yesterday of the desire of those who represent the areas of the Cacapon and the Eleven Point Rivers and the Shenan- doah that they are not quite ready for that. Mr. Thompson, with the knowledge that you have and with the experience that you have had, don't you think that the success of these programs depends to a great extent upon the cooperation of the people in the areas that are affected? Mr. THOMPSON. Very much so. Mr. ASPINALL. I can't go any further on that. I want to get back to the proposed Lewis and Clark Wilderness Waterwayin Montana and this is the chiding part, because I know how you used to be bound by the upper echelon of authority in the National Park Service. We asked about the Department's position on this particular proposal. And one of the paragraphs we have under date of March 6 1968, reads: We recommend, therefore, that action on the bill be deferred until this study is completed and the bill can be evaluated in light of the recommendations resulting therefrom. PAGENO="0263" 249 We are kind of bound just as you were bound formerly. It is nice to be released from the machinery of bureaucracy, but we have this proposal, and I wanted you to understand that although I expect that we could go ahead and include it if we wished to, nevertheless it is in the same situation we have relative to, we will say, the Eleven Point and these other rivers, I mean we would have difficulty if we tried to place these provisions in this legislation. Mr. THOMPSON. Yes ; I realize that. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much for your contribution. Mr. TAYLOR. Were you here yesterday when the Congressman testi- fled ~ Mr. THOMPSON. I was not. I am sorry. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho. ~ Mr. McCLuRi~. Mr. Chairman, I notice the witness states he is not in a position to address himself to specific-or do not address yourself to specific waters or portions thereof, is that correct? Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct. Mr. MCCLURE. And the statement you make that at least the nine. rivers or segments thereof, is intended to be a generalized statement rather than a specific statement. Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you. Mr. ASPINALL. Will my colleague yield ? Mr. MOCLtmE. Yes. Mr. ASPINALL. Let the record show that Mr. Thompson has spent a great deal of his life in and around metropolitan areas, and that he had had to work with these metropolitan areas, and he knows the need for trying to do something for these congested areas. Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCLtrnE. Mr. Chairman, I don't want my questions to be understood as being in any way in conflict with the statement of the chairman of the full committee. That is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ~ Mr. TAYLOR. Counsel, any questions? Mr. WITMER. No questions. Mr. TAYLOR. Does Mr. Tindall have anything to say? Mr. TINDALL. Sir ; the reason for suggesting that perhaps these nine rivers be included was to insure or attempt to , insure that the East would be represented, that these rivers could perhaps serve as a model for a lot of the large population masses, and I think Mr. Pen- fold was quite right in saying that a lot of the opposition has come from the lack of understanding of just what these projects mean. The association's position is such that we want to insure that there won't be a mad rush to the banks of these waterways, so to speak, with summer camps and things that might be an irreversible trend, and would cost the Federal Government moneys in the long run. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman? Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. May I be recognized for just a minute? There is the Biblical expression, Mr. Tindall, that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, the coming generation. We will PAGENO="0264" 250 try to take care of this, but ~ remember, a great many of these diffi~ cu~Ities came out of the rush in the early days to see that the frontier was mad~ available to the people. We can't do all of these things at one time, especially if the people are not desirous, the people within the area are not.desirous,.of cooperating. `I~at is our difficulty, and, beiieve me, I am for what you propose, what most people propose, but you can't clean up anywhere near as rapidly. ~s you could if you had something in Its natural state. M~. ;PA~r4oR. We thank both Qf you very much for your testimony. ~fr. flobert Waidrop, Sierra Club. Mr. Waldrop, do you desire to rea4 your statement? STATEMENT. OP BOEThT WALI)ItOP, SIERRA CLUE Mr~W~thno~: With yotti permIssion, I will try to capsule it, read- ing some of the topicpoiht~; Mr. TAYLOR. The statement wiU be pii~ced In the record at this point an~l the witness may cOmmeiit on it as he sees fit. ~ Mr.'W~~n~op. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert Waidrop. I work for and am representing the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has long had an active iiitèrest in efforts to pro- tect our remaining natural rivers from the unnatural development ~hith has :th~8p0~d so many streams across the country. It is with gr~t pleasure that we endorse the positive posture of the bills under ó~n~Idth~tiontbday. H;R. 90 and H.R. 8416 are particularly good ap. pro~ches tOward prot&~ting some of Our free flowing rivers from the specific threats of the future. ~ ~ * At this stage in our history we have a great opportunity, and in- deed a great responsibility, tQ achieve and perpetuate a balance be- tween development and naturalness of these rivers. A few years from now and the choice will have been forfeited and the answer ifldelible. Few major `streams remain undammed and fewer still retain their original pristine characteristics. Most of the remaining natural rivers have escaped development because `of their relative isolation from population centers; the majority are now within national park or forest areas. But isolation and location in a park or national forest is no guarantee of `the perpetuation of their natural qualities. Dams, roa~ds, mineral , a~ctivities, bridges, and the like continue to threaten these natural stream areas. It is most important that effective pro- tectionbe given deserving rivers where they remain. ` We are twice fortunate in having two excellent bills available~ for consideration, H.R. ~O, and H.R 8416, and the Sierra Club is doubly pleased to support the concepts in' both. Such a sympathetic and ra- tional approach to acom.plicated scenic resourt~e problem is exemplary. ~ flow~ver,, it is' n~ither practical nor necessary to pass both bills. Th~ highlights `of both can be `combined in a sort of legislative super- nova. In the resulting bill the Sierra Club'would like to see the follow- ing provisions of the pare~it hills retained: 1. A classification system, which would recognize the varying types of rIvers des~r~rhi~g protection. , ` 2. Some general restrictions on the types of' development permitted in the different classes of scenic rivers. The language in H.R. 90, de- PAGENO="0265" 251 scribing in general terms the acceptable limits of developrn~ent for the different types of rivers. is desirable. The provision in the S~nath- passed bill allowing the construction of roads, bridges, timber harvest- ing, and livestock grazing on any designated river is excessively permissive. 3. A timeti~bie for the review of rivers included in the study category. 4. No specific limitations on the boundaries of a scenic river o~ on the amount or type of acquisition within those boundaries. We feel that the specifics of size, acquisition needs, alternative uses, and the like should be tailored to individual candidate rivers and that a thor- ough reView process involving citizens and officials, fipm affected counties, States, and Federal agencies is the most satisfactory method of designing a suitable plan. 5. Restriction of the Federal power of condemnation in any pohti- cal subdivision where suitable zoning regulations are in effect. A pro- vision such as this should help promote the purpo~ ,f the act without the cost and local opposition associated with fee-title côn4ernnation. 6. The withdrawal from appropriations under the mining laws of minerals in Federal lands within one-fourtIIL mile of any dedicated wild river and the temporary withdrawal of suoh minerals adjacent to rivers in the study category until their reviews have been completed. IT. A large number of rivers iii the study category. As noted earlier, we are rapidly losing the option to preserve some of our rema~ining scenic rivers. In order tQ reserve this option without interfering with necessary development we suggest that as large a number of rivers as possible be included in the study category of any scenic rivers bill. As we understand it, placement in this section in no permanent way 1)recludes worthy develop'iment ; rather, it insures that ~ll the values of a study river will 1~ evaluated to determine the overall desirability of protecting the candidate river, or allowing it to be developed. Mr. Chairman, because it is difficult to define the distinguishing qualities of rivers in the various cjasses of scenic rivers, we have one further suggestion not expressly covered in either H.R. 90 or H.R. 8416. We would like to see included as instant rivers at least two ex- amples of each class of scenic river to serve as guideposts for future additions to the system. I wouldn't attempt to suggest example rivers, but I would like to see this committee give consideration to including some eastern rivers in the instant section. Two which come to mind immediately are the Shenandoah and the Cacapon. In conclusion, we would like to express our appreciation for oppor- tunity provided by the committee for us to state our views on this very important legis] ation. We sincerely hope that a measure based on the excellent bills before us will soon be acted on by the entire I-louse. Heretofore scenic rivers have received only incidental protection ; a comprehensive means of preserving a few remaining streams i~ needed to fill this vacancy in our national conservation program. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. ~We thank you for your positive and con~tructiye state- ment. Mr. Waklrop, T-I.R. 841~ places four rivers in the instant stage. Mr. WALDROP. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0266" 252 Mr. TAYLOL lou re1~ommend as many as possible be added. Mr. WAWROP. Added in the study category. Mr. TAYLOR. In the study. Mr. WALDROP. Yes. I asked for at least two examples of each type of scenic riverto be included in the instant category. Mr. TAYLOR. And at least two ~examples of each be included in the instant category. ~ ~ Doyou have any order of priority as to which rwers you would add to those four? Mr. WALDEOP. I may have some of my personal priorities from per. sonal association with some of the scenic rivers. They would be mostly in the East béc~use I am an easterner, but, no, we don't, as a club, have any specific recommendations on this point. Mr. TAYLOR. The Sierra Club would not recommend any? Mr. WALDROP. I am sure some of the chapters could, if the chairman desired, come up with a list of eight rivers ; two examples each of the four classes of scenic rivers provided for in Li.R 8416. Mr. TAYLOR. If you saw fit to doit, we would be glad to put that in the record. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to commend Mr. Waldrop for his statement. I am one of the first and most vociferous among those who critici~e the Sierra Club. I can tell you this, Mr. Waldrop, that if the Sierra Club could come in with some kind of a constructive statement. like this every once in awhile, and I consider this a con- structivestatement-~--- Mr. WALnROP. Thank you. Mr. ASPINALL. Instead of going whole hog as so often in the past. I wish to commend you on your first appearance before this committee. . M~r.WALDROP. Thank you very much. ~ Mr. TAYLOR. I, too, think this is a most constructive statement. Mr. WALDROP. Thank you, Mr. Chairmim. Mr. TAmoR. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. McCLmm. Mr. Chairman. I note on the third page of your statement, under paragraph 7 in which you are referring ~ to the study category, the last phrase says, "Insures that all of the values of a study river will be evaiu~ted to determine the overall desirability of protecting the candidate river or allowing it to be developed." This being a very forward-looking statement, I certainly commend you for having included that as a portion of your statement today. I have just one trouble with that. I think that there is some conflict between that and your recommendation that the list of instant cate- gories be expanded. Mr. WALDEOP. I would only expand the instant category by adding rivers on which complete studies have been made, by the Federal agencies involved, the States and local people, which together would decide upon the administrative particulars, and the managerial specifics of each instance. Further I am only asking for a couple of those, in order to define the classification system by example, and then PAGENO="0267" 253 for a study category, an enlarged study category to preserve our option to protect the rivers in this section. Mr. MCCLuaE. If the agencies are to make these studies of the so- called instant category rivers, when are they to make these studies? .. Mr. WALDE0P. Prior to their being included in this instant category.. I see examples of such studies in the maps displayed around the room. I understand the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has done quite a bit of research on these rivers. Mr. MCCLURE. It would be your understanding in making this recommendation, then, that such overall evaluation has been made prior to the recommendation for inclusion in the instant category? Mr. WALDROP. Yes, sir ; most definitely. `Mr. MCCLURE. And that if such a study had not been made, then your recornmendation wo~ild not be the same? Mr. WALDROF. I would want to see all the details ~f the river worked out in a public forum, a hearing, a public hearing, but having had the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation go into great detail the specifics of ad- ministration, the boundaries, the need for acquisition, if any, and so forth, for each instant river. Mr. MCCLURE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from California. Mr. .JoHNsoN. No questions. Mr. TAYLOR. Has counsel any questions? Mr. WITMER. No questions, thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Waidrop, we thank you very much. Mr. WALDROP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, the National Reclamation Association, James Sorenson, president. S1~ATEMENT OP JAMES P. SORENSEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EEC LAMATION ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY CARL BROWN, EX- ECIJTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. SORENSEN. With your `apprc~val, I would like to ask Mr. Brown to join me. Mr. TAYLOR. Glad to have you, and Mr. Carl Brown. He was here yesterday. I am sorry we didn't get to you. `. Mr. SORZNSON. My name is JameS F. Sorensen. I appear on behalf of the National Reclamation A~sociation. I am the president ~f that as~ sooiation, and Mr. Brown is the executive director. . Mr. Ohalrman, the National Reclamation Association opposes wild or scenic rivers legislation because the concept does not conform to the principles of multipurpose development which we have long sup- ported. Further, we feel that some of the provision's of the bills before the committee may lead to future conflicts over uses of water. Any river, or segment of river, to be designated wild or scenic should have had the benefit of comprehensive study-before designation-to reveal its value for other purposes. Lacking comprehensive study of the benefits to be forgone, no river or segment about which there is controversy within a State should be designated wild or scenh~, or in- PAGENO="0268" 254 ~1udéd for study, without the consent ~f the G~vernor or. 1egisiat~on of the State or States wherein the rivers flow We qiiestio~i a 5 year statuthry moratorium in effect for the studies on any local d~veIopment unless the States concur th such ~t delay We alsd c~t1l attention to the inclusion of th~ term "free flowing" andtheinteritiôn tó'pr~serve free flowbig ~o~ditións. if that intthition relates th `dethgriated boundaries the term would be easier understood. But, as written, the intent could be constriied as governing conditions outside o~ ~he boundaries established by th~ Congress for the wild ~nd scenic rivers system if a modification outside would affect flows inside of the boundaries. Wbhope that the Hou~ coththitt~ will safeg~rd against. any wor4in~ which would, in effect, exten4 the èôntr~JsOf an act ou±~1&of d~igiiathd boundaries. ~ : * * ~ . ~ We call attention to uncertainties which may arise in cOnnection with the lthntations on actions by non Federal agencies and individ- uals regathin~ the phrase "impair the purposes of tlie act," used in some' bills. This appears to be a restrictiOn which might limit acce~ to any exi~ting `fa~i'lities. We know of problems with such' restrictions in the case of primitive areas in Utah. Water stQr~ge `facilities eon- structed about 50 years ago are currently unu~b1e because of an inability of the owners properly to maintaiü the faci1iti~ dti~ to, the restrictions imposed by the Forest Service. A~the ~Wor1~s need repairs, petition to make the repairs and to bring in equipment mttst be made to the Forest Service. Restrictions imposed by, the ForOst Sër~vi~e `on equipment have ft~du'ôed excessive costs ; ` in fact; in ` sothe c~se~ ~ the estimates of cost have escalated the wOrk beyond the `means of, the fa~rmers. ~ ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` We are glad to furnish for the committee copies of information on this speciftc~, problem. , . . , ~ `` ````"" `~ ~ , To mo~~ ~om general to specific provisions, we note with approval th~e . int~WMo]~ of th~ following ~afeguards ~ in some `~f th~ bili~ `now being heard. ` ` ~ ` ` 1. Consultation with States for additions to the wild and scenic rivers system " (sitbseo. 4(b) of H.R. 8416) . ` * ` . " 2. Jurisdiction of States with respect to fish and wildlife (s~ibsec~ 14(a) H.R.84i~). ` ` ` 3. State water laws (subsec. 14(b) of ILR. 841'6) . ` ` 4~ ` Righ~s o~f ao~essby St'aths'to river beds (subsec. 14(e) H.R. 8416). 5. J~tcomp~nsa'tion for taking water rights (subsec. ~(f) of S~ 119). 6. A national wild and scenic riirer review board and related' pro- visions (see. 8 of S. 119). ` " ` ` ` , : 7. Lirnitingthe' extent of acquisition and ` of easements (s~e. 5 , of S. 119). , 8. Permitting roads and bridges and certain activiti~s' (subsec. 5(c) of S. 119). ~` `, Wild,:or scenic' rivers systems, or related features, may' require the use of water. Such' amounts and the purposes anticipated sh~uld be made known within `a certain period of time, in a manner as required by th~ States: PAGENO="0269" 255 In summary : We find that setting rivers aside for ~e~iic and rec~e~ ational purposes would violate the concept of multiptu~pose use of water resources. Should such a system be estthlished nevertheless, we urge that the safeguards as enumerated be . incorporated into the legislation. Otherwise2 the act will reach outside its boundaries to limit productive activities, and create uncertainties. There are today uncertainties enough-we hope to avoid adding to them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. You oppose any wild or scenic rivers. legislation of any type. Mr. Soiu~iNsoN. This would be our basic position, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. You realize that the Senate bill passed the Senate by unanimous vote? Mr. SORENSON. We do. Mr. TAYLOR. That is strong indication that some legislation might be adopted. Mr. Som~NsoN. It is, and I might say that is why we are here today. Mr. TAYLOR. You have studied the bills, H.R. 8416, for example? Mr. SORENSON. I have generally, and Mr. Brown has studied them in considerably more detail than I. Mr. TAYLOR. Proceeding on the theory that we are going to adopt that bill, or a version of it, do you have any specific recommendations as to amendments? Mt. SORENSON. I think we start off by saying that we certainly, as our testimony indicates, support a bill with a combination of many of the features that we find in the two House bills particularly that we have noted and the Senate bill that has come over. I wonder if Mr. Brown might comment more specifically, if that is what you had in mind, Mr. Chairman? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, I would like to hear any specific recommenda. tions for amendmex~ts or additional safeguards. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, sir. In the testimony we list a series of paragraphs we think would ~ô into any bill. Many of those are already in H.R. 8416. `Some you will find referred to in S. 119. Those are simply an extension of your basic concept with regard to water rights. There is another element specifically in H.R. 8416 on page 14, if you would care to refer to it, section 7, line 7. At the end of the line is the phrase, "directly `affecting any river," and this is repeated again, also, with regard to incorporating future rivers. We are concerned that we may have and elsewhere in the term "free flowing" specifically restrictions on a river which would extend beyond the boundariss designated in the act. Specifically, one might go upstream outsidea bounciai~and propose some kind of 4iversionary work, or a storage facility, and then we could say but that directly affects the area designated free flowing. Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. Mr. BROWN. Or it affects the free flow, either one, So, whereas the people would look at a segment of a river designated, actually the con. PAGENO="0270" I 256 trols of this bill could extend all the way up to all the contributing areas, and this disturbs us. If that could be corrected in here, there are many other aspects of this we think are fine. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado? .. Mr. A*SPINALL. Of course I can't understand that last statement. You make a very constructive~ritieism of part of the bill and I can understand that and then you state, after Mr. Sorenson said you oppose it in its entirety, that there are many aspects of the bill that are fine. Mr. BROWN. May I explain, sir? I was responding to the question if we were to take this specific bill, what would we have wrong with it, and related with that are the fac.. tors or paragraphs that we have enumerated in our testimony, which we think are right. Mr. AsPINAi~r~. I would simply state this, and I take no offense at the position the NRA wishes to present before the committee, but it just so happens that that position is not a practical position in. my opinion, and I doubt if it, the Reclamation Association, has a better friend than the chairman. You take the position that if a client takes a little bit of strychnine he will kill himself ; if he takes a lot he will be ableto survive, so you &re willing `to take a whole lot of strychnine, is that `it? Mr. SORENSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to Congressman Aspinall's comment, `or inquiry, I think our position here and our appearance is probably a practical recognition of certain things that nre liable to* happen, and while we would basically oppose a single- purpose use, particularly without study, we say if `this, however, is going to b~eome law, ` we say these `safeguard's should be put . in. Mr. ASPINALL. That is what we have `tried to do `in at least two of these' bills. Maybe we haven't' done it completely, and we `always like suggestion's from individuals interested. That is the reason we have hearings, and ~ we will pay attention to the suggestions made by Mr. Brown. ` ` My whole thought ~s not that the single-purpose concept is a con- cept not to be `suggested in certain instances, because we do recognize it in certain instances just as we recognize `the multipurpose concept in certain instances. But I would `have Mt a little bit better personally if this great `organization had come up `and `said, instead of just saying, "We oppose' it"-th~t' is `what the statem~nt is-if you have said. you oppose it "unless" or that you oppose certain sections of it. It would have. meant'a little bit more to me than just waving the flag and stop- pingthe race. Mr. SORENSEN. I think our effort here has been basically `to say we believe in `mutipurpose `concepts a's opposed `to single-purpose concepts, and then it is almost like saying, nevertheless, in the event that there is to be such legislation, we have suggested particular things `th'at we think `ought to be worked into it, and certainly we `are trying to be ~on~tructive, I would certainly assure the committee. PAGENO="0271" 257 Mr. ASFINALL. On the other hand, you don't want a saloon in the Ford Theater nowadays, do you? Mr. Sonm~si~. Certainly not. Mr. TAYLOR. Does the gentleman from Idaho have any questions? Mr. MOCLURE. I have no questions. Mr. TAYLOR. Thanl~ you very much for your testimony. Mr. Soni~NsEN. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. This ends our list of witnesses. In the `absence of objection, I would like to make a part of the record at this point `a statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation. This will be placed in the record `at this point. (The `statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF ~ AMSRICAN FARM BtmEAu FED~ATION, PRESENTED BY HERBERT A. WATIKINS, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECToR We appreciate the opportunity to present the views of our organization with respect to the many bills which aFe .known as "Scenic and Wild Rivers" legislation. The American Farm Bureau Federation is composed of Farm Bureaus in 49 States and Puerto Rico; representing 2,770 County Farm Bureaus having a combined membership of over 1,T50,000 member families. In preparing our testimony, we noted that the Department of Interior in its report to this Committee, on August 14, 1967, and its supplement ~ dated September 18, 1967, with regard to H.R. 90, H.R. 49~3, JLR. 3996, JLR. 6166, H.R. 6588, H.R. 8410 and S. 119 recommended enactment of H.R, 8416, with amend- ments. Therefore, we have used H.R. 8416 as our focal point in the preparation of our statement. Delegates to the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting said with respect to this matter: We are opposed to any proposal which would prevent the economic development of a stretch of river which has potential resource value for water supply, flood control, agriculture, forestry, recreation, tax income, or other economic use; or which would necessitate the taking of fee title to privately owned land; or which would unnecessarily involve federal responsibility for a river which is being adequately managed by a state. PREVENTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Water supply This legislation provides for an absolute halt to water development, , . . "on or directly affecting any river which is designated. , . ." Further, where State action is involved in establishing an area tinder the act, ". . . scenic rivers . . are to be permanently administered as sceitlic rivers. . . ." One can only conclude that once an area is established under the purposes of this Act, by Congressional Or State legislative action, that it shall remain so "permanently." Will the scenic or wild river use be in the best i;nterest of a state and its people as well as the nation? Which rivers are set aulde? They are the Rogue, Oregon ; the Rio Grande, New Mexico ; the S~a1mon and the Clearwater in Idaho. In Section 5 of the bill there are an additional 20 rIvers set aside for study. Is this the best use of these resources? I would direct the attention of the members of the Committee to the highlights of the House of Representatives Report Number 876, 90th Congress, 1st Session on S. 20, dated June 21, 1967: Purpose * . to provide for a comprebensI~e review of national water resource prob- lems and programs. PAGENO="0272" 258 Backgrotmd Point8 w,a~de 1. Water is precious and managemei~t problems are very cornpie~ ~ ~ 2. Consideration ShOuld be given to coi~ervation and augmenUttton of existing water supplies. ~ ~ ~, ~ 3. The commitssiou will judge the qua1it~~ ~f out ~r~sent ~1forth. 4. It will recommend 1Ong~r~tiige plans br the `futurO. ` ~ ~ ~ Ne~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Foi~nt8 macIe~ * ~ ~ ~ , . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. Auarnple supplv of water ts essential to growth. ~ 2. Greater attention must be given to ctnservation and thore é1flciei~t use. ~ 3. Our water supply is not dtstrtbuted to meet our most most urgent requirements. 4. In all areas there are serious problems because of goods and pollution. 5. National ~ requirements are rapi4ly continuln~ to ine±ease in telation to our available supply. t~; Water resource manage~eflt problems are becoml~g more complex. ~. A comj~rehensive review of national water r~source problems and pro- grams has become a matter of urgent need. ~ ~Ov~ the 48 contIguous states there Is ap~a~o~iixu~tely 30 inches. ot rainfall annually. 70% of thiS amount (21 inches) never become~~ a concentrated supply but is eva~oi~ted or transpired by vegetation. The ~`emainder, termed runoff, abcmt 1,100 bflli~i~ gallons i~er dayls called our gross, potentially available water sui~1y, In th~ l3Jast there is about i4~7 inches of average annual runoff. Phis a~comits for about 72% of the 48 contiguous states' runoff. In the West, a region c~vering1ii~re than half of the geographic area of the 48 contiguous states, thei~e is ~ttl~ 2.3 1n~hes of áver~ge annflfli runoff, This is less than 10% of the 48 contiguous states' average annual runoff. The Pacific Northwest being both i~rid and humid has au average annual r~flioff ofaI~out 11.7 inches~ Flood~ co~trQi . ~ ~ . We are opposed to any provision of law w~1eh will inipede èffo~th to control rivers by u~-stream flood preventi9n practices. tbie Watersbëd Pi~ê~tioi~ and Flood P~ventiofl~ Act has done much torestoré the face of this nation by pro- venting erosion In additioii dams economically justified have made other areas frequently ravaged by devastating floods inhabitable without the fear of InIj~end ing disaster. These activities have expanded The econOmic base of mr corn- munities, states and nation. Such resource rnana~ement ~ias made local govern- ments better able to cope with their many economic problems. Agrien1tur~~ ~ . . The U.S. ~e~ai~tm~nt of Agri~±iiitur~, thr~nighthe Soil Conservation Service, periodically develops a pröjectioii'~f latid shifts iht~ new uses. The 1965 report states that b~ 1t~'T~ an estima1~ed 101 ixtillion acres cd land will be needed for ner~~r uses as folloWs : ~ Thirty milllonacres for ~e* CI~oplanii, 44 thilhion acres for new pasture and rangé~ 1~ iilliofl ~t~a foi~ riewforest and wdodlan~i an~i 7 taillion acres for ~ . ~ther*~ie~vlithii 1ieé~s. ** * ~ , these ~tfe the ~stimated land n~ed~ ~id shifts In land uses In the next ten ydk~ ~Wii~t *111 tIle ñ~tian'sl~ntlri4~d~Lbe i~ the yet~r 2000? Obie~f. of the Forest Service Edward, P. Cliff, at the Annual Meetlhg of the Amerlétta So~fei~ of t~ange ~ft~bagt~theut on F~$rua~3r 7 1967 stated P~i*~tal~ieh ~i~è~üi~ee frarn ~ ~ intu~ot~ ~Mepie in i98~ ~t1lI require live- stock production on 950 million acres, or roughly half of oth~ total land area in just the next 13 years. ~ Wi~at happens to Zarip~s' ~?l~ r~p~e~rs' ~ource of water in the affected areas? What assñranée ~ ~her~ átfa~fné~r~ aM I~á~óh~ètS ~añ cóntth.iie s~iCh ~act1ces as are necessary to their economic survival? Who is liable If á reeteatfcinlst is Injured on private property? What recourse does a landowner have In recovering damages caused by vandals? These problems are faced by farmers and ranchers today. As one's property becomes more exposed to the public, his losses from such exposure Increase. PAGENO="0273" I 259 Taw income The remOval of private land into public ownership narrows the property tax base and~ causes local unita o~ government to become increasingly dependent on state and federal monies for operatin~ Income. The Tax Foundation, Inc., publication, "Facts and Figures on Government Finance, 162-1963", reported as follows: In 1902, property taxas~provided 73% of the revenue of local governmeiit. By the period 1956-4962, property taxes provided only 46% of the total ex- penditures of local government. During this ~ame period, the share of loeal government revenue from state and federal governments had risen from 6% in 1902 to 25% in 1957-1962. The "Wall Street Jour~ial" of February 18, 1964 reported: In the five-year period 1957-1962, the total expenditures for county gov- ernment rose by 46 percent and indebtedness increased by 470%. The debts of states have increased 448% since World War I. The per capita In- debtednessof state and local governments increased from $120 in 1046 to $467 in 1968. Water rights This legislation permits the Secretary of Interior to, in fact, control develop- meat of an entire watershed above the section of the river which has been set aside. Does this legislation delegate power to the administrator which would cause an h~trelth project tO have its function materially altered? Because of federal government's control of the entire upper watershed the government pre- einpts all righta to all water, whether they arise from reserved lands or private lands. We see representatives of many groups here requesting assistance that the water supply of their area might be expanded. This Is evidence of its extreme importance to local development. GOVERNMFL~P LAND OWNERSHIP Farmers and ranchers, members of Farm Bureau, subscribe to the land own- ership policy established by our founding fathers. This policy was new and was one that called for broad based private ownership of our land resources. As ti~ne passed, and new states were added to the Union, not all of the land withiü a new state's boundary was ceded to the state. . ~ Today, thirty nine percent of ~ the total land area In the nation Is state or federally owned and without taking into account the iS million acres estimated to be owned b7 cOunties and other local units pf government. The tOtal acreage acquired by the federalagencies from1912 to 1~433 Is reported by the General ServIces AdministratIbu to be 51,787,889 acres. This is equal in size to the area of the New England States, plus New Jersey and Maryland. ThIs Is a rate of acquisition over the period 1912 to 1963 of move than 900,000 acres per year. Just this past month the Secretary o~ Interior reported, that the J~urean of Outdoor RecreatiOn in 1967 p~rcbased for permanent public use some 1,71~,000 acres of land and accompanying water resources. In the e~even Western Statea, Arizpna, Ca1iforiiIa~ Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexicq, O~'egon, t~tah, Was~ir~gton, and Wyoming the federal gov- ernment.c~~ns approximately ~ acre~s. Thisrepresents 89% of the federal governme~t's lands. outsideAlaska, a~id~this is 54% of the total land area of the eleven contiguous states. ~ . ~ ~ According to our best Information, ~ 8416 propos~l would require the takl~g of ~Drivate~ lands in ~ stat~~ that~hav~ substantial percentages of public ~a~1s within ti~ir~b~oui~iarles. ~., ~ , ~ , ~ ~ .. ~ ~ , . ~ ~. ~ h~ ~3 4J~i~1 ~ -~ i ~ ~ ~ Approximate ownership Percent of State in public -~.- - ---- ownership Percent public Percent private Salmon Clearwater Rogue 95 95 95 65 5 5 5 35 Idaho, 67. Oregon, 53. New Mexico, 44. 92-560-68-18 PAGENO="0274" 260 Land Owned by the Federal Government: 1966 MILLIONS OF ACRE --TOTALLAND 2271Million acres ~ I Federa'Iy own d=Th5~j Nonlederally opined = 1506 Source: Chart prepared by Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Datft fro~i Gerteral Servfec~ Administration. In studying the legislation, the boundaries are established by specific xnap~. However, the Department of Interior in asking for an amendn~ent, wants the boundary determining power left with the Department. This removes the deci- sion.~making from the elected representatives of the people and places it in the hands of an employee of an executive agency. We are opposed to such abdication of power. If a scenic or wild river project is all that valuable, and in the public th~erest, It should have to be considered individually on its own merit. on December 22, 1964, a Select Subcommittee of the House Committe~ on Public Works issued a report entitled, "Study of Oompensatlon and Assistance For Per~ sons~ Affected By Real Property Acquisition in Federal and Federally Assisted Programs." This report said : . . ~ ~ ~ ~ The amount of disruption caused by Federal and federally a~sisted pro- grams is astoundingly large. The accelerated pace of GOveri~me~t activity, supported by broadened concepts of "public use", make any lessening of cur- rent activity in the foreseeable future highly unlikely, In each of the next 8 years, Federal and federally assisted prograru~ are expected `to require `the acquisition of real property from 183,000 sep~trate ownerships, and the displacement o~f appro~imately 111,080 ~ households, 17,860 businesses, 2,310 farm o~rations, and some disruption of an add~tiona1 1,350 farms. * . ~ The report went on to make many recommendations. As yet no legislatiOn has been passed to effectively cope with this most grevious problem. One of the corn- mittee's admissions was their inability to determine what effect government programs would have on land ownership over the next few years because of expanded programs. . Delegates to our annual meeting said: The power of eminent domain should not be used for national parks, wild- life refuges, riding and hiking trail's, or other reei~eationa1 proj~ets~ It should be used with restraint in other cases. PAGENO="0275" 261 It is our opinion that statutory designation of scenic rivers by Congress is not necessary. We would ~a1l your attention to the action of the State of Maine in re lation to the Allegash River. A state authority was established and funding was supported by the citizens by popular referendum. The shorelines and areas hav~ ing recreation potential will be developed without the implication of the federal governmenit and all the attendant problems. The management decisions are made within the concept of the best hiterest of the state, its economic development and by people knowledgeable in the public interest. We see no reason why this approach is not preferable to the bills before this committee. ` GOvERNMENT'S ROLE IN RECREATION In speaking of this snbject the delegates to our annual meeting said: .Locca pienning for resource use The development of recreational resources should be primarily the respon- sibility of state and local units of government and private enterprise. Conflicting demands on land, water, and recreational resources, both public and private, have resulted in demands for, and in some cases establishment of, local and state planning committees and interstate commissions to resolve eonfllcts on the basis of a coordinated approach. Local control is essential to ensure that planning and projects m~et local needs and objectives. Recreation is not the responsibility of the federal government. It, In fact, such facilities are needed they should be provided by local people or private enterprise. Figures 4 and 5 bear upon this consideration and we so direct your attention. NATIONAL TRAVEL-CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIPS: 1963 c~Bu~iness ~Vis~ ftienc!s & relatives * Other pleesure ~Other persona! Under IQO mites ~ 100- 1S93s * 200- 490 miles ~ 500 or ;::erc mites ~ OulsicI~t1~S. c~ 1 ~ 2 ncrso:is * 3 or 4 persons ~ 5 or n:o~c persons Source: Dei,t. of Cotnmerce, Bureau of the Census. Etgure 4 PAGENO="0276" 262 FIGURE 5.-VOLUME AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAVEL: 1963 (Numbor in millions. Based on interviews wIth nationwide probability sample of about 6,000 househo'ds tortoerning trips that ended between Jan. land Dec. 31, 1963W Subject to sampline errorl Item Trips I Travelers u . Number ~ Percent Number Percent ~57 Total ~ . Purpose of trip: Business Visit friends and relatives Other pleasure trips ~ Personaland family affairs_______________________ Transportation: Automobile ~Bus~ *_~ S Air ~ ~ ~ ~ Rail Other L Site of party: iperson ~__~ . 2 persons__~_~. ~ 3 or4 persons_____~__~_________________________ 5 or more ~ DIstance: ~ ~ Under 100 miles_ ~_ 100 to 199 ~ 20Dto 499 miles____. ~ 500 or more Outside United States_______________~___________ Duration of trip: 1-day trip Overnight trips: 1 night 2 nights~___________________________________ 3 to 5 nights~____________________________~__ 6 to 9 nights ~ ~ 10 or more Accommpdations ~ Commercial lodgings Friends end relatives Own cottage____~________________________~______ ~ 100 54 103 55 45 215 `11 ~ 9 141 58 42 16 119 73 41 19 17 78 66 49 21 26 (4) (4) ~4) (4 (4 66 219 123 79 4~5 13 17 10 12 ~` 14 45 25 16 89 3 ~ 2 141 116 *145 85 ~ 29 24 30 17 224 141 78 34 10 46 ~29 16 7 2 32 7 157 127 87 39 45 2,022 487 1, 032 185 319 32 26 1~ 10~ 24 `51 9 16 21 40 21 18 84 ` F 3 4 55 23 16 , 6 46 28 16 8 2. 6 31 26 19 8 10 (4) (4) ~4) (4 (4 1 A trip Involves 1 or more members of a household goIng out of town overnight or going to a plaàe 100 mIles or more on a 1-daytrip. Comprisestripstaken torah purposes, lncludingattendingschool outof town. 2 A traveler is a person on a trip and Is counted each time he takes a trip. a Accommodationeshown in traveler-night units defined asthe number of n~ghts each person spenton the trip, exclusive of accommodations used by students while attending school out of town. 4 Not applicable. Source: Department of Comnverce, Bureau of theCensus; 3963 CensUs of Transportatiqn, vol. I, transpàrtation Survey.. From :tJ'igures 4 and 5 one can r~adi1y determii~e that less than 22% of the trips taken were in the category of pleasure which might have been associated with smue park or other such publl~ recreatlon~1 faclljt~t ~ service area. Further we note that 74% of the trips take1i were under 200 miles and only 22% of the groups Ilild more than two people. There are our 10 largest cities and an indh~ation of their population density per square mile. Density.per square rnHa~. Population 10 largest cities: 1 New York N.Y ~ ~ ~ Chicago, lii ~ ~ Los Angeles, Calif Philadelphia, Pa Detroit, Mich Houston, Tex Baltimore, Md Washington, D.C Dallas, Tex Cleveland, Ohio 24, 697 15; 836 5, 447 15,743 11,964 2, 923 11,993 12,442 2, 676 10,789 8, 020, 000 : 3, 4604 000 2,810,000 2, 040, 000 1, 560, 000 1,150,000 915,000 815, 000 795, 000 790, 000 487 1 "Rand-McNally Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide." 2 "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1967." PAGENO="0277" 263 The rivers whleh are named in this legislation are not near the large popula- tion centers. They are not designed to serve the needs of large numbers of people who don't even have a yard. This legislation is designed to benefit the few who have the time and can afford the expenses associated with such activities. This legisla:tion is patently special interest and violates the multiple use con~ cept in the management of our resource base. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Oomm&ttee, we are greatly Loncerned With the matters discussed above. We are opposed to this legislation and recommend that this Committee not report this legislation. We thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, I would like to have put in the record at this point a letter to Chairman Aspinall, dated February 23, 1968, from Congressman Hungate, and a letter dated February 21, 1968, addressed to Chairman Aspinall from Congressman William J. Bandall. They will be made a part of the record at this point. (The letters referred to follow:) CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 23, 1968. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN ASPINALL : In conjunction with the Marth Hearings on the Creation of a Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System I would respeethilly request that every consideration be given to designating the Eleven Point River from Thomasville, Missouri, downstreams to the Missouri state line in each of the proposals considered. Your courteous attention is appreciated. With kind regard, I remain Sincerely yours, WILLIAM L. HUNGATE. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 21, 1968. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN : I am in receipt of a copy of the letter written to you by Governor Warren Hearnes of Jefferson City, Missouri, urging that the Eleven Point River from Thomasvllle, Missouri, downstream to the Missouri state line be included as a stream for Immediate designation In the proposals soon to be considered. Since most of this river lies within the boundaries of the Mark Twain Na- tional Forest and much of the river and watershed is already In Forest Service ownership, It would seem beneficial to the State of Missouri that the rest of this river should be incorporated Into the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. As Governor Hearnes states, an excellent plan for the preservation of the river has been developed and is available from the Forest Service. I `would hope that your Committee will consider these views and give favor- able consideration during the hearings. Sincerely, WM. J. RANDALL, Member of Congress. Mr. TAYLOR. The subcommittee will stand adjourned. ( Whereupon, at 12 :30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to call of the chair.) PAGENO="0278" PAGENO="0279" NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Siir~coMMrr'ri~ ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION OF THE CoMMrrri~E ON INFERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, ~ Was1th~gton, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, lion. Roy A. Taylor (chairman o~ the subcommittee) presiding. ~ ` Mr.. T4YLOR. The~ Sithctnaithttee on~National Parks and Recreation will come to order. We will continue hearings on H.R. 8416 and H.R. 90 and corn- pardon bills. I will say to those present that several days of hearings have already been held on this legislation. We have heard the departmental wit- nesses and we have heard organizations. We are now meeting to hear private citizens. We have approximately 50 witnesses who have re- quested they be heard in the next 2 days. We cannot meet this after- noon, because another subcommittee will be meeting in this room. We desire to be fair to all witnesses, and give each an opportunity to be heard and to divide up the time fairly. Each witness, of course, will be permitted to place his entire state- ment in the record when he comes to the stand. I recognize the gentleman from Colorado for a unanimous-consent request. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each witness be limited to not over 5 minutes, and I mean 5 minutes, and I will ask that some consultant call attention whenever 4 minutes has elapsed. I would also admonish my colleag'ues to be very considerate in the ~u~e of tinie as far as thequestioning is coticerned. This i~ th~ only way we can be fair to all. All statements will be analyzed by the staff. Although you may think that you have the most important problem there is in the world and you have spent a lot of time on it, nevertheless it happens that Congress has only so much time at its disposal, and we want to make as good a record as quickly as possible. We don't have more than the 2 days which are now allotted to these hearings. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection it is so ordered. Witnesses who have a common interest in the same stream will be called up in groups, you can then place your individual statements in the record and each take your 5 minutes' time or if you prefer you can pool your time and select one spokesman and he can take all the time or you can divide it up in any manner as you see fit. (265) PAGENO="0280" 266 Our first witness is Mr. John M. Nelson, superintendent of the de- partment of lighting, city of Seattle, Wash. I believe Mr. Nelson has probably come farther than any other witness. Mr. NELSON. Thank you, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. I might saythis is a good day to have the~e hearings if it continues to raii~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S~tATEME~&T OP JORN M. NELSON;S~7PZRINTERDENT, ]YEPARTNENT op LIGHTING, CITY~ ~OP ~ S&ATTL~E, ~W~AS1!. ~ ACCOMPANIED B! ROBERT L McCARTY, ATTORNEY, WASIIINGTON, D.C. Mr. NELSON. T1~ isMr. McCarty, an attorney in Washington. Mr. Ohairmam, I hwc~ a staternent~I am sure will not take~more than the tthie allotted; and I will proceed, with your pleasure, sir. ~ Mr.Ohainn~n, and ine~nbers of the committee, my name i~ Jo'hnM. ~els~n. I. aju Superintend~nt of the ~Jity' ~f Seattlc~ ~ D~pä~rt~meut of Lighting, a municipally owned utility serving over ThO~GOO~customers mthemetropolitanarea ofSeattle. Myoffice is inthe City Light Build- ing, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Wash., 98104. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ The city o1~ Seattle .. Depathnent of Lighting feels thaV the wild rivers bill piaces restrictions on the development of th~ pro~posed c~pp~ Cre~k project that will adversely affect our long-i'ang~ plans :tor the totaj d~weJopment on the Skaglt River and is inconsistent with S. ;U3~1, whichijsth~ N~rU~.Oasc~de~ ParkbiU. ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ On December 21, 19i8~ Seattle: City Light reo&W ? ed a ii~ense from the Departv~nt of. Agrh~tiTture a .. llowing ~us ~ to develop the ~ Skagit Rw9r~. ~ In the> years rthat~ have followed we have developed the fol- 1o~wing three. facilities . of the proposed four facilities' on th~ main stem of the Skagit River : ~ ~ ,~ ~ , ~ , ~ (1) Ross Dam and ~ Reservoir, ~ which is the farthest . upstream on the river and consists of a dam which is 625 feet high and ~ a lake 22miles long which extends into Canada ; (2~ Diabl~ deve~lopment, which consists of a dam 389 feet high with a lake 4 miles long; (3) Gorge Dam, which is 300 feet high with ca lake 4 rni1e~slong. ~ ~ The proposed~ Copper Creek development is located on the Skagit Ri*rer about 9 . miles .. downstream from the Gorge plants, . which is loc~tted at the town of. New 1~ aiem~ The area through which the Skagit River flows ~at~ this point consists of land covered in the most. part by second-growth timber and bushy alder. The land shown in white bQi~de~ring ti~ river thithis st~etc~Ja iaiuo~-Federal land, rn~ch of which is owned by City. Light. This refers to the map which is attached to t~he~ statement.1 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . S ~ , Th~ plaiit would serve a dwd purpose in that it will provide storage capacity ziecessary for the rereg~datio~~ of the : di~scharge froni the upstream plants, resulting in a very uniform flow plus giving us the output of the proposed Coppe~r £re~k plant which would have an installed capacity of approxirn~tely 80,000 kilowatts. Reregtilation of th& S1~agit River will become nec~ss~ry as the demands on hydrogeneration for ie~kii~g purposes inorease in order that the variations in the river stages;be held. to a rnhdmum down- 1 Map was placei in committee file. PAGENO="0281" 267 stream. On the plus side for nonpower purposes, reregulating the river will f9rm a lake much more desirable for recreational uses such as boating, fishing, et cetera, than the river in its original form. Reregulatioii also should be a `benefit to downstream navigation. Senate bill 119, through its inclusion of the Skagit River from the town of Mount Vernon upstream to Gorge powerhouse near the town of Newhalem, would embrace the Copper Creek site and include it among the rivers to be studied over a 5-year period immediately following the passage of the bill. Section 6 of the bill prohibits any action by the Federal Power Commission during the period of that study. In addition, pending House bills include this reach of the Skagit, although treating the river somewhat differently. For example, H.R. 90 would also include this reach of the Skagit River as part of the national scenic river system (sec. 3(a) (11) ) which precludes FPC jurisdiction (sec. 6(a) ) . Another House bill, 8416, also includes the Skagit and the Copper Creek site although only for study (sec. 5 (a) (17)), as in S. 119. ` In contrast, th~ possible developmertt of Copper Creek was recog- nized and provided for by the Senate in its action on S. 1321, to pro- vide for the North Cascades National Park, the Ross Lake National Recreation Areas and other purposes. This region embraces the upper Skagit `and all oi! the city's present power development in that area. The Senate included the Copper Creek Dam and Reservoir site within the Ross Lake National Recreation Area, the Senate committee having c~bserved: As the boundaries were previously drawn, half of the reservoir site would be within the national recreation area and half within the national forest. The superintendent of Seattle City Light asked that the recreation area boundary be extended to place the entire site within one administrative unit. (See S. Rept. No. 700, ROth Cong., 1st Sess.) I wOuld say the problem that is described above can be cured very readily in certain suggestions we make in the latter part of my state- ni~nt, and in conclusion I would like to say I appreciate very much the opportuthty to be here. (Statement of Mr. Nelson follows:) STATEMENT OI~' JOHN M. NELSON, SUraEINTENDENT OF THE CITY oi~ SEATTLE, DEPAEP~IE1~tT OT LIGHPTNO Mr. Chairman and members of the C~th~ittee, my name is ~c~hn `M. Nelson. I am Superintendent of the City of Seattle, Department of Lighting, a mnnlclpaiiy- owned titility serving over TO~,OOO cu~tomers in the metropolitan area of Seattle. My office is in the City Light Building, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washhigton ~81O4. ~ The City `of Seattle, Department of Lighting, feels that the Wild Rivers bill places restrictions on the development of the proposed Oopper Creek Pi~oject that will adversely affect our long range plans for the total development on the Skagit River and l~ inconsisteilt with S. 1821. On Decembei~ 21, 1918, Seattle City Light received `a llcens~ from the Depart- inent of Agriculture allowing us to develop the Skagit fliver. In the years that have followed we have develOped the `foikwing three facilities of the proposed four facilities on the main stem of the Skagit River: (1) Ros~ Dam and reservoir, which~ i~ the furth~rest upstream on the river and consists of a dam which is 625 f~et hl~h `and a lake 22 mties long which extends into Catiada; (2) Diablo development which consistS ~f a dam 389 feet high with a lake four miles long; PAGENO="0282" 268 (3) gorge Dam which is 800 feet high with a lake four miles long. The proposed Copper Creek development is located on the Skagit River about nine miles downstream from the Gorge plant which is located at the town of Newhalem. The area through which the Skagit River flows at this point' con~ sists of land covered in the most part by second growth timber and bushy alder. The land shown in white bordering the river in this stretch is non-federal land much of which is owned by City Light. The plant would serve a dual purpose in that it will provide storage capacity necessary for the re-regulation of the dis- charge from the upstream plants resulting in a very uniform flow plus give us the output of the proposed Copper Creek plant which would have an installed capacity of approximately 80,000 kilowatts. Re-regulation of the Skagit River will become necessary as the demands on hydrq gen~ration for peaking purposes increase in order that the variations in theriver stages be held to a minimum downstream. On the plus sidefor non~ower purposes, re-regulating the river will form a lake much more desirable for~ recrè~ ational uses such as boating, fishing, etc., than the river in its original form. Re-regulation also should be a benefit to downstream navigation. Senate Bill 119, through its inclusion of the Skagit River from the town of Mount Vernon upstream to Gorge powerhouse near the town of Newhâlem, would embrace the Copper Creek site and include it among the rivers to be studied over a five-year period immediately following the passage of the bill. Section 6 of the bill prohibits any action by the Federal Power Commission during the period of that study. In addition, pending House Bills include this reach of the Skagit, although treating the river somewhat differently. For example, H.R. ~9o would also include this reach of the Skagit River as part of the National $cenic River System (Sec. 3(a) (11) ) which precludes FPO jurisdiction (Sec. 6(a) ) . Another House Bill 8416 also includes.the Skagit and the Copper O~eek site although onlyfor stusly (Sec. 5(a) (17)), as in S. 119. In contrast, the possible development of Copper Creek was recogMzed and prOvided for by the Senate in its action on S. 1321, to provide for the North Cascades National Park, the Ross Lake National Recreation Areas, and other purposes. This region embraces the upper Skagit and all of the City's present power developments' In that area. The Senate included the Copper Creek dam and reservoir site within the Ross Lake National Recreation Area, the Senate Committeehaving observed: "As the boundaries were previously drawn, half of the reservoir site would be within the national recreation area and half within the national forest. The superintendent of Seattle City Light asked that the recreation area boundary be extended to place the entire site within one administrative unit." (See S. Rept. No. 700, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1ii67), p. 30). Section 5O~ of S. 1821 specifically recognizes continued FF0 jurisdiction within the recreation areas. Thus, this treatment of the reach of the Skagit which covers the Copper Creek site is at variance with inclusion of this reach in any of the wild rivers categories. The problem above described can be cured very readily through amending the definition for the Skagit in the pending wild rivers bills to exclude the reach from Bacon Creek to the Gorge powerhouse. With particular reference to S. 119, this change could he accomplished through an amendment as follows: In S. 119, at page 7, lines 1 and 2, delete the words "to Gorge powerhouse near the town of Newhalem ;" and insert the words "to and including the mouth of Bacon Greek". In full text, the change in S. 119 (pp. 6, 7) with reference to the Skagit would be as follows (delete part in black brackets ; insert material italicized): (7) Skagit, Washington-the Skagit from the town of Mount Vernon up~ stream (to Gorge powerhouse near the town of Newhalem] to and including the mouth of Bacon Creek ; the Cascade River from its mouth to the confluence of the North and South Forks ; the Sauk from its mouth to ~llllott Creek ; and the Suiattle from its mouth to Milk Creek. The same could be accomplished in H.R. 8416 by changing Lines 7-9, on page 10, to read as follows: "(17) Skagit, Washington: The Skagit from the town of Mount Vernon up- stream to and including the mouth of Bacon Creek ;" I appreciate very much this opportunity of appearing before your Honorable Committee and hope that this clarifies our position in connection with the development of this stretch of the Skagit River. PAGENO="0283" 269 Mr. TAYLOR. Copper Creek is a tributary of the Skagit River? Mr. NJ~LSON. Copper Creek is a small creek, sir. It is just used to identify a location. The creek that is principally concerned as far as a definition of the wild river boundaries was, I believe, Bacon Creek, which we are suggesting as being the upper limit of the area that should be included for study. Mr. TAYLOR. Skagit River is in the study stage. Do you request that wetake in that river up to Copper Creek, but leave it out? Mr. NELsoN. We are suggesting that you include the Skagit River from whatever points you start downstream up to and including Bacon Creek, which is a rather substantial tributary of the Skagit. Our use ofthe term Copper Creek is merely to~ identify a location of a proposed dam and that is the only significance that that word has. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas. Mr. Skubitz? Mr. SRTJBITZ. No questions. Mr. TAYLOR. Does anyone have any questions of this witness? If not, Mr. Nelson- Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question, please? Let me see if I understand your situation. You want that stretch of the Skagit River from Bacon Creek to Ncwhalem excluded from the bill? Mr. NELSON. This is our request ; yes, sir. Mr. KAZEN. I see, thank you. Mr. MEEDS. I realize I am not a member of this subcommittee, but 1 would like to take the opportunity to welcome Mr. Nelson here, and to inform the committee that I have been working with him on this problem, and have `advised counsel of the problem which the Seattle City Light faces, and I hope that proper consideration will be given ~t;o it. Mr. TAmoR. Is this in your district, Mr. Meeds? Mr. MEEDS. Yes, it is. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you share his views~ Mr. MEEDS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much. Mr. NELSON. Thank you very much. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. James A. Fretwell, Los Alamos, N. Mex. Without objection, the entire statement of Mr. Fretwell will be placed in the record. STATEMENT OP JAMES H. PRETWELL, EXPLORER POST 20, BOY SCOUTS OP AMERICA . Mr. Fiu~wi~r~~. Thank you. Tt~ is a privilege to come before this House committee tO present opinions favorable to a national scenic river system, and particularly one including designated portions of the Rio Grande. My name is James H. Fretkwell, committee chairman of Explorer Post 20, Boy Scouts of America, Los Alamos, N. Mex. My Explorer Post 20, which consists of young men ages 14 through 17, has as its own special activity the exploring of wild rivers of the West. These wild rivers are one of the few remaining frontiers of our Nation that remain in the same condition as the early pioneer explorers PAGENO="0284" I 270 such as Lewis and Clark or Maj. Wesley Powell first foun.d them in the last cmtury. This opportunity to explore the canyon's of these wild desert rivers in the Southwest is rapidly diminishing due to the numerous power darns `and subsequent loss of water by evaporation. in spite of these problems for 17 years, Explorer Post 20, with an average membership of 30 boys, has managed to~ n-iaintahi this program on the remaining wild rivers of the Southwest. The young men who have participated in this type of expedition agree that river e~pioratio~a trips are unex- celled f~r tru~ ~ adventure. ~ . Co~equently, this rewarding activity is continued each year with enthusiasm among the Explorer Scouts and staff'f~r the unique excite- ment and beauty that can be found only along our wild and untamed rivers. In fact, we note that this sport is not limited exclusively to Explorer Scouts since Explorer Post 20 quietly followed Senator Ken~ nedy down the Middle Fork of the Salmon during July of 1~6O. We read of his continuing white water adventures more recently on the Hudson River Gorge, this last May, including Secretary of the In- tenor IlYdall ~srith their farnilie~. This sport has become so' popular during recent years that the State of UtaI~ has required all ~omm~rci~l river boatmen and guides to take an extensive qualifying examiiiation before taking passengers for hire. While not required on the nonprofessional Expiorer Scout trips in tFt~h, I am proud to ha~ passed this~ examination and persoimily rOwed or paddled myown raft, canoe, ôi~ kayak dc~*n ne arly 2,000 miles of S~uthwestorn rIvers, including leading Explorer Post members, during the past 17 years, 9~,.540 man-miles without any accidents. The nearby Rio Grande, as pictured here, has always been ~ of great value to Explorer Post 20's activities. This principal river down the middle of New Mexico is the training ground for all white water boat- men in New Mexico. Consequently, this great recreational resource pro- vides the basis of our activities. To date we have 12,619 river man-miles logged on the Rio Grande and its chief tributary, the Rio Chama. We, therefore, want the Rio Grande, in northern New Mexico, protected and preserved in its present wild~rness state. We believe the national sc~nic river System to be the best policy in the Nation's future interest to preserve specific portions of noteworthy rivers, including the Rio Grande. I will skip parts of my statement here and move ahead in view of th~bre~vity of time. It should be noted that northern New Mexico is not the only place where the Rio Grande should be designated a wild `and scenic river. Senator Yarborough, of Texas, provided an añiendment to the Senate- passed ~ild rivers bill (S. 119) to include the Big Bend section of the Rio Grande, from' Presidio to Langtry, Tex., as a river to be studied for possible future designation as a wild river. Part of this area is in Big Bend National Park. One can get `some hint of the wild beauty of this region by looking at the 30-page arth~ieon Big Bend in the January 1968 is~ue of the N'atioiial Geographic magazine (voL 133, No. 1). This section was selected by Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnsom for a vacation trip by inflated rubber rafts in 1966. The canyons below the park have been scheduled for a national Sierra Club river trip in November 1968 PAGENO="0285" 271 which will do much to publicize this spectacular but little known section. The most exciting scenery in the Big Bend country is the canyons of the Rio Grande, and these are best seen from the river. It is a happy coincidence that this section is one of the finest canoeing streams in the United States. It is only recently that knowledge of this recrea- tional resource is spreading. Articles on boating in the Big Bend ap- peared in the spring 1966, winter 1966, and summer 1967 issues of Anmncan White Water. Now boaters other thaii the regulars from Texas and New Mexico are eager to try these runs. In fact, one couple came from Germany to boat the Big Bend this year. The Big Bend section of the Rio Grande is more than wild and scenh. It is unique in this country. It certainly deserves serious con- sider~tion as a national scenic and wild river. MCst questions have been about landownership and I would like to cover that more specifically concerning the Rio Grande. In north- em New Mexico section of the Rio Grande, the river has cut a deep canyons through the rock, frequently with steep walls ; these steep wails aiid steel) c].iffs have i)revell.ted roads wncl even trails in many l)laces within these canyons. Mr. TAYLOR. You have 1 additional minute. I have asked our staff man to maybe sound a warning. Mr. FI~ETWELL. Fine, I will listen for him to say 1 additional minute. This fact has preserved the wilderness aspect, by acting as a natural barrier to the intrusion of man. Since there is no room for roads or trails, there is no room for fields to grow crops, or the need for water to iii~gat*e tiieiii~ for this reason the vast niajority of all land along this section of the Rio Grande has never been homesteaded and is already in Federal or State land ownership. This makes the transfer of land an administrative matter, rather than one of payment to pri- vate ownership. For this section of the Rio Grande there would be no loss of taxes to the local county because of Federal land being transferred to wild river status. The Rio Grande at 1,885 miles is the fifth longest river in North America, and provides much of the boundary between the TJnited States and Mexico. At present approximately 70 miles in New Mexico are proposed for immediate inclusion within the national scenic river system. In Texas, a larger portion should be studied for future des- ignation as a wild river. The least we can do for future Explorer Scouts, fishermen, picnickers2 and boatmen is to let them discover for themselves a stretch of the river as our forefathers have. (Statement of Mr. Fretwell follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES H. FRETWELL, EXPLORER POST 20, Bo~ SCOUTS OF AMERICA Mr. Ohairman : It is a privilege to come before this house committee to present Opinions favorEbie `to .a National Scenic River System, and particularly one 1n~ eluding designated portions of the Rio Grande. My name is James H. Fretwell, committee chairman o~ Explorer Post 20, Boy Scouts of America, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Since volunteer leaders of Boy Scout units usually have more friends than they have funds, support for my trip, here, has been received from the Los Alamos Chapter of the Isaak Walton League of America, The Los Alamos Mountaineers, The Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Olub, The Los Alamos Kiwanis Club, Ex- plorer PoSt 20 of The Kit Carson ~Jouncil Boy Scouts of America and the Los Alamos Outdoor Association, Inc. p PAGENO="0286" 272 BACKGROUND Explorer Post 20, which consists of young men ages 14 through 17, has as ita own special activity the exploring of wild rivers of the West. These wild rivers are one of the few remaining frontiers of our Nation that remain in the same condition as the early pioneer explorers such as Lewis and Clark or Major Wesley Powell first found them in the last century. This opportunity to explore the canyons of these wild desert rivers in the . southwest is rapidly diminishing due to the numerous power dams and subs& quent loss of water by evaporation. In spite of these problems for 17 years~ Explorer Post 20, with an average membership of 30 boys has managed to n~ain~ tam this program on the remaining wild rivers of southwest. The young ~nenWho ha\re participated in this type of expedition agree that river exploration tri~s are unexcelled for true adventure. Consequently, this rew~trdlng activity is eom tinued each year with enthusiasm among the Explorer Scouts and Staff for the unique excitement and beauty that can be found only along our wild and un- tamed rivers. In fact, we note that this sport is not limited exclusively to Ex- plorer Scouts since Explorer Post 20 quIetly followed Senator Kennedy down the Middle Fork of the Salmon during July of 1986. We read of his continuing white water adventures more recently on the Hudson River Gorge, this last May, in- eluding Secretary of the Interior Udall with their families. This sport has become so popular during recent years that the State of Utah has required nfl commercial river l~oatmen and guides to take an extensive qi~alify- ing examination before taking j~assengers for hire. While n~ot required on the non-profes~ional Explorer Scout trips in Utah, I am proud to have passed this~ exariui~ati'on and personally rowed or paddled my own raft caiToe or kayak down nearly 2,000 miles of southwestern rivers including leading Explorer Posl members during the past 17 years ~7,54O man-miles without any accidents. The nearby Rio Grande has always been of great value to Explorer Post 20's aetirities. This~ principal river dow~i the middle of New Mexico is the tra1nhi!g~ ground for all whitO water boatmen in New Mexico. Oonsequently, this ~r~tVree~ r~ational resouree pr~vides the basis of our activities. To date we have 12,619k river man miles logged on the Rio Grande and its chief tributary the Rio Ohama. We therefore want the Rio Grande, in Northern New Mexico, protected `and pre- served in its present wilderness state. We believe the National `Scenic River System to 130 the best policy in the Nation's future interest to preserve specific portions of n'~te~orthy rivers, including the Ri~ Grande. `S~ecifieally let ns exam- inc the several features of the Rio Grancle South from the Oolorado~New Mexieo~ border to the town of Pilar as described in several of the bills. This is a part of the canyon that I am personally familiar with, having m'ade numerous raft trips over the lower section between Dunn's bridge `at the confluence of the Arroy~o~ Hondo and the town of Pilar. RAFTING, KAXAKING, AND CANOEING ON TRE RIO GEANDE IN NORTHERN NEW MEXICO The Rio Grande is the primary white water b'oattng river in New Mexico. The water flow in nearty au the `other rivOrs and streams Is seasonal with adequate water only in the spring. All sections have been boated, and most of it Is being run with increasing regularity. Rubber rafts, kayaks, and canoes are the standard craft for this snort. The people participating range from sm~al1 family groups to large scouting organi~a- ti'ons. `Plus section of river offers run of nll levels of difficulty to match the skills of `all beaters. .So much interest In this section of the river is `being shown by out-of-state boaters that a river running guide book is being prepared. It is `indeed fortunate that the best white water beating stream In the state flows tbeough such wild and beautiful ~ountry. This lu~ky combination Is bec~m- ing all t~o rare. A run on a clear splashing stream down a sheer-walled canyon, isolated from the everyday cares of the eivillz~d~w1ôrld, Is most certainly an Ox- petience and an opportunity worth preserving by a Wild and Scenic ~R!ver System. PAGENO="0287" 273 RAFTING, KAYAKING, AND CANOEING ON THE RIO GRANDE IN NORThERN NEW MEXICO Costilla 0 XUte Peak N OQuesta ed River o Arroyo Hondo Dunn's Bridge COLORADO flSHIN~G ~r~e upper `Rio Gra.ude provides ex~eep1iiona1 trout flshlug. To quote froui "Me~ Laue'sFishixig Eneyciopedia and Xuternatlonãi A4wgllng Guide.1 1McClane's Standard Fishing Encyclopedia and International AngLlng Guide. Very wild. Intermediate run. Beautiful small canyon. Few rough trails to river. No roads in canyon. NEW MEXICO Most difficult boating. Seldom run. Deep canyon. Many excellant trails to river, No roads in canyon. Popular for fishing. Includes Gorge Recreation Area. 0 Sunshine Valley Wild. Expert run. Deep canyon. Several good trails to river. No roads in canyon. 0 Cerro 1: ~ild. Evpert ru~i. Popular with rafters,. `Very deep' and narrow canyon. Few rough trails to river. No roads in canyon. Road along river. Easy run. Good camping, picnickin'g.,, and swimming. Favorite spot for beginning boaters. High Bridge (no access to river) 0 Taos jTaos a Pilar 0 Rincpnada Road along river. Expert run, Site of annual Rio Grande White Water Race. Junction Bridge 0 10 20 Miles 30 C. Carnes 1968 PAGENO="0288" 274 "New Mexico's biggest ai~d best ti~oii~ ~trearn is the Rio Grande. From the New Mexico-Colorado beundary seuth for 80 miles this rearing river win~ds its ter- tu~us ways `through a 400-600 foot deep gerge of cliffs and borulders. The Rio Orancie Box Canyon, as it is known, is truly a fabulous fishing water. The North- em ~O miles of it is a magnificent wild river, accessible only by foot trails except where one state road crosses it. Rainbow and brown trout abound there and at- tain great size-regularly ~ pounds, frequently to 8 pounds and occasionally up to 15 jiounds or over. They are a wild, fighting trout in turbulent water to tax the angler's skill in `an awe-inspiring setting". The large springs pouring into the Rio Grand river 10-15 miles `below the Oolorado-New Mexico stateline reduce temperature variations and encourage an abundance of plant nad animal life. These factors result in `a high growth rate wh'ieh produces the large fish for which the river Is famed. HIKING The main attractions for the hiker are the fishing `and the magnificent views of the canyon itself. The hiker also finds the area warmer and open earlier and later than most wilderness `hiking areas In the state. Hiking groups such as the Los Aiain'os Outdoor Association and various Eoy Scout troops make numerous trips into all areas. Hikers find the spectacular view while enroute more than `ample eompensation for the rather `tedious ~lrive `they must make `to reach the canyon rthnL FLOOD CONTROL A(YJ~ The Flood Control Act of 19~8 (P.L. 916) authorIzed a comprehensive plan for the development of the middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. The project was to consist of irrigation and drainage works, channel rectification, physical and financial rehabilitation of the Irrigated and related areas, levees for local flood protection, and the construction or improvement of reservoirs. ThIs was a Joint project of the `Bi~a~i of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. Much of this work has already been done, including building Ablqui dam, and the start of Oochitl and Galisteo Dams. One element of the plan, as originally proposed, was the Ohiflo Dam, which would have been ne~r~y in,the middle of the proposed Wild River part of the Rio Grande, just above the confluence of Red River with the Rio Grande. This dam. wan not authorized as part of the E'lood Control Act of 1948 because of objections on the part ofOoio'rado and Texas. It was pointed out that there was ample flood control and Irrigation storage already provided In the bill, and that the dam could not be justified for power generation because of the large amount of water which would have to be stored to make power generation feasible. About three- quarters of a million aere-fect of water would have had to be stored permanently behind the dam. About 60,000 acre-feet of water would have `been lost to evapora- tion annually. Since the dam would have been solely for hydropower, the revenue to be expected from the dam wOuld hare been only about one-fifth of the annual cost of the dam. These factors which resulted in the elip~h~ttLon of the Chiflo Dam from the original bill have, If anything, become even more Important since the bill was passed in 1948. Other power sources have become more competitive and the water has become more valuable due to increasing population. Any further need for flood control in the future: ~an be more satisfactorily accomplished by proper range and soil conservatien snitnagement on the~ar~oyos and tributaries emptying~ Into the Rio Grande. The designation of this part of the river for Wild River status will ln,no way Interfere with such activities on the Rio Grande watershed. THE BIG BEND OF THE RIO GRANDE It should be noted that northern~NewMexico is not the only place where the ,Rio ~lrancje shpul~I l~e desl~gi~atççl ~, Wild and Scenic River, Senator Yarboreqgh, of Texas provided an ~uxie$meut to the ~enate passed Wild Rivers Bill (S 119) to include the B'i~ Bentl'sectionof'the' TtlorGrande, frEmPt~sid1o'to Langtry, Texas, as a,river `tobe, studied, fqr possible future de~l~i~tlQn a~ a wild ritèr. Part of this t~tL Is in l~l~ t~end ~Nationai'Dark. One `c~n ~get `s~ttne hint of the wild beauty of this region by looking at the thirty page article on Big Bend in the January 1068 issue of the National Geographic Magazine (Vol. 133, No. 1). I I PAGENO="0289" 275 This section was seie~ted by Mrs~ Lyndén B. 3ohnson for a vacation trip by iiiffated rubber rafts in 1966. The canyons below the Park have been scheduled for a national Sierra Club `river trip in N~vernber 1968 whIch will do much to publicize this spectacular but little known section. The iuost exciting scenery in the Big Bend country is the canyons of the Rio Grande, and these are best seen from the river. It Is a happy coincidence that this section is one o~ the finest canoeing streams in the United States. It 1~ only recently that knowledge of this recreational resource Is spreading. Articles on boating in the Big Bend appeared in the Spring i966, Winter 1966, and Summer 1967 issues of American WMte Water. Now, boaters other thau the regulars from Texas and New Mexico are eager to try these runs. In fact, one couPle came from Germany to boat the Big l3end this year. The Big Bend section of the Rio Grande Is more than wild and scenic. It is unique in this country. It certainly deserves serious consideration as a National Scenic and Wild River. LANDOWNERSHIP In the Northern New Mexico section of the Rio Grande, the river has cut a deep canyon through the rock, frequently with steep walls well over 1,000 feet, which reach ~to the water's edge. These steep cliffs have prevented roads and even trails in many places within these canyons. This fact has preserved the wilderness aspect, by acting as a natural barrier to the Intrusion of man. Since there is no room for roads or trails, there is no room for fields to grow crops, or the need for water to irrigate them. For this reason, the vast majority of all land along this section of the Rio Grande has never been homesteaded and is already in federal or state land ownership. This makes the transfer of land an administrative matter, rather than `one of payment to `private ownership. For this section `of the Rio Grande there would be no loss of taxes to the local county because of federal land being transferred to Wild River status. CLASSIFICATION The Northern section of the Rio Grande from the Oolorado border to the town of Pilar, New Mexico, `fits well into the several classes of wild rivers proposed by Mr. Dingell in HR-493 and Mr. S~yl'or in HR-90. Class I-would apply to that section of the Rio Grande between the Ooiorado herder and Taos Junction Bridge (State Read 96) . This area is "free `of impound- ments and inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shore lines essen- tially primitive" since there are no roads In the canyon which parallel the river. Class 11-would apply to that section of the Rio Grande between Taos June- tion Bridge and Pilar, New Mexico. This section is "still largely primitive and (has) shore lines largely undeveloped but accessible at places by roads". Here, there `are no buildings or private holdings, but an unpaved road parallels the river for nine mlle~. `This is an ideal site to be developed into a park for automobile camping, fishing, and boating, with easy aecess `to the river. Mr. Aspinall `in HR-8416 excludes this Class IT section of the Rio Grancle, which is hest suited for high-density use. Phis area should be iiicluded as the public already makes the greatest use of this undeveloped area. Yet without garbage pits or cans and toilets, the wilderness aspect is already becombig spoiled by the vast amount of `trash `already piling up. We solicit that Mr. Aspinall include this section in his bill, or that HR-9O be adopted which includes this section. CONCLUSION The Rio Grande at 1885 miles Is the fifth longest river in North America, and provides much of~the boundary betweeli the United States `and Mexico. At present approximately 70 miles in New Mexico are proposed for immediate ine1~ision within the National Scenic River `System. In Texas, a larger portion should be studied for future designation as a "Wild River". The least we can do for future Explorer Scouts, fishermen, picnickers, `and boatmen Is to let them discover for themselves a stretch of the river as our forefathers have. Mr. TAYLOR. Are you familiar with the Aspinall bill, H.R. 8416 and its provisions concerning the Rio Grande? Mr. FRETWELL. Yes, I am familiar with the Aspinall bill. I have read that, prepared a map on part of it- 92-560-68-19 PAGENO="0290" 276 Mr. TAYLOR. ~Just one question. Are you satisfied with the bill ~s it isin regard to the Rio Grande? ~ ~ ~ . Mr. FREPWELI~. The Asspinall bill does not cOver as much of the river as the several otherbills do. ~ ~ ~ ;~Mr.TAythR. You~want it to covermore of the~iv~r than the AspInall bill covers? ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ . Mr. FRETWELL, Yes, the Aspinall bi11~- ~ Mr. ASPINALL. Just a minute. ` We know what the Aspinall bill covers, you don't need to tell us that. You don't want to go into Colora4o, do you ? Mr. FRETWELL. No. . Mr. A5PINALL. That isall we need to know. Mr. TAYLOR. Any other members have any questions? Thank you very much, I think you have made yourself plain with regard to your request. Now, we have five witnesses who have requested to testify concern- ing the same river. We have their representative in Congress here, Representative Clark Fisher. Representative Fisher, I would like to have you call the witnesses to the stand and they may select one spokesman. ~ ~ Mr~ FISHER. Mr. Chairman, there are five of my constituents from Kerr County here who would like to contribute. to the reoord and testify briefly and show the committee a map which I think very dramatically illustrates the point which they propose to make of why the Guadalupe River, particularly the upper area for which they speak, should be stricken from this bill. Mr. Guy Jackson will take over and explain the map. Among those here is Mr. Fred Junkin and Mr. Lochte. Mr. Junkin is the president of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority. Judge Julius Neunhoffer, the county judge of Kerr County, has a statement which I would like to offer for the record. He was here last week and left a statement for insertion. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objections the statements of all of these five may be placed in the record at this poitit. Mr. FISHER. Very well. Mr. Leonard, a prominent attorney of Kerrville, is another witness representing a large number of people who are interested. ~ Mr. J. Brown Cutbirth is also here who is very much interested in that area, who resides in Houston, and is a constituent of Mr. George Bush who was here earlier and has also expressed an interest in his constituent. ~ So with that, Mr. Chairman, while I am recognized may I offer one or two other statements. Here is a telegram I would like to offer for the record from the county judge and the county commissioners of Kendall County through which this river flows after leaving Kerr County. Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection it will be made a part of the record at this point. ~ Mr. FISHER. I have three counties, Mr. Chairman, in my district, Kerr, Kendall, and Comal, through which the Guadalupe flows. From Comal County I have a resolution which I would like to offer. It is from the Industrial Foundatiou of the City of New Braunfels, also in oppo- sition to the inclusion of the Guadalupe in this project. Mr. TAYLOR. It will be made a part of the record at this point. PAGENO="0291" 277 ( Statements and telegrams referred to above follow:) STATEMENT OF JULiVS IL NEUNEOFFER, ConN~rr Jui~, Kmu~ Cou~y, T~t Mr. Ohairman. and Members of the Oonimittee : Speaking on behalf of the more than 22,000 inhabitants of Kerr Oeunty, Texas, and in my official capacity as the Presiding Officer of the governing body of the Oounty, its COmmissioners Oourt, I would respectfully direct the attention of this Honorable Committee to certain facts in support of our contention that the upper reaches of the Guadalupe River of Texas should not be included within the provisions of H.R. 8416 relating to Wild and Scenic Rivers. This measure now under consideration by this com~ Inittee is unquestionably a meritorious piece of legislation and it is in the public interest that its provisions be brought to bear upon certain undeveloped scenic areas which it proposes to preserve in an unspoiled and natural condition so that the present and future generations shall not be deprived of adequate recreational areas. Kerr Oounty, Texas, comprises a surface area of 1,101 square miles, of which approximatel~r 75% is drained by the Guadalupe River and its tributaries. Corn- mencing in the year 1842, during the days of the Republic of Texas, the lands fronting the Guadalupe River and its major tributaries were lawfully granted to our pioneer settlers so that by the turn of the century the arteries of corn- munication and commerce were firmly established paralleling the banks of these streams. The valleys of these streams contain virtually all of the 30,000 acres of arable land in Kerr County and by virtue of the rather rugged adjacent terrain features, each and every established community of the county has been located along the Guadalupe River. Over 90 per cent of our population resides within a fraction pf a mile of our river and its major tributaries, thus con- centrating in these narrow zones a proportionate share of the economic wealth of the area. Together with the responsibilities of private ownership, the people of Kerr County have also assumed major responsibilities of providing recreational areas for thousands of people each year. In fact, for over half a céntth~y, we have already been devoting the Upper Guadalupe River Valley to just such purposes as H.R. 8416 now seeks to establish and extend at public expense and with Fed- era! funds. An estimated 50,000 people enjoyed the use of privately owned camp and recreational facilities in Eerr Couty during the year 1967. These facilities, church and institutionally owned youth,, adult and family camps, together with private residences and tottrist accommodations are in themselves evidence of the well developed status of our area. The taxpayers of Kerr County have in addition provided at no Federal expense five separate Impoundments of public waters which are open the year round to all types of recreational uses by all citizens. These and other facilities are further augmented by the 500 acre Kerrville State Park abutting the Guadalupe River in an area which has recently been completely renovated and expanded for maximum public use. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I bring to you from the people of Kerr County, Texas, not the usual and customary appeal for the grant or expenditure of Federal funds. On the contrary, I would cite to you and the members of this Honorable Committee the fact that local and private funds have already adapted the reaches of the Upper Guadalupe River Valley into a well developed recrea- tional area, while at the same time retaining our natural scenic environment for all to enjoy. Though "scenic" we be, the 115 years of orderly economic develop- ment within the Guadalupe Valley of necessity negate any possible contention that we are a "Wild River" area. To include the Upper Guadalupe River within the provisions of H.R. 8416 even as a study area would serve no useful public purposes, but would on the contrary Impose dire economic consequences on an area which has long enjoyed a well balanced and growing economy. Once again :t would reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that we have no quarrel with the purposes or policies set forth in H.R. ~ 8416 and we would not seek to oppose the preservation of as yet undeveloped wild and scenic areas whOre the public interest requires the development of new and additional recreational facilities. REsoLUTIoN IN OPPosITIoN TO SENATE BILL No. 119, REEERRED TO AS "WILD AND SCENIC Rivzus ACT," AND HR. 90, REFERRED TO AS THE SCENIC RIVERS ACT Whereas, there is now pending before the House of Representatives of the United States, Senate Bill 119, referred to as the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act" and H.R. 90 referred to as the "Scenic Rivers Act"; PAGENO="0292" 278 Whereas, both Acts include the Gua~a1upe River in its entirety along with a number of rivers; Whereas, it Is the unanim9us opinion of the members o~ the Industrial Fonnda~ tion of the City of New Braunfels, Texas that such Acts encroach on estab~ lished principles of self~determination vested in State and local governments by requiring in certain instances, the State of Texas, the City of New Btaimfeis and other local authorities to submit to and be governed by yet iiindeterrnined regulatioai~ of a federal agency, and whIch condition ~ could destroy State and local control ever vital and important sections within its jurisdiction and par~ ticularly those areas suitable for park development ; and Whereas, these Acts could tend to discourage business and resort development and industrial growth within the Guadalupe River Bas4~ and particularly In tJomal County and the City of New Bratinfeis and thereby impair the economic health of the community; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Industrial Foundation of the City of New Braunfels, Texas opposes the inclusion of the Guadalupe River in Senate ~Bill 119 and H.IZ. 90, and particularly that portion of the GuadaLupe River and its Basin within the confines of the trade tarritory of the City of New Braunfels, Texas incltuling but not limited thereto all of Comal County and Guadalupe Cow~ty, and it is further resolved that copies of this resolution be furnished to Oongressman 0. C. Fisher, as well as all other Congressmen having portions of the Guadalupe River basin in their district, and that said Congressmen be urged *to oppose the inclusion of said river in these Acts. Adopted and approved on this the 12th day of March, 1968. INDuSTRIAL FOuNDATION OF NEW BRAUNFELS, Tax., Bax W. BooK, Pre8s~dent. Attest: ~ . JOSE~'H FAtYST, ~ &~eretary. Sa4~TEMENT OF ETLL COUNTRY ARTS FOUNDATEON OF INGRLM, Tzz.&s The Hill C~üntry Arts Foundation was started in 1959 as a non-protit eduea~ tional corporation for the purpose cit Instructing all, persons of all ages in varinus phases of the arts. ~ Plus educational effort Is supported by 1niere~ted members, modest student fees and admission fees to the theatre productions. The capable Instruction offered e~eh summer season has attracted more in- strttctors and students each year. In the 1967 season we had eleven instructors In the various arts serving 185. students of all ages in addition to the five theatre productions which attracted 9200 paId admissions. These faeliltles are located on the banks of the Guadalupe River with the river and hills as the backdrop to the unique open air stage. . In order to accommodate the increased d~uoand for this kind of art instruction the thanagement has recently purchased an additional 5.7 acres so additional class rooms and dormitories can be provi4ed. The continued growth of this educational service would be discouraged If not eliminated If the Guadalupe is Included In any Wild or Scenic River legislation. Therefore we respectfully request that the Guadalupe River be omitted from any such legislation as a Wild Scenic River or a river to be studied as such. Scanic RIVERS ACT-REsoLuTIoN At a called meeting of the Board of Directors of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority held at The Inn of the Hills In the City of Kerrville, Texas, on the 1st day of Marc1~, 1968, a quorum being present, Mr. Harry Schwetheim offered the following resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Frank Harrison: Whereas, H.R. 90 introduced in the House of Representatives of the United States on January 10, 1967, by Mr. Saylor, also called "The Scenic Rivers Act", has come to the attention of the Board of Directors of this Authority; and, Whereas, after a careful investigation into the effect of such act as It relates to the Guadalupe River of Texas, and in particular the Guadalupe River PAGENO="0293" "Fw~p JUN~IN, "Presidents, Up~~e~ Gua~al~pe J2~verAu~tkQrity." 279 of Texas lying withing the boundaries of this D1~strict, this Board is of the opin- ion. that such bill, if enacted would disrupt and destroy to a great extent the entire econofliy of the counties, towns, villages and cities which lie adjacent to the Guadalupe River in Texas, and its tributaries, and would deny to the people of the area the right to build surface dams which are anticipated to be- caine necessary in the forseeable future for domestic water supplies, and also it is well known that the Guadalupe River in Texas is highly developed along its banks and the banks of its tributaries for recreational facilities, religious en- campments, boys and girls camps arid retirement homes ; now, therefore. Be it resolved, that the Board of Directors of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority go on record as being unalterably opposed to H.R. 90 "Scenic Rivers Act" introduced in the House of Representatives on January 10, 1967, by Mr. Saylor, the same have been referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in so far as said Bill applies to the Guadalupe River, lii the State of Texas, and that the President of this A~thorlty Is authorized to sign the following letter expressing the Authority's position in this matter. "SIR : The Upper Guadalupe River Authority is an Agency of the State of Texas, created by the 46th Legislature under Section 59-a of Article 16 of the Constitution of Texas. It was created for the purpose of controlling, storing, preserving, and distributing the waters of the Guadalupe River and its tribu- taries within Kerr County. Its authority and duties are more fully set out In Article 8280-124 of the Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas. "The portion of the Guadalupe River within the boundaries of the Authority consists of the headwater portion of this 6,000 square mile watershed. The area is locally referred to as the "Hill Country" and large portions of its water courses have been extensively developed by private and local governmental units for recreational purposes. The small perennail flow of the headwater streams have largely been appropriated for beneficial uses under State laws, and a large number of small pools have been created in the bed of the streams by the construction of small channel dams to increase the water areas of the river and its depth to improve water-recreation and to enhance public and private use of the river. By cooperative efforts between local governmental agencies and private individuals, a large fish hatchery and several wildlife preserves have been established in this portion of the basin. Plans exist under which the Authority is to construct ~water conservation and flood control dams on each of these principal headwater tributaries. The improvements are needed to augment the existing underground sources of water supplies for the Otty of Kerrville and for other communities within this area and to protect the extensive devel- opments in the river valley. The improvements of the river, as briefly described herein, are required to preserve the ~ economy of this entire segment of the Guada- lupe River, and to meet the future needs for water and for water uses in the area. If H.R. 90, `Scenic River Bill', were enacted into law and the Federal Agency in charge of the implementing of the law were to decide to take the maximum land area permitted by the Bill, such action would completely disrupt and for all practical purposes destroy Kerr County, Texas, the area being the Identical area which is under the jurisdiction of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority. This is so because every town, village, and city, as well as a large percentage of the improvements in the area of this Authority, lie well within one mile of the banks of the Guadalupe River, or one of its tributaries. The Guadalupe River in the area of this Authority, Is now and has always been the life-line of the area and its entire economy is tied thereto. "Accordingly, it is urgently requested that the Guadalupe River in Texas be completely eliminated from H.R. 90, and at a bare mipimum that that portion of the Guadalupe River and its tributaries lying in Kerr County, Texas, be eliminated from the Bill. "Your kind consideration of these views and the supplementary statements as may be filed by our Congressmen will be apj~reciated. This letter conveys the opinions and desires of the Eoardk of Directors of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and its~ President was authorized `by such Bo~sd members at Its meeting on March 1, 1968, to sign this letter ar~d direct it to you for the consid- eration of the full committee and appropriate subcommittee. "Very truly yours, PAGENO="0294" I 280 Be ~t further resolved, That the Board of Directors and the officers of this authority are hereby directed and authorized to take such other and further action in opposing this bill as they deem reasonable and proper, and the officers of this A~uthority are hereby directed to do whatever is reasonably necessary to keep this Board fully informed at all times as to the progress of this bill. Be it further resolved, That the Secretary of this Authority is hereby in- structed and directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution and letter to the following: U.S. Representative Wayne N. Aspinall, Chairman of the Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. ~ 20515. U.S. Representative Roy A. Taylor, Chairman of the Subcommittee of National Parks and Recreation, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Harold T. Johnson, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. . -U.S. Repre~entatlve Hugh L. Carey, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Morris K. Udall, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Richard White, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Robert W. Kastenmeier, House Office Bulding, Washing- ton, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative James 0. O'Hara,' House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative William F. Ryan, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Patsy P. MInk, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Abraham Kazen, House Office Bulding, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Joe Skubitz, House Office Bulding, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Rogers C. B. Morton, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Theodore H. Kupferman, House Office Building, Wash- ington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative John Kyl, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Sam Steiger, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative Howard W. Pollock, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative James A. McClure, HOuse Office Bulding, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Representative 0. C. Fisher, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. U.S. Senator Ralph W. Yarborough, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. 1:1.5. Senator John G. Tower, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. I, B. C. Parker, Jr., Secretary of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, K~rrville, Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority on the 1st day of March, 1968, and I further certify that the same has not been rescinded, to certify which witness my hand this 8th day of March, 1968. STA~rzMENT OF KERR COUNTY CUAMBEE OF COMMaRCE We have considered the proposed Wild and Scenic River Legislation of S. 119 and H.R. 8416 and oppose the inclusion of the Guadalupe River in any legisla- tion of this nature. We do not oppose the policy as set forth in these proposed bills and wish to call to your attention that the upper reaches of the Guadalupe River has been developed by private funds In a manner to preserve the natural beauty of the river and the adjacent hills as we believe the nat~ural beauty of this area is our greatest asset. PAGENO="0295" 281 In responsible citizens of this area in following the policy of preserving the natural beauty have attracted many people from the crowded cities and colder parts ofthis nation to use and enjoy this natural beauty. There are now between 20 and `30 sununér camps that provide relaxatiofl and pleasure to many thousands of boys and girls. These camps are well managed and provide competent instruction in various sports and nature studies~ The majority of these camps ar~ operated by churches of various denomina- tions. Also the Boy Scouts, YMCA atid Lions have camps in the areas adjoining the Guadalupe and its tributaries. Those who have established homes along the river have done so In a manner to enhance the beauty of the river and hills. They enjoy this natural beauty and are zealously preserving same. The patients in the private, State and Federal hospitals in the Kerrville area also enjoy the natural beauty of the area. The inclusion of the Guadalupe Eiver In this type of legislation would dls~ courage the contlthied growth of the area through private enterprise. We respectfully request that the Guadalupe River be deleted from: all leglsla~ tion of this nature. ______ STATEMENT OF KERRVILLE BOARD OF REALTORS, BY FLOYD Paica, PRESIDENT The Kerrville Board of Realtors has duly considered the proposed legislation creating Wild and Senic Rivers as set forth In S. 119 and H.R. 8416 and are of the firm opinion that the Guadalupe River of Texas should not be included. We do not contest the policy as stated in either S. 119 or U.R. 8416 as there are a number of streams or portions of streams that can and should be retained in their present pristine beauty ; however the Guadalupe River of Texas is not such a stream. 1. The Guadalupe River is now highly developed with towns, camps, hospitals both State and Federal, homes and resort ranches all of which materially con- tribute to contentment and happiness of more than 25,000 people annually. 2. In the middle and upper reaches of the Guadalupe there are some 28 summer camps for minors and adults. Most of these are operated by church organizations, some are for boy scouts and YMCA. About nine or ten of the canipa are on a commercial basis accommodating some 8,000 boys and girls during the summer season. These camps teach the young people about nature as well as swimming, horseback riding, archery, tennis, golf and provide overnight camping in the bills adjacent to the river. 3. For many years the people in the Upper Guadalupe Basin have zealous4y maintained the stream in as near its original beauty and this attitude still prevails. 4. All of the benefits which the people from the crowded cities' and cold climates enjoy has been provided without cost to the taxpayer and we believe it should continue. NEW BRAUNFELS, Tkx., March 13, 168. lIon. 0. C. FISHER, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sia : I would appreciate your requesting to have the Guadalupe Rivet withdrawn from Senate Bill 119. I believe the Federal Government has done a great amount of good In many areas which are too large for the local citizens to undertake ; but I do not believe the Guadalupe River is a project which fits into this category. I believe the local citizens are capable of developing and preserving the beauty of the natural re- sources which are in our community; therefore, I believe the Federal Govern- mont should not expend any funds or exercise any control over the projects which can best be handled by the local citizens. I urge you to have the Guadalupe River withdrawn from Senate Bill 119. Thank you for yonr efforts on our behalf. Sincerely yours, MELVIN JOCHEC. PAGENO="0296" I 282 To the COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, House of Representative8, Washington, D.C.: We the undersigned residents of the Hunt Ingram area along the Guadalupe River respeçtf~lly request that this river be e~luded from all Wild and. Scenic River Legislation,. We are proud or the beauty of the river and surrounding hills so we do every- thing possible to retain the natural beauty of the river and hills. There are a number of summer camps in this area operated privately and by various churches and boy scout organizations which give the town children an opportunity to see and enjoy the natural beauty of the area. . INGRAM GARDEN CLUB. JOEN.TIMME, and o*t1~ers. HUNT-INGRAM LIONS CLUB. . : * ~ Ro~n STONE, an~2 other8. . ~ . BOERNE, TEX., : ~ March 15, 1968. Hon. 0. C. FISHER, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We would appreciate whatever action you can take to have the Guadalupe River removed from the various "wild rivers" bills. KENDALL COUNTY TEXAS COMMISSIONERS COURT, M. A. SIIUMARD, Jr., County Judge. Mr. TAYLOR. Your spokesman will be Guy Jackson? STATEMENT OP `GUY C. JAC1~SON, 1~ERRVILLE, TEX. ; ACCOMPANIED BY 1'OSEPK P. LEONARD, JR., KERRVILLE, TEX. Mr. JACKSON. We hope to hand you back 10 or more minutes of that time because we recognize the fact the committee is quite busy and has much to consider. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Ohairman, may I say to my friend that is the best thing .1 have heard this morning. Don't try to oversell your position. Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. ~ The statements that are being introduced and, I believe, we have all except we are missing one that we will get to the girl, but it will be in the record, and I am sure that you gentlemen will give it due consideration, and Mr. Leonard and I will try to take not over 10 minutes of your time to outline some of the features we would like to emphasize that is contained in these various statements. We are primarily here in the interests of the upper Guadalupe, that is the headwaters of the Guadalupe River which had been included in practically all of the bills that are up for consideration as a study river, and we do not think that the Guadalupe or the upper part of the Guadalupe should be included either as an instant river or a study river due to `the fact that this area has been developed for the purposes of health and for the scenic values for over 50 years. As a matter of fact, from the time the settlers original]y came into that country around in the 1840's they have recognized the beauty of the area and have been very zealous in protecting the natural beauty. In doing so they have developed camps up and down that river so that those from the cities could ~ome to a healthful and wonderful I PAGENO="0297" 283 climate and ~ beautiful. stream `to ~n~oy tiieii~ siimmE~ vacations, and many peopie from the Nb~th enjoy this ar~ for their winter. vacations. I woula like to ca~i your attention to the map. The orange dots on there indicate the rvaz'ious camps up ~ and down the river. These are the yellow dots that T mentioned,, and of those various camps up and down the river there are 11 of them that have been established . by the churches of this oouut~y covering the entire range from the Jewish to the Catholic, and practically everything `in between, Also there are 10 private camps. Note when I say private camps those arethe camps that take the boys and girls from the cities during the summer and give them 2 weeks, 4 weeks, or 6 weeks of camping experience and teaching them some of the beauties of nature. These camps are not modernistic buildings, they are of the type that are. rustic, they blend intothe natural beauty of the i~ills surrounding this beautiful Guadalupe River. There are also two Boy Scout ~ camps there, one of which was donated by Oolonel Rickenbacker who was a World War ace, I believe World War I, he had a ranch,there and gave it to the Boy Scouts. Another one on Indian Qreek, that camp alon.e last year accom- modated over 8,000 boys during the summer of last year, where the group each week, and they came, from all parts of the ~ation-~-liitewise they came. from all parts of the Nation to the Rickenbacker Camp, Boy Scout camp. ~ ~ In addition to that we have a YMCA camp that is used all summer long and we have a crippled children's camp that was established by the Lions Club and they bring the cri~ppled children from all over the country there for the summer vacation and for their camping and let them enjoy the beauties of nature, The Lions camp also in the wintertime is a school for the blind, and it is a school for all blind regardless of the age, and they have-you .. see them on the streets of Kerrville teaching them to walk with the cane, teaching them to be self-sufficient, and they are all races and creeds, There is no distinction between them. . And in addition we have an Art Foundation Camp there that in the summer teaches the various arts and puts on plays `right ~ on the river hank with the bills `as a background for the outdoor stage.. This played to over 9,000 people aion~ last year, gave them pleasure of being able to enjoy the arts in a natural surrounding. In addition to that in the desire of the lopal people to retain the beauty of the area and to provide for wildlife tl~e State has established a wildlife management area on some. six or eight sections of land up there that is well managed. ~ We have a State fish hatchery on one of these streams. We also have a city park, a county park, and a , well-organized State park on this stream that people enjoy. They come there and they enjoy it. On top of that we have a Sta±e hospital, a, Federal veterans hospital, and a private hospital in the immediate area alômg the stream so that people from all. over the Nation,,, locally and all over the State, ~an come there to help regain their liea~lth. The advantages of this area, we feel, have been so well developed by the local people that we want to continue to do so. In addition to these public facilities I might mention that there are many homes that have been built up and down the reaches of this PAGENO="0298" I 284 stream, and the people in their pride have also made these homes mostly of rock or natural materials so that they blend into the beauty of the neighborhood of the adjoining area, and those homes range in all classes and all values ~ from $10,000 to $250,000. Those people are proud of this river, and they want to develop it as they want to develop it and they want to retain it as near as possible in its natural environ- ment. I would say, Mr. Chairman, if you were to go in and destroy these facilities, and turn it back into its natural state you would probably be spending $400 million of the Government funds and we do not want that. We want to continue to develop it with our private funds and make it available to the people of these United States to enjoy. I believe that concludes my remarks unless Mr. Leonard has one or two to say and I believe we are running short on time. Mr. LEONARD.. MiS. Chairman, I will take approximately 1 minute. On Guadalupe, as it flows through Kerr County, there has been established by county funds, local bond issue, three dams wldch have established therei~ore, lakes at Ingram, Kerrville, and at Center Point. The city through ~ its own taxii~g structure has constructed another dam at the, right ` in the middle of the, ci1~ of Kerrville forming an- other lake. So throughout the reaches of the Guadalupe River as it `flows through Kerr County we have established four dams, flood con- trol dams, conservation dams, and pleasure dams, People throughout the State of Texas come to K~rrville, the hill country, and use these water facilities for which we are- Mr. FISHER. At our own expense. Mr. LEONARD. At our own expense as Congressman Fisher brought out. We had a local boiid issue on the county dams and we are very proud of our city dam at Kerrville. It was built with nationwide publicity called "build a park in a day." We all joined together our funds, resources, and labor and built the dam and built the park in 1 day. This was a project started by the Kerrville Jaycees which now covers some 25 to 50 acres of land. One other very major and important point, Mr. Chairman, as the Guadalupe River flows through Kerr County, 90 percent of the popu- lation of 22,000 people live within a half mile of these banks. Ninety to ninety-five percent of the economic values, property values, lie within a greater or lesser distance than that, and to the point just above flood stage. ~ A conservative value of improvements throughout this breadth, through Kerr County is half a billion dollars, not counting land values. We submit, Mr. Chairman, that the Kerrville; Kerr County portion of the Guadalupe River should not be included in these bills. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, in total conclusion we thank you for your time and we hope wehave given you some time back and if there are any questions we will be glad to answer them. Mr. TAYLOR. There will be some queètion. Your opinion is that Guadalupe River is already developed asa scenic river by private de- velopment and local units of government and the protection of this legislation is not needed? Mr. JAcKsoN. That is correct, sir. PAGENO="0299" 285 Mr. TAYLOR. Your Congressman made a statement at the last session and I think he is in agreement with you in regard to that, and Con'- gressman Kazen, as I recall, backed him up with a similar statement of agreement. Are there any witnesses here in opposition to this position on this river, any witnesses that want to be heard in opposition ~ Of the ones listed here do any of you want to be heard further or are you satisfied? Mr. JACKSON. I believe they concur in the statements we have made. STATEME1~T OP PRED JUNKIN, UPPER GUADALUPE RIVEB AUTHORITY, KERRVIILE, TEX. Mr. JTJNKIN. I am a representative of the upper section. 1 have nothing to add to this except this is a State agency of the State of Texas engaged in a study for the development of the Upper Guadalupe River and its water supplies which in time will be needed by the State of Texas, and we concur in this position as stated by Mr. Jackson. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. STATEMENT OP HON. GEORGE BUSH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PROM THE SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OP TEXAS Mr. Busn. Mr. Chairman, I am Congressman George Bush. Mr. TAYLOR. I am sorry, Mr. Bush- Mr. Btrsn. I would simply like to say, although I am an urban Congressman from Houston, we are the beneficiaries of the magnificent job these people have done and I would simply like to endorse the recommendations of Congressman Fisher, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. All right, you are in agreement with the statements of Mr. Jackson and Congressman Fisher? Mr. Busn. Yes, wholeheartedly, and I think the area which is the metropolitan area would endorse it. Mr. TAmoR. It makes that job easier. STATE~MEINT OP J. BROWN CUTBIRTK, HOUSTON, TEX. Mr. CVTBIRTII. There are 300 residents of Harris County who have homes on the Guadalupe River who concur in that. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. A5PINALL. As I understand it, Mr. Neunhoffer and Mr. Lochte are both here? Mr. JACKsoN. Judge Neunhoffer had to hold court and he cannot be with us. STATEMENT OP ARTHUR LOCHTE, UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER AUTHORITY, KERRVILLE, TEX. Mr. LOCHPE. I am Mr. Lochte, I am in full agreement with what Mr. Jackson presented. Mr. AsPINAr~I~. I have three questions. PAGENO="0300" 286 Mr. Jackson, as I understand it, you want all of the GuaUalupe Riirer striokcii from ~ny part of any one of these bills ? * ~ ~ Mr. JACKSON. Let me make myself clear. We thin1~ all of the Guada~ lupe should be stricken from the bill. We are convinced that the upper reaches must be stricken if we are going to follow our demo~ cratiö process and let us develop it with our priizate funds. Mr. ASI'TNA~LT,. Where would we divide the upper reaches from the lower reaches, what is the division point on your map ? What is the name ofit~ Mr. JAcKSON. I have no division point. I am not authorized to speakfor Chick Kazen's area or John Young's area, I don't want to pretend to speak for them. .1 .amspeaking for. the upper reaches of the river. I think it all sb~u1d b~ o~tt~ but we are so convinced of the upper and I am sure Mr. Kazen and Mr. Young will express their desires on the upper re~i.ches. Mr. Asi~I*ALL. All right. Mr. Jackson, ai~e the charges which are presently made for enjoy- mont of the use ofth~ valuesof the `Guadalupe River prohibitive to any of the prospective users? Mr. JACKSON. No, sir; no, sir. In many instances- Mr. ASPINALL. That is enough. Are ther~an~y polluting facilities on this river at the present time? Mr. JACKSON. None, no, sir. None that I have any knowledge of. What cities are there have their sewer systems and everything is fine. Mr. ASPINALL. Does anyone know of any polluting facilities on the river? Mr. JUNKIN. Sir, the Upper Guadalupe River Authority is at this time cooperating with the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority in a study of pollution on the Guadalupe River. We do not think that there is any at the present time. ~ Mr. ASPINALL. Thank yotiVery much. That is all. Mr. TAm0R. Gentleman from Kansas. Mr. SKrmTz. Noquestions. Mr. TAYLOR. Gentleman from Texas. Mr. KAZEN. No questions. Mr. TAYLOR. Gentleman from Maryland. Mr. M~PON. Is the Guadalupe River used for fresh water supplies for the citjes and towns along it? Mr. JACKSON. Most of the cities and towns it comes from under- ground, but it is a limestone formation find the water goes into a lime- stone formation so in substance it is, it is an interchange, porous limestone. Mr. MORTON. As I understand it, the protections which we are try- ing to achieve in this bill have already been achieved through local sources and through the type of recreational use the river is being put to at the present time, is that correct? Mr. JAOKSON. Yes, sir, I do. Mr. MORTON. In the naIural environment rivers definition which we have before us, one of the things that is brought out is this: Lands adjacent to any such rivers should be so controlled and managed as to give priority to preservation of natural values. I think this is PAGENO="0301" 287 the key. Through what authorities and devices can you guarantee the preservation of the natural values alGng the side of the river? Mr. JACKSON. Well, through authorities, we have no way through authorities except within the city ~ limits, you know, where you have that authority. I think the greatest authority we have to maintain that is the pride of the people of the natural beauty which they have up and down this stream and they are the ones who want to and will preserve it. They have done so for 50 years and-~- Mr. MORTON. If an industry were to locate on the banks of th~ river, that certainly might have an effect on the natural resources, the natural beauty of the shore. What would there be to prevent an industry from coming in on the banks of the river? Mr. JAOKS0N. Again the pride of the people and the distaste for having any dirty industry of any kind located there. The only industry is the fabrication of airplanes, putting them together at the Mooney Plant which puts out quite a few thousand planes each year. And the chamber of commerce, and the industrial foundation there openly state they want no dirty industry that will cause pollution. If it is a dirty industry we will let George Bush have it down in Houston or somewhere. Water or air pollution, we don't want either. It is beautiful country and we want to maintain it as such. Mr. MORTON. Well, do the counties In which this river flows have a zoning system? Mr. JACKSON. No, sir. They have no authority to create one. Mr. MORTON. Thank you very much. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Sn~aGER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to congratulate this gentleman and the other witnesses on their posture. I think it is commendable and I for one support it wholeheartedly. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Michigan, and the gentleman from Ohio. Congressman Fisher, do you have anything further you wish to state? Mr. FISHER. I think that is all. We are very grateful for the committee hearing the~e witnesses. They have come a long way, they are very interested and they are speaking for practically all the people living in Kerr and Kendall Counties, I can assure you. Mr. TAYLOR. We commend you for your effective unanimous presen- tation, and the fact you stayed within the time limit, and I think you presented your case weJl. Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, we would like to leave the ma~ with you. If it gets in your way, will you see that Congressman Fisher's. office is troubled with it from then on. [Laughter.] Mr. TAYLOR. Our next group of witnesses will deal with the Suwannee River : Mr. Herbert Brown, chairman of the Suwannee River Authority, Florida; Mr. L. P. Pete Gibson, Florida State sena~ tor; Robert Porter, and Mrs. Margaret Shiffiette, Suwannee River Citi~ zens Association, Lake City, Fla. All of these witnesses can come to the stand. There are three of you, you have a total of 15 minutes. In the ab.~ sence of objection all of the statements may be placed in the record PAGENO="0302" 288 at this point. You can each take 5 minutes or you can do as the other group did and select a spokesman and give him the larger part or all of the time. I notice there are four of you, so you have 20 minutes. Go ahead. STATEMENT OP HERBERT E. BROWN, CHAIRMAN, SUWANNEE RIVER AUTHORITY, FLORIDA Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee- Mr. TAYLOR. Are you speaking for yourself? Mr. BROWN. I am speaking for the Suwannee River Authority. Mr. TAYLOR. You are not speaking for the other witnesses here? Mr. BROWN. No, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Go ahead. Mr. BROWN. My name is Herbert Brown. I am chairman of the Suwannee River Authority. With me today is Mr. John C. Camp, a member and former chairman of the authority. He is also chairman of the pollution committee. Because of the importance to us of proposed legislation before your committee the authority felt impelled to make the following statement and to answer any questions concerning our position which the commit- tee direct to me. The Suwannee River Authority, being the State agency closest to the people who will be most directly affected, has adopted an official posi- tion opposing the inclusion of the Suwannce River or its tributaries in the legislation now being considered by this committee. The Suwannee River Authority, an official State agency, was created by the Florida State Legislature in 1957 to study, develop, and promote the Suwannee River Basin and the adjacent 12 counties. The authority is composed of a member from each of the 12 counties of the Suwannee River country appointed by the Governor of the State of Florida and an ex officio member appointed to the authority by each of the boards of county commissioners of the 12 counties. These mem- bers serve without compensation or per diem. Funding for the authority is provided by the 12 counties and is matched by the State of Florida. The Suwannee River Authority is the official body which represents the people of the 12-county area and is the means through which these people can communicate their feelings and thoughts pertaining to the river. The primary objectives of the Suwannee River Authority are : (1) to promote the development of the 12-county area ; (2) to establish the Suwannee River and its tributaries as recreational areas for all peo- plo ; and (3) to prevent pollution and deterioration of the Suwannee River and its tributaries. The Suwannee River Authority through the news media has been able to bring international focus on the Suwannee River area. During the year 1967, the authority received 15,132 inquiries about the Suwan- nee River, coming from all of the 50 States and many foreign countries. The authority has made continuous progress in the development of recreational areas, and the improvement of navigation of the river. Major public recreational areas have `been established with a minimum of one in each county, and in addition, many other picnic and swim- PAGENO="0303" 289 ming areas along with numerous boat ramps, which are accessible by improved highways, are located throughout the Suwannee River area, Other developments adjacent to the Suwannee River are four municipalities, the internationally famous Stephen Foster Memorial at White Springs, Ellaville State , Park, Manatee State Park, Hart Springs-a Gilehrist County development-Florida Sheriffs Boys Ranch, Advent Christian Retirement Home at Dowling Park, hun- dreds of private houses, and numerous commercial enterprises. A primary problem in the development of the Suwannee River Valley is the devastation caused by periodic floods, usually occurring from 7 to 10 years apart. These floods overflow the entire valleys of the Suwannee River and its tributaries, often in excess of several miles in width, destroying crops and damaging other properties, both private and public. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Brown. The Suwannee River is in two States, Florida and Georgia. How much of it is in Georgia? Mr. BROWN. I would say about-not over 25, 30 miles, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. And not enough to set that up in the study stage by itself? Mr. BROWN. No, sir ; I don't think so, sir. It flows out of the Okefenokee Swamp, out of Rilly'~ Lake and comes out through Fargo Ga. Mr. TAYLOR. I think we might as well hear all of the witnesses on this one river. Our next witness is Mr. L. B. Pete Gibson. Mr. GIBSON. Is it necessary that I stand in order to make my presentation? Mr. TAYLOR. You may stand or sit. Mr. GIBSON. Thank you. May I relinquish my time to the lady, first 5 minutes? Ladies come first, where I come from. Mr. TAYLOR. You are not giving up your time, but you would like for her to speak before you speak? Mr. GIBSON. Please, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. We recognize Mrs. Margaret Shifilette. STATE1VIENT OP NAIIGARET SEIPPLETTE, DIRECTOR AND SECRE.. TARY, SUWA}INEE RIVER CITIZENS ASSOCIATION Mrs. SHIPFLETrE. I had planned to speak after the other presentation of the Suwannee River Citizens Association. I am speaking for Suwannee River Citizens Association which represents a tremendous segment of public opinion in the Suwannee Valley and in Florida and in Georgia, and I would like to hand these folders in which contain some resolutions and letters in duplicate. These, some of these, have old dates, but they have not been ie- scinded so they are still in full effect, and I would like to commend- Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection these resolutions presented will be made a part of the file. Mrs. SHIFFLETTE. Please, we would appreciate it if they would be made a part. I PAGENO="0304" I 290 I would like to commend the $uwa~inee River Authority for a job well dote in the Suwantie~ ~~11ey It ha~ far ~ti±passed our expecta~ tions when it w~s created in 1~i~7 ~t~cI~ b~1ieve me, it enjoys the respect and the confidence of everyleody who has d~a1t with it These dedicated, 12 dediôated, men work c1ö~e to the ibeal .scene~ and they serve the best interests of the entire Su*ann~e Valley. It would be a waste of the taxpayers' money to superimpose a Federal scenic rivers system upon the outstanding facilities and activities al ready provided b~ the Stat~ of Fibrida and Georgia~ The Suwannee River Authority, the local counties affected along the river and the private enter~i~e, further to take the homes dotted in natural wooded settings, alive with the preserved bird and animal life, would be a negation of one of the most fund~mentai principles upon which our Nation waä foithd~d, the right to own one's home without fear of seizure. The Suwannee Riveris some 250 mil~ long, and there is ample room for dFversity of development without damaging the scenic beauty of the river systemor limiting its recreational uses. This has been clearly demonstrated on the Suwarinee and Ichetucknee and the Santa Fe.. Already integrated itito a harmonious pattern in the Suwannee Valley are all the fine developments that Mr. Porter will list in his statement, and these bear gu~t, all the~ flne devel9pments bear out, our feelings that the Suwannee River should be left under State and local manage- ment. Now, there &re also preserved wilderness areas along the Suwannee and its tributaries for bird and animal life where they are protected. And all these facilitiesarecontinuously being improved and expanded. . Some 40 subdivisions and hundreds of individual homes along the Suwannee and its tributaries pour into the economy of the area and the entire north Florida crown substantial sums of money for all the neces- sities of life, and we all know what the necessities of life are. Now, we do not believe that a Federal scenic river system could compensate for this type of economy. Gentlemeti, am I limited now-I have some exhibits here which show clearly the diversified development on the Suwannee River, and since the time is so limited, I wonder if I might leave these with you and-you see they are photographic exhibits of this nature, and would you like for me to leave these with you and Congressmen, if Congress- man Fuqua can get them back to me, hut I have to have them because we are planning these as a part of a permanent exhibit of the Bell Chamber of Commerce in our new community building at Bell, so r would like to get them back. Mr. TAYLOR. You had better just keep them then if you have to have them back. Mrs. Smm~rrE. These are so important. Mr. TAYLOR. Pass them around so that the members of the committee can see them. Mrs. SHIFFLETTE. All right. Put them up there so the committee can look at them. We request-there are several other things I wanted to bring out- we request that the Suwannee and its tributaries be deleted entirely from these scenic rivers bills so that the States of Georgia and Florida PAGENO="0305" 291 throug1~ the Suwaimee River Authority and the Georgia Area Devel- opment a~d Planning Commission can develop a p~actica1 plan for a Suwannee River National Park on one suitable site and this then to be presented to the Congress through our own duly elected represent- atives, and such a park as this would fit into and complement the other developments on the river rather than disrupt them entirely. Mr. TAYLOR. You and Robert Porter, using this, are speaking jointly for the Suwannee River Citizens Association? Mrs. SHIFFLETTE. I am. Thank you very much. (Additional material supplied for the record by Mrs. Shifflette follows :) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY MRS. CARL E. SIIIFFLETTE, SECRETARY, SUWANNEE RIvER CITIZENS ASSoCIATIoN, BELL, FLA. In addition to the misleading and outdated statistics in the Osterbind Report, his flat statement that the Suwannee River has never been related to the economy of the Valley is so preposterous as to discredit the entire report. The River is the lifeline of the Valley. Under State and local management the over-all picture of the Suwannee Valley is one of burgeoning growth, and awareness of all its potentials, and especially its recreational and scenic assets. To subject the Suwannee and its tributaries to the stipulations in these Scenic Rivers bills would literally cut the heart out of North Florida. These bills would tamper with the lives of thousands of people in the Suwannee Valley, with the most deep~seated human emotions, the grass-roots toundation of our national pride and patriotism. To take away the Suwannee and its tributaries from State, County and private management would accomplish the same thing you would do if you cut the tap root off a pine tree. You would kill the tree. The diversified character of the Suwannee River will die if you Include It in these Scenic RiverS bills, and with It one of the basic elements of our local, State and National pride. We are opposed to any encroachment of Federal controls upon rivers that already have adequate programs of development and conservation through State and local governmental agencies and private ent~rpr1se. Mr. TAYLOR. Senator, do you want to speak now, or let Mr. Robert Porter? STATEMENT OP HON. L. P. PETE GIBSON, STATE SENATOR, ~`LORIDA Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I was next on the agenda and if it is all right, I would like for my son and my aide to pass out to the members of the committee a copy of my statement. I would like, sir, to take 1 minute to finish the statement of the chair- man of the Suwannee River Authority. The authority is dedicated to prevent pollution, and is in the process of developing a `system of detec- tion and controls along the Suwannee River ~tnd its tributaries. Under this procedure, the authority will be able to move immediately to abate violations of State pollution laws. In 1965, working in cooperation with the congressional delegation of the State of Florida, the Suwannee River Authority hosted a series of eight public meetings to discuss the proposal of the nationalization of the Suwannee River and its tributaries and to develop a voluntary expression of all of the citizens of the Suwannee River country. The results of these eight meetings as expressed by these interested citizens indicated that an overwhelming majority opposed this pro- posal and that actually less than 3 percent favored this proposal. 92-560--68---20 PAGENO="0306" 292 The Suwannee River Authority is appreciative of the opportunity to present these views of the people of the Suwannee River Country and strongly urges that this committee recommend deletion of the Suwannee River from those bills which you are considering at this time. My name is L. B. Gibson. Last year, 1967, the people of Florida through its legislature adopted a memorial to Congress asking Con~ gress not to include our Suwannee River or any of its tributaries in the scenic rivers legislation. I mailed you 50 copies of this. This was unanimously adopted by both the House and the Senate. The Suwannee River flows through the district I represent as a senator. The people of my district have expressed to me that they are not for the Suwannee River or its tributaries being included in any wild or scenic rivers legislation. It is our hope that, in your deliberations on this legislation, you will consider these expressions by the people of Florida through their legislative delegations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The memorial to Congress referred to follows:) HousE M1~MoRI~ti~ 2073 A memorial to the Congress of the United States objecting to the inclusion of the Suwannee River and its tributariesi in "scenic river" legislation. Where~is, the beautiful Suwannee River is a source of pride to those Florida citizens living near thereto as well as to all the citizens of Florida, having been immortalized in song, and Whereas, this Legislature and the people of this state are aware of the benefits accruing to the state from. this immortal river, and Whereas, the Suwannee River, though having aesthetic and historical value, is also a useful and productive river of the state, and Whereas, the Congress of the United States proposes to include the Suwannee River and Its tributariei in "scenic river" legislation which would vest juris~ diction over it in the federal government, and Whereas, this inclusion would impede the use and value of said river, as well as the conservational and recreational benefits that the citizens of Florida and visitors to this state have enjoyed for years, now, therefore, Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Florida: That the Congress of the United States' is hereby requested not to include the Suwannee River and its tributaries in "scenic river" legislation which would vest jurisdiction over it in the federal government. Be it further resolved that copiesi of this memorial be dispatched to the President of the United States, to the President of the United States Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States. Filed in Office Secretary of State June 2, 1967. STATE~N~ OP ROBERT T. PORTER, DIRECTOR, SUWANNEE RIVER CITIZENS ASSOCIATION Mr. PORTER. I am Robert T. Porter, director of the Suwannee River Citizens Association. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a statement to read. We appreciate this opportunity to be present before you and to explain the position of our association. We are an independent, char- tered organization, made up of thousands of members who are resi- dents not only of the area immediately adjacent to the Suwannee River and its tributaries, but of the entire State of Florida, Georgia, and PAGENO="0307" 203 some in other States. Further, thousands more have expressly stated to us that they share the views Gf our assooiation. Our organization has constructive plans for assisting with future development and promotion of the Suwannee River Valley. We request that your ~ committee recommend `that the Suwannee River and its tributaries be removed entirely from the wild and scenic rivers legislation. Before stating our reasons we would like to briefly describe what the Suwannee River is and what it means to the people who use it and enjoy it. The people of Florida, on their own, have developed the recreational aspects of the Suwannee River. For example. 1. The Stephen Foster Memorial, a museum, carillon, and park built by the State of Florida. 2. Famous Hart Springs where Gilchr'ist County operates a corn- plete recreational park with an 80-acre campground addition. 3. Three large State parks, Suwannee River, Manatee Springs, and O'Leno. 4. Countless free boat ramps ; road-riverside parks ; natural springs-both publicly and privately owned-some developed, some left open free to the public ; camping grounds, picnic spots, hunting and fishing facilities, air stations for divers, motels, restaurants, and so forth. 5. A 700-acre recreational area now under development in Suwannee County. All these developments fit in well with the overall Florida concept of being the "fun" State of the Union. Needless to say, Florida is oriented toward tourism. We feel that if any State is able to develop its own recreational areas, Florida has proven its capacity to do so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. This concern with recreation permeates down from State to local govermnents and private enterprises. "Way down upon the Suwannee River" is not just a lazy river flow- ing through swamps filled with cypress trees and unused forest land, but rather it is n vital river flowing through areas of active develop- ment by private enterprise and local government. It runs through or forms the border for several small, hustling communities. Along its banks you find subdivisions for retiree homes and summer `camps, reli- gious institutions, developments by compatible industries such as agri- culture, timber, and phosphate. In addition to the developed areas, parts of the river are in a partially wild state not accessible to the mo- toring public, being reached oniy by boat. The Suwannee River i's completely unique and as such merits special consideration by your committee. We ask that the Suwannee River and its tributaries be removed from the wild and scenic river legisla- tion for the following reasons: 1. The staggering majority of people in the Suwannee River Valley do not want the Suwannee and its tributaries in such a system. This includes not only homeowners along the Suwannee and Ichetucknee, but motel and re~taurant people, farmers, ranchers, timber owners, industrial developers, local organizations, and governments. 2. As we stated above, Florida is capable of developing its own rec- reational areas and has already taken the initiative to do so. 3. As diversified as the development is along the Suwannee, it does PAGENO="0308" ~94 ~ic~t lend itself to scenic or wild river concepts, To create sm ch a river would ~nl~ai1 expenditures of capi~a1 that would be impractical. 4. The people ~f Florida and Georgia, and more specifically the people in the Suwannee River B~sin are not going to let any person or k~orporation pollute the Suwannee River. Florida, In fact, was the first Sta~te to have a pollution control program acceptable to the Fed-. eral Uovernment. The Suwannee River Authority and we in Florida and Georgia will not let the Suwannee River or its tributaries be mis- used. An active program of control is under way. 5. At present we have periodic flooding of the river basin. A system of check dams is needed to prevent this waste. To put the Suwaiinee River in a wild or scethc river system would prevent the building of such dams, thereby subjecting owners of property aiong the river and the State to future losses caused by flooding. Some of the proponents of the wild or scenic river legislation-. namely, the Park Servic&-will tell you that such a program will bring unheard of prosperity to north central Florida. (Mr. Porter's statement follows:) STATEMENT 0]? SUWANNEE RIVER OITIZENS, ASSOCIATION, PRESENTED BY ~ . Ro~3BRT T PORTER, DIBECTOR We appreciate this opportunity to be present before you and to expiain the position of our Association. We are an independent, chartered organization, made up of thousands of members who are residents not only of the area immediately adjacent to the Suwannee River and its tributaries, but of the entire state of Florida, Georgia, and some in other States. Further, thousands more have ox- pressly etated to us that they share the views of our Association. Our organiza- tion has constructive plans for assisting with future development and promotion of the Suwann~e River Valley. We request that your Committee recommend that the Suwannee River and Its trIbutaries be removed e~tire1y from the Wild and Scenic Rivera Legislation. Before stating our reasons we would like to briefly describe what the Suwannee Rhrer is and what it means to the people who use and enjoy it, The people of Florida, on their own, have developed the recreational aspects of the Suwannee River. For e~ampie : 1~. The Stephen Foster Memorial, a museum, carillon and park built by the State of Florida. 2. Famous Hart Springs where Gilchrist County operates a complete recrea- ~ tional park with an 80-acre campground addition. 3. Three large State Parks, Suwannee River, Manatee Springs and O'Leno. 4. Countless free boat ramps ; road-riverside parks ; natural springs (both pub- licly and privately owned) , some developed, `some left open free to the public; camping grounds, picnic spots, hunting and fishing facilities, air stations for divers, moteis, restaurants, etc. 5. A 700-~acre recreational area now under development in Suwannee County. All these developments fit in well with the overall Florida concept `of being the "Fun" State of the Union. Needless to say, Florida is oriented towards tourism. We feel that if any state is able to develop its own recreational areas, Florida has proven its capacity to do so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. , This concern with recreation permeates down from State to local govern- menl~s and private enterprise. "Way Down Upon the Suwan~ee River" is not just a lazy river flowing through swamps filled with cypress trees and unused forest land, but rather it is a VItal river flowing through areas of active development by private enterprise and local government. It runs through or forms the border for several small, hustling communities. Along its banks you find subdivisions for retiree homes and summer camps, religious institutions, developments by compatible industries such as agricu1ture,~ timber and phosphate. In addition to the developed areas, parts of the River are in a partially wild state not accessible to the motoring public, being reached only by boat. PAGENO="0309" 295 The Suwannee River is eomp1ete1~r unique and as such merits spec~a1 considera- tion by your Committee. We ~sk that the. Suwannee River and Its tributaries be removed from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislation for the following reasons: 1. The staggering majority of people in the Suwannee River Valley do not want the Suw&nnee and its tributaries in such a system. This includes not only home owners along the Suwannee and Ichetucknee, but motel and restaurant people, farmers, ranchers, timber owners, industrial developers, local organizations, and governments. 2. As we stated above, Florida is capable of developing Its own recreational areas and has already taken the Initiative to do so. 3. As diversified as the development is along the Suwannee, it does not lend itself to Scenic or Wild Rivers concepts. To create such a river would entail expenditures of capital that would be impractical. 4. The people of Florida and Georgia, and more specifically the people In the Suwannee River Basin are not going to let any person or corporation pollute the Suwannee River. Florida, in fact, was the first State to have a pollution control program acceptable to the Federal Government. The Suwannee River Authority and we in Florida and Georgia will not let the Suwannee River or its tributaries be misused. An active program of control is under way. 5. At present we have periodic flooding of the River Basin1 A system of cheek dams is needed to prevent this waste. To put the Suwannee River in a wild or scenic river system would prevent the building of such dams, thereby subjecting owners of property along the River and the State to future losses caused by flooding. Some of the proponents of the wild or scenic river legislation, namely, the Park Service, will tell you that such a program will bring unheard of prosperity to North Central Florida. They base their argument on a report, which ~ is erroneously labeled as a study by the University of Florida. This report contains outdated material and unfounded statements. It is not worthy of consideration. Another point made by the Park Service is that the United States Govern- merit will acquire very little fee land, but rather will use scenic easements for most of the system. They extol the virtues of the scenic easement but fail to tell you of the loss of value to the fee tract. Au article in the January, 1968, issue of the Appraisal JournaZ points out the loss of value on the fee land on scenic ease- ments along the Blue Ridge Parkway. Examples : 70 per cent loss in value of land for building sites ~nd yards, 75 to 84 per cent value loss in woods and brush land. Such losses have an adverse effect upon local tax structures, as well as other areas of the economy. Gentlemen, we `ask that you consider our presentation and that you study the statements hnd reports flied with you. We feel that you will then assist us in having the Suwannee River and its tributaries removed from the Wild and Scenió Rivers Bill. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much for your individual statement. I crossed this river on several occasions, and noticed its famous name. It certainly is not a wild river, but it is a beautiful river. The proposal is to leave it in a study stage. 11-low would this leaving it in the study stage interfere with the present use of it ~ Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that would take away a lot of the county and State park planning that is going on at this time. If the Chairman would like to answer that further. Mr. BROWN. I think so, sir. Excuse me, if you could limit that study to at least 6 months or a year. If it is a long, drawn-out period you are going to stifle the development of the river. Mr. TAYLOR. ~ You understand it will take further legislation to take it out of the study stage into the instant stage? Mr. BROWN. Well, if the findings of the study as far as the establish- ments of maybe national parks and so forth, we don't believe we have a wild river. In other words, we feel like that some national parks may `be along the river would be, certain areas would be, probably feasible, PAGENO="0310" 296 But I think this study should be limited, not one of these drawn out for several years ; maybe 6 months or a year. Mr. TAYLOR. Is pollution a problem now ? The river does go through other areas. Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would say "No," sir ; pollution is not an area. I cosponsored the best antipollution bill backing it with the money that is in these United States, which is State law, and it includes the Suwannee River. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you have protection then by State on pollution? Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir ; the best in the United States. Mr. TAYLOR. I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fuqua. Mr. FUQUA. We, as already mentioned, come under the Water Pol- lution Control Act. Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Two questions. This is an int~rstath river, and ac- cordingly the U.S. Government has certain responsibilities and obli- gations. Wbat guarantees do the people of the United States have that this river will be maintained for theuse of all the people of `the United States? Mr. BROWN. Through private development and State development like Manatee State Park, Hart Springs, that is 180 acres of camping area that belongs `to the county of Qilchrist. Mr. ASPINALL. Some people, perhaps, are not in the position to pay for some of these expensive items. Mr. BROWN. Qilchrist County, sir, is free. There is no charge what- soever. It is paid for by the people of Gilchrist County. `They have ex- cellent recreational facilities on beautiful springs. Mr. ASPINALL. You have some public grounds ? Mr. BROWN. I say it is all public, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. All public? Mr. BROWN. Manatee. Mr. GIBSON. Mr. lChai~an, Mr. Aspinall, yes, this river originates in Georgia and where it originates is owned by the Federal Govern- ment, is under the Federal Government control, and the very small area between what the Federal Government owns at the inception of the river plus our antipollution controls could cause absolutely no problem to the public or the people of the United States. Mr. ASPINALL. One of your distinguished citizens of Florida bears my name. Mr. GIBSON. It is a wonderful name, thank you, sir. `Mr. ASPINALL. Now, Senator, this is directed to you or to the lady: Why has there been such a movement by various people of `the United States to have the Suwannee River included in the scenic river classi- fication ? I just want a very short answer. Mrs. `Sm i~ri~. In the first place the Suwannee River is famous; Stephen Foster made it famous, so the people all over the country are acquainted with it. Second, they don't understand the character of the river. They don't understand the river already has an established diversified unique character of its own which is being preserved by the State and the counties and private enterprise. PAGENO="0311" 297 Folks up in Michigan, say, don't understand this, and they don't realize all the wonderful things that are being done on the Suwannee River to preserve it. Mr. ASPINALL. I say the same goes for a lot of people in Florida who seem to want to take care of the things in my district, too. They don't know a darned thing about what they are talking about. Mrs. SHI]3TLETm. Many of them in Florida have never even seen the Suwanee River. For instance, a newspaper editor in Miami wrote an editorial whidh indicated that he didn't even know there were these roads and riverside parks at every U.S. highway crossing. So many people in Florida have never even seen the Suwanee River. Mr. ASPINALL. A lot of people in Florida have never seen any of the beauties of a lot of places they write about in other parts of the Nation. I can understand. Mr. TAYLOR. Anyone else have any questions? Mr. MORTON. I would like to ask the Senator and the other wit- nesses here about one point : How do you feel about the whole idea of a national program for the preservation of scenic rivers, wild rivers, and the like? Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Morton, I think if you and the people in your district had a stream that was bcing abused, that needed this, I could see and understand the possible feasibility. Such as the Suwanee River is not the case. Mr. MORTON. You didn't answer the question. Mr. GIBSON. I beg your pardon, sir. Mr. MORTON. What I am saying is, do you think we have arrived at a point in time when we need a national rivers system to preserve the natural beauty and the scenic characteristics and recreational char- acteristics, purity, and so forth, of our rivers in America ? I am not saying that the Suwanee should be in it or should be out of it. Mr. GIBSON. My answer to you, sir, is yes ; if there is not a sufficient local control and there is obvious open abuse, and the people of that State or that area want it. Mr. MORTON. Thank you very much. Mr. GIBSON. I appreciate your asking the question, Congressman Morton. Mr. MORTON. What about the other gentlemen or the lady ? Do you have any feelings about this type of legislation so far as putting it on the books is concerned? Mrs. SHIFrLErn~i. It would depend entirely upon the nature of the river, whether it would be feasible, as Senator Gibson has said, where- fore, it is actually needed. We do not know about these other rivers, but we do know that it is not needed on the Suwanee. Mr. MORTON. How about the St. Johns? Mrs. SrnFrLE~m~. Well, I would leave Congressman Bennett to talk to you about the St. Johns. Mr. BROWN. The condition of the St. Johns. Mr. MORTON. I beg your pardon? Mr. BROWN. I say I would rather have Congressman Bennett speak to you about the St. Johns. Mr. FUQUA. You had better have him talk to me. That is in my district. PAGENO="0312" 298 Mr. BROWN. It wa~ in both. . Mr. GIBSON. It was in mine, too, sir. Mr. MORTON. It is unique in that it is one of the few rivers in the country that flows north. That is all I have to say. Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions? Well thank yon very much. Mr. 4ThSON. Thank you, gentlemen andMr. Chairman. Mr. TAThOR. The pictures were passed around and they are very beautiful. . Next we have Mrs. L. B. * Russell, president, Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning, Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Dr. William L. Russell, East Tennessee White Water Club. In the absence of objection a copy of the statement of each witness will be placed in the record. Is there any relation? ~ Mrs. Rtrss~a~L. No, sir. Dr. Russell had to stay in Tennessee since ~Ve ha~re a State scenic rivers bill coming up in the legislature to~ night. And in his place is Col. Olaude Black. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you each desire to take your 5 minutes? ~ Mr. BLACK. Ye~s, sir ; w~ would like 10 minutes, total if we may. Mr. TATLOR. Mrs. Russell, you are listed first ; you may proceed. Mrs. RUssELL. Colonel Black will go first place. STATEME~NT OP COil. CLAUDE A. BLACK, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED, BOARD OP ADVISERS, T~ENNESSRE SCENIC RIVERS ASSOCIATION Colonel BLACK. We will violate the rule of ladies first because it is just more logicaL Mr. Taylor and chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Aspinall, chair- man of the full committee and gentlemen, we are not going to read our statements. We ask that they be included in the record of the three organizations. Mr. TAYLOR. They will be. Colonel BLACK. And we have a couple of other documents which we would also, with the chairman's permission, and we will turn them over to the clerk ; one is a letter from our senior Senator, Hon. Albert Gore, the' others are excerpts from a report on flood control by the Tennessee Valley Authority 1939, and the third a report on flood prevention for the State of Tennessee, which was done by the Tennessee State Planning Commission. Mr. TAYLOR. Iii absence of objection the letter from' Senator Gore will be made a part of the record. The other two documents will be macTo a part of the file. (Senator Gore's letter follows:) V.5. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, April 18, 1967. Mr. ROBERT A. MILLm~, Tenne8see Scenic River8 As$ooiation, Po8t'OjiceBo~r~1O4, Nashville, Tennessee. DEAR ML MILLER: Mr. Lynch has told me of your further conversation with him with respect to yecr testimony before the Senate Interior Committee. I have written to Senator Church to express to him my interest In the subject of PAGENO="0313" 299 your te8tlInony and to endorse the inclusion of the Bul!alo, Obed, and South Fork Rivers in a scenic rivers s3rstem. Sincerely yo~irs, ALBERT GORE. Oolonel BLACK. Thank you, sir. We recommend, and when I say we, the three organizations from Tennessee, that three rivers in Tennessee be included initially in the national system of scenic rivers and those a~r~ the Buffalo in middle Tennessee, the Obed River in the Cumberland Mountains ineast Ten- nessee, south fork of the Cumberland, also in east Tennessee, and Kentucky with its tributaries. I will not in view of the shortness of time try to bring our maps forward, but we do have with us maps back there plotting out these rivers and we will leave them there. Our Congressman from the Sixth District, Congressman William R. Anderson, who, as you know, of course, introduced the bill quite a long time ago, which would include the Buffalo River, wanted to be with us this morning but House business precludes it. We will invite attention to the fact that in the statement submitted by Congressman Anderson he `also endorses the Obed and the South Fork of the Cum- berland. I think about the only other thing I want to say and then Mrs. Russell, Dr. Liane Russell, has some details to give you, is this : That we, and again I say the three organizations, in Tennessee, we are for dams, we are for industry, and we are for progress, `but we are also for a reasonable number of free-flowing, reasonably natural rivers. I `think I will turn over now the remainder of our time to Dr. Liane Russell. (Statement of Colonel Black follows:) STATEMENT or COL. CLAuDE A. Er~~&ci~, fl.S. ARMY, EETIBEn, BOARD OF Auvisons, TENNESSEE SCENIC Rivuns ASS0CIAPI0N `The active and intensive interest that Tennesseans in citizen and government organization have shown in recent years In the preservation of the State's scenic rivers has culminated In the drafting `of a State scenic rivers bill (House Bill No. 1333, "The Tennessee Scenic Rivers Act of 1968") which was introduced last month into both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly. A joint open hearing before the conservation committees of House and Senate was held on March 6. Two days ago, March 12, the bill was referred to the Calendar Corn- mittee and a vote in the House is expected `on March 19 or soon thereafter. The Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association in cooperation with the Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning spearheaded the drive which led to the drafting of this bill `and its introduction by the Honorable ~. William Pope, Jr~ The bill classifies the river areas, designates rivers or sections of rivers for immediate Inclusion in the system, and prescribes procedures for their protection and administration and for the addition of new components to the system. Regardless of the bill's immediate fate, the experience gained in drafting the legislation, and the information obtained in evaluating Tennessee's rivers, may be of some help to the Subcommittee `on National Parks and Recreation in its deliberations `on the role of the States `and in its decisions on Tennessee rivers in particular. The following suggestions are `offered : 1. As far as possible, rivers in a State scenic rivers system should be given the same protection from Federal agencies as rivers In the national slstem. 2. ThIs should apply to any rivers placed in a study category as well as to those designated for immediate inclusion in the system. 3. All Federal watershed planning should Include a thorough study and evalu- ation of the scenic values of the streams in the watershed. PAGENO="0314" 300 ~ The ~ followhig Tennè~ssee river areas are recommended 1~or inclusion in a National Scenic Rivers System. They are included in the Tennessee scenic Rivers Bill, but these three in particular are also especially worthy of Serious consider- ation for national scenic river status. All three have already been so recommended by the Tennessee Department of Conservation, the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission, and the Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning. Members of the Tennessee Scenic fllversAssociation have had long experience with all three of these rivers. 1. Buffalo River-The entire river.-This river was one of those studied and favorably recommended by the study team of the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. In 1965 the 84th General Assembly of Tennessee passed Senate Joint Resolution No. 24 which urged the Department of the Interior and Congress to include the Buffalo River as a national wild river and offered state assistance in carrying out the development program. Bills introduced by U.S. Representatives Anderson and Fulton include this river in those designated for immediate scenic river status. The TVA is cooperating with the State of Tennessee in developing plans to administer this river as a scenic float stream. 2. BIg South Fork of the Cumberland and its tributary Clear Fork.-This river also is one of those studied by the BOR. The study team concluded that it was perhaps the finest wild river in the eastern United States. With that endorsement, little wore needs to be said. The river is well known to canoe clubs, and this year it will be the site of the U.S. Canoe Association's national championship down- river marathon. 3. Obed River and its tributaries Clear Creek and Daddys Creek.-The Obed is the principal stream in the Emory River watershed. The scenic qualities of this river, which are equal to those of the Big South Fork of the Cumberland, have been described at length in the January 1968 report of the TVA-Emory River Watershed Development Association, which states : "The combination of forest setting, mountain peaks, deep river gorges, scenic streams, interesting waterfalls, rock formations, caves and plentiful game and fish make this area unique within the Tennessee Valley if not the eastern United States . . . The central feature of this area's uniqueness is the gorge of the Emory and Obed Rivers , . . the most scenic are the Obed River and its major tributaries-Clear Creek and Daddys Creek. These streams form almost a 100-mile system of rugged waters which change complexion with the seasons. Sheer rock walls encase these streams in canyons up to 500 feet deep and create spectacular views." TVA is engaged in further studies on the scenic potentials of keeping the river free-flowing. A large part of the adjacent lands are owned by the Tennessee Game and Fish Commis- sion. (A 1939 TVA report concluded that a major dam on the Obed was nowhere near economically feasible and a reappraisal just completed by TVA has reached the same conclusion. An independent study by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1948 arrived at even lower benefit-cost ratios.) If the bill eventually recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is one which designates for immediate inclusion `only a limited number of non-controversial rivers, and only those already studied by the BOR, then the Tennessee "Sienic Rivers Association would suggest placing the Buffalo in this category, `but would also strongly recommend `that the Big South Fork `of the Cumberland and the Obed be included in a study category and `be given protection during the study period. If, `on the other hand, a more inclusive bill is acceptable, then Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association recommends that all three river areas be designated for immediate scenic river status. STATEMENT OP LIMTE B. RUSSELL, TELNNESSEE CITIZENS FOR WILIXERNESS PLANNING . Mrs. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, chairman of the full committee, and members of the committee, I `am Liane B. Russell, president of Ten- ness~e Citizens for Wilderness Planning, an independent nonprofit conservation organization founded in 1966 `and dedicated to the preser- vation of Tennessee superb natural environment. We appreciate the privilege of being permitted to express our views before the subcommittee. PAGENO="0315" 301 Our organization has been working diligently ever since its incep- tion for maintaining the free-flowing char~ter of several of our rivers and for protecting their natural environment. We had a major part in the introduction, this year, of a Tennessee scenic rivers bill now pend- ing in the State legislature. It is noteworthy that 50 out of 99 represent- ntives cosigned this State bill and we have been gratified by the tre- mendous popular support it has had throughout the State of Tennessee. For instance, in the last 3 days alone over 600 names have been turned in on a petition on behalf of one specific river, the Obed. Many organizations have endorsed the bill including the Tennessee Conservation League with 20,000 members. Our written testimony is in two sections, one taking up general con- siderations for national scenic river systems, and the second referring to Tennessee rivers in particular. If I might, I would like in my oral testimony to take these up in reverse order and make our recommenda- tions concerning Tennessee rivers. We believe that Tennessee is blessed with some of the most beautiful I rivers in the Eastern United States. Notable among these are the sand- stone gorge rivers of the Cumberland Plateau, which cut sheer canyons I up to 500 feet deep ; and the pastoral rivers flowing through rich f arm- land and beside lushly wooded hills. Some of these rivers are located In the most sparsely populated areas of the East ; yet they are within driving distance of the big population centers. For these various rea- Sons, we strongly urge the inclusion of several Tennessee rivers in a national scenic rivers system, and particularly the following three: Buffalo, entire river ; Obed, including Clear Creek and Daddys Creek; south fork of the Cumberland, including Clear Fork River. 1. The Buffalo, in middle Tennessee, is a favorite pastoral float stream. This river is designated for national scenic river status in Mr. Anderson's H.R. 6588 and in Mr. Fulton's recent bill, and is listed to be studied within 3 years in Mr. Saylor's H.R. 90. It is listed in the study categories of H.R. 6166 and of the Senate-passed bill S. 119. A survey of the river has been made by the Federal wild rivers study team and a favorable recommendation resulted. In 1965, the 84th General Assembly of Tennessee passed Senate Joint Resolution 24, which urged the Department of the Interior and Congress to include the Buffalo as a national wild river and offered State assistance in carrying out the program. The Tennessee Game and Fish Commission has also endorsed the Buffalo as worthy of inclusion in a national system. The TVA has expressed its intention to assist the State of Ten- nessee in developing the Buffalo as a scenic river. 2. The Obed River, and may I pass some pictures around of this river, the Obed River system including the Obed and its major tribu- taries should be included in their entirety. These are sandstone gorge rivers of outstanding beauty, flowing through dramatic, lushly vege- tated canyons topped by sheer cliff faces. The Obed system is corn- pletely undeveloped, no human habitations are visible from the rivers, and access is limited. About one-third of the shoreline is in public ownership, lying in the Catoosa wildlife management area of 80,000 acres, owned and managed by the Tennessee Game and Fish Com- mission. The Obed system contains about 100 river-miles of magnifi- cent wild scenery, outstanding recreation value, and crystal-clear PAGENO="0316" 302 waters. We believe it is eminently suited for scenic river status. BOR study of the Obed has been requested. Congressman Anderson in his statement to the subcommittee has endorsed inclusion of this river among the rivers listed for detailed study in the national bill. 3. The Big South Fork of the ~iimberland and the Clear Fork River, its southwestern tributary, repiesent one of the mo's~ outstand- ing wilderness river systems in the eastern United States. Its water- shed is heavily forested, and the river gorges are almost totafly re- moved from civilization. It was studied by th~ Wild Rivers Study Team of the BOB and given an exce11en~t recommendation as a scenic river in a preliminary report of 1964. The Scott County Conservation Board, set up under State law and with technical services provided by the Tennessee Department of Conservation, has endorsed the. wild rivers principle for this river and we respectfully recommend t~h~i:t the above three rivers I have named-Buffalo, South Fork and Ob~d-be included in a Scenic River bill, either as initial units of the system or by designation for ~tiidy as potential additions. Thank you. ( Statements of Mrs. Russell and Richard E. Reed, president of the East Tennessee White Water Club follow:) STATEMENT OF LIANE B. RUSSELL, REPRESENTING TENNESSEE QITIZENS FO~ WILDERNESS `PlANNING `Mr. Cbairman, members of `the c~inmitte~, I am Liane B. Russe!11, President of Tennessee Oitizens for Wilderness Planning. an independent conservation r~ani- zation founded in 1966 and dedicated to tihe preservation of Tennessee's superb natural environment. Our organization ha s bee'ii working diligently ever since its hiception for maintaining the fr~e-*flowing character of several of our rivers and for protecting their natura' enviro'nmeiit. We `had `a major part in the intro- duetlon, this year, of a Tennessee scenic rivers bill now pending in the State Legislature. We are hopeful that `the present hearings signify that national scenic rivers legislation will soon he fort~ieoming, and we thank the Committee for the eh'ance to testify. Free-flowing rivers are not only among our finest but also among our fastest vanishing resources. Unless we act very fast, our children will not know the `beauty, the peace, and the renewal of spirit that comes from a living, natural stream. ~It is most gratifying that `several good bills to es'tab~ish Na:tional Scenie Rivers SyStems have `been intr~dueed `into the U. S. House of Representa tives. The first part of our testimony will deal with some of the general features of these hills; the second will m!ake recommendations `concerning three spedfie rivers in Tsp. see which we consider highly worthy of national scenic rivers status. A. GENERAL OONSIDERATIONS Although, after careful study of the various bills, we have definite views on most of `their detailed features, we shall here express ourselves only on thoso we consider nlost important. 1. We j~li~ve it is essential for rivers in the `systeni to be classified `according to certain criteria used for their inclusion ; and that this classification sisilild then determine the degree of restriction with which the river a reas `are adminis- tered. Areas associated with the "wild river" category of H.Il. 8416. or Class I of H.R. 90 should `be m'aniaged a's true wilderness, in accordance with the ~micepts embodied in the Wilderness `Act of 1Ot~4. At the other mid of the scale, there is also need for `classifications such as Class III (11.11. 90) , "historic and cultural," and "pastoral" (HR. 8416). Many of our Eastern rivers fit this lattcr gro p of categories. However, many other Eastern rivers. and among them t~h~ most scenic, would fit the criteria of some intermediate category, `such as CIa `~`~ H PAGENO="0317" (HR. 90) or "natural environn~ent rivers" (HR. 8416) . Becaus~ they are the wildest rivers we have in the East, we believe that they should be giveii more protection than is at present afforded the intermediate categories by the bills under conSIderation. Specifically, we believe that no new road access should be permitted to rivers of this type, and that "compatible resource uses" (H.R. s416) should `be strongly restricted. 2. We believe ~tliat the protection given to rivers in the system against the bUil(liug of darns and other water resources projects should be a's strong as possi- ble. The worifinig og the bill should specifically: (a) Prohibit construOtion, operation, or authorization of all projects, re- gardless of whether or not such projects are connected with production of power; (b) A;pply to projects affecting a river, as well as to projects located directly on a river; (C) apply to scenic river areas established by State law. We recommend that, in addition to referring to "federal agencies" in general terms, the bill should specifically name those agencies most often involved in water resource projects, such as the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, TVA, Federal Power Commission, etc. 3. We strongly believe that all protection afforded to rivers designated as initial units of the system should also be afforded to all rivers listed in the bill for future study. 4. We believe that the width of the strip of land on either side of a river that is included in the system should be wide enough to afford effective protection of the scenic qualities of the river and, wherever possible, should include at least the entire scenic vista from the river. The extent of river-adjacent protected areas should be greater than it is in H.R. 6166. In many places, it would be beneficial to permit acquisition of scenic easements extending up to 2 miles on each side. 5. Since many more rivers will need to be preserved than can be designated in a national l)ill, we believe that the legislation should give encouragement and assistance to the individual States in crealing State scenic rivers systems (see HR. 90, Sec. 5) . Rivers designated by a State legislature should be eligible to become part of a national scenic rivers system (see HR. 8416, Sec. 2 ( a ) (ii)). Protection against federal water resource projects should clearly apply to State scenic* rivers (see H.R. 90, Sec. 6(a) (3)). 6. We believe that liberal provisions should be made for later additions of rivers to the system. 7. We urge that appropriations be adequate for rapid acquisition of lands and interests therein. Particularly our Eastern rivers, which do not often lie in federal lands, are endangered by commercial exploitation and must be protected very soon. I B. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING TENNESSEE nivan.s We believe that Tennessee is blessed with some of the most beautiful rivers In the Eastern United States. Notable among these are the sandstone gorge rivers of the Cumberland Plateau, which cut sheer canyons up to 500 feet deep ; and the pastoral rivers flowing through rich farmland and beside lushly wooded hills. Some of these rivers are located in the most sparsely populated areas of the East ; yet they are within driving distance of the big population centers. For these various reasons, we strongly urge the Inclusion of several Tennessee rivers in a national scenic rivers system, and particularly the following three: Buffalo (entire river) Obed (including Clear Creek and Dacldys creek) South Fork of the Cumberland (including Clear Fork River). 1. The Buffalo, in middle Tennessee, is a favorite pastoral float stream. This river is designated for national scenic river status in Mr. Anderson's H.R. 6588 arid in Mr. Fulton's recent bill, and is listed to `be studied within three years in Mr. Saylor's HR. 90. It is listed in the study categories of H.R. 6166 and of the Senate-passed bill S. 119. A survey of the river has been made by the federal Wild Rivers Study Team and a favorable recommendation resulted. In 1965, the 84th General Assembly of Tennessee passed Senate Joint Resolution No. 24, whi(h urged the Departnwiit of the Interior and `Congress to include the Buffalo as a national wild river and offered State assistance in carrying out the pro- gram. The Tennessee Game and Fish Commission has also endorsed the Buffalo 303 I I PAGENO="0318" 304 as worthy of inclusion in a national system. The PVA has expressed its intention to assist the State of Tennessee in developing the Buffalo as a scenic river. 2. The Obed River system, including the Obed and its major tributaries, Clear Oreek `and Daddys Greek, should be included in their entirety. These are sand- stone gorge rivers of outstanding beai~ty, flowing through dramatic, lushly vegetated canyons topped by sheer cliff faces. The Obed system is completely un- developed, hO human habitations are visible from the `rivers, and access is limited. About one~third of the shoreline i's in public `ownership, lying in the Oatoo'sa Wild- life Management area of 80,000 `acres, owned `and managed by the r1~nessee thiime and Fish Commission. The Obed system contains about 100 river-miles of magnificent wild `scenery, outstanding recreation value, and crystal-clear waters. We believe it is eminently suited for scenic river `status. BOR `study `of the Obeci h~s been requested. 3. The Big Bouth Fork of the Cumberland and the Clear Fork River, its south- western tributary, represent `one of the most outstanding wilderness river systems in `the Eastern United States. Its watershed `is heavily forested, `and the river gorges are almost totally `removed `from civilization. It was studied by the Wild Rivers Study Team `of the BOR and given an excellent recommendation ~is a scenic river i,n `a preliminary report `of 1964. The Scott County Conservation Board, set up under State law `and with tecl~n'ical services provided by the Ten- `nessee Department `of Conservation, `ha's endorsed the wild `rivers principle for this river. This Board, `together with other organization's, sponsors the `annual South F~ork Canoe Race which `attracts participants and visitors from many States. The U.S. Canoe Assecti'ati'on will this year, hold its national championship dowm~iver ma~athon on the Big South Fork. All three of `the rivers named in our `testimony were recommended for `scenic . river status `by the `Tennessee Department `of Conservation `and the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission in `a statement submitted in 1967 to the Senate Corn- mittee on Interior `and Insular Affairs. They were suggested for immediate in- elusion iii `a national scenic `rivers `system in `a joint `statement `to the same Corn- mittee by Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning and the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association. They a~re `among the rivers listed in the Tennessee scenic rivers `bill now pending in the State Legislature. The membership of Tennessee Citizens `for Wilderness Planning contains per- seas expertly qualified in various fields related to the study of rivers, `such as geology, ecology, forestry, fish `biology, hydrology, `and planning. We have `some experience with rivers throughout the country, `and we h'ave intimate knowledge of the specific `rivers for which we seek preservation. Our testimony is backed by `this kruowledge. We respectfully `recommend that the `above listed three rivers be included in a national `scenic rivers system, either as initial units of `the system or by design'a- ti'o'n for study `as potential additions. STATEMENT OF EAST TENNESSEE WHITE WATER CLUB, BY RICHARD E. REED, PRESIDENT The members of the East Tennessee White Water Club feel that the preserva- tion in their natural state of our remaining free-flowing streams and rivers is urgently needed. We endorse the statement made by the Wilderness Society and hope that the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation will report favor- ably a bill which contains effective protection for scenic rivers throughout the United States. Our organization feels that Rep. Saylor of Pennsylvania has introduced in his Scenic Rivers Act, ]~[.R. 90, the essential features of such legislation. Due to water pollution, impoundments, road building, and real estate devel- opment, the number of rivers and smaller streams that would qualify for Scenic river status is rapidly diminishing. This is particularly true in the Eastern United States. We recommend that a National Scenic Rivers System be estab- lished at the earliest possible date. Two prime candidates for inclusion in a Scenic Rivers System are the Obeci and the Big South Fork of the Cumberland Rivers, located in East Tennessee. These two rivers are within a day's journey of several heavily populated areas. The dramatic gorges of these Cum'berland Plateau rivers are unique in the United States. They must be preserved for future generations to enjoy. PAGENO="0319" 305 The passage of legislation similar to that of H.R. 90 would preserve important parts of our scenic heritage. We wish to thank the Subcommittee for this oppor- tunity to offer testimony. Mr. TAYLOR. Are these rivers in the TVA water control system? Mrs. RUSSELL. The Buffalo and the Obed are. The Big South Fork is not. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you know what the attitude of the TVA is in re- gard to adding this in this legislation? Mrs. RUSSELL. I may say the Buffalo, the TVA has expressed its desire last year to administer the Buffalo as a scenic river in conjunc- tion with the State of Tennessee. As far as the Obed is concerned the TVA has recently completed feasibility studies of a dam on the Obed and has found it to be nonfeasible, that the benefits would be only 60 percent of the estimated costs. This was in a press release last week. Mr. TAYLOR. Did you wish to add something? Colonel BLACK. Yes, sir. The South Fork of the Cumberland has to do with the Devil Jump Dam. That is in Scott and Morgan Counties. The part of the river affected is in Tennessee which is in the district of Congressman John Duncan, of the Second Tennessee District. We were in his office just a little while ago and Congressman Duncan authorized us to say-he could not get here this morning-that in his opinion dams do not constitute the best use for either the South Fork of the Cumberland or of the Obed. He thinks there are better uses, and he does not think that Devil Jump Dam will be built for quite a long time yet. Mr. TAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Will you ask the Congressman to get a letter in to us to that effect? Colonel Bi~ox. Yes, sir, we will. Mr. TAYLOR. And we will be glad to have a letter in which he expresse~s his opinion. Colonel BLACK. We will be glad to do that, yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Mrs. Russell, you recommend first that these rivers be placed in the immediate category of scenic rivers and then you say that, if that can't be done, they shall be placed in the study provisions? Mrs. RUSSELL. That is right. Mr. ASPINALL. I understand from what you have stated then that you have studied what the cost of this would be to the Federal Gov- ernment. This is bothering us a great deal as we study these proposals. What is the cost as you understand it? Mrs. RUSSELL. We have a cost estimate on the Obed system and the Big South Fork of the Cumberland. Mr. ASPINALL. You may furnish it for the record. Mrs. RUSSELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. I just want to know what you have got. Thank you very much. I ask it be made a part of the record. Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection it will be made a part of the record~ (Data referred to above follows:) PAGENO="0320" Obed system: Obed River Clear Creek Daddys Creek COST ESTIMATES FOR TENNESSEE RIVERS PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN A NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM 94.6 ~16~277 814 15,463 $100 $40 $699,890 200 100 48.1 18,860 943 17,917 $55 $22 $446, 039 ~fe 100 10,686 534 10,152 $300 $120 4$1,218,240 1 Width of the river itself has been included in the total area for purposes of cost estimates. 2 Computed as 5 percent of total acreage in each case. a Obtamed from real estate dealers operating in the respective areas. 4 Assumed to be 40 percent of the fee simple cost. 5 This acreage does not include lands within Catoosa Wildlife Management Area. It is assumed that such lands, already in State ownershipS can be excluded from cost estimates. since they either are, or can be~ eflectively zoned for wilderness status. (The river mileages given do include stretches within the Catoosa area.) 6 The TVA has expressed its intention to develop this as a scenic free-flowing river, in cooperation with the State of Tennessee. It is hoped that TVA will eventually receive appropriations for this purpose. Source: Prepared by Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association and Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning. River Approximate length of pro- posed stretch (miles) Average strip to be preserved on each side (miles) Estimated average width of river 1 (feet) Total area (acres) Approximate area to be acquired- Estimated price per acre- - Estimated total Scenic easement4 In fee simple 2 (acres) By scenic ease- ments (acres) In feel 38.6 29.0 27.0 3' 3' V8 South Fork of the Cumberland: South Fork, in Tennessee 21. 5 Clear Fork River 26.6 200 100 100 Buffalo8 116.0 34 3' PAGENO="0321" Co1on~1 BLACK. Mr. Aspin~t11, I may add that the total of 12 rivers we are proposing for our State, inicluding these, we estii~ate. will be $1,700 million for acquisition fees and easement, not development. Mr. ASPINALIJ, WbiQh you think; the, Federal Government should put out? Colonel BLACK. How much ? ~ ~ , Mr. ASPINALL. Which you think the: Federal Qo~rnment ~hould take care of ? ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ Colonel BLACK. Sir, I think they would have a similar condition to what we have in parks. We have some Federal, some national parks' in the State of Tennessee and we have 21, so T~ think maybe nine and three would be a fair division, sir. The State- Mr. ASPINALL. We just got through listening to, some people from Florida who , said they wanted to do it on their own. My only ques- tion was do you think this is a ` proper charge against the Federal Government? Colonel BLACK. For three, yes, sir. We will put up nine, the State will put up nine, and we think the Federal Government maybe should three. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you. Colonel BLACK. Because we certainly expect a lot of visitors from Detroit, Cleveland, since naturally, we hope they will come. Mr. A5PINALL. Charge them. Colonel BLACK. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. If you could get a statement from TVA in regard to this we would be glad to make it a part of the record. Colonel BLACK. I wouldn't guarantee that, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas. Any other questions? The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Km. Just two questions : Sir, do you contemplate that the inclu- sion of these rivers in the scenic or wild rivers category would see their development for recreational purposes? Colonel BLACK. We go along with the categories or the criteria in either Mr. Aspinall's bill or Congressman Saylor's. Some of them we would be-would be developed as more or less wild, others as pas- toral, and we use a third definition category of partially developed. But some of them would be, some segments or some of these rivers would still be, open for agriculture, for instance. Mrs. RUSSELL. May I add to this that the Buffalo would fit into the pastoral category in Mr. Aspinall's bill. Mr. Ki~r~. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am not particu- larly interested in the verbiage on categories. You say you want a lot of people from Detroit and Chicago or some other places to come down there and visit the river. Is it your purpose in seeking this legis- lation to preserve these rivers in a natural state or is it your purpose to develop them for recreation? Mrs. RUSSELL. It iS our purpose to preserve them in as natural a state as we can, since they `are `among the wildest rivers we have in the East. Mr. Km. You see there is a difference here, and it is a point about. which all of you people have to be concerned. If we are setting u.p `a river primarily to preserve it in a free, open flowing, clean condition this in `and of `itself limits the recreational use you can make of that 307 1 I 92-560-68-21 PAGENO="0322" I 308 stream. Now, in my own mind anyone who comes here saying that they want to build a tourist attraction is arguing against the bill. Now, the other question I wanted to ask you is this : Does the Ten- nessee Valley Authority, as such, have now the power to label a river as a scenic river and protect it as such without any actio~i on the part of the State or the Fe4eral Government ? Oolonel BLACK. Theymtist have because they have made a commit- ment and they have an agreement with the State of Tennessee the two of them will jointly develop the Buffalo River. But there is nothing in that that precludes it being made also a part of a national system. Mr. Em. In other words, this legislation would not be essential to the establishment of those rivers as scenic rivers? Colonel BLACK. If the Tennessee Valley Authority saw fit under their. once and for all authority granted under the act of 1933 to do ~o and could get appropriations for it from the Congress, I believe they could do that. They interpret their authority under the original ~t pretty broadly, sir. For instance, they have a big project laying be- twee~i a lake, ~tO,OOO acres, which is being developed for mass reerea- tion and they say that is done under the authority to set up demonstra- tions and they could set up a demonstration scenic river very easily if they wanted to. Mr. KYL. Do they have the authority to use power revenues to pur- chase land? Colonel BLACK. No, sir ; I don't think so. They would have to have an appropriation. S Mr. Km. Thankyou. ~ Mr. TAYLOR. I might add this one agency already usurps authority already granted to another agency of the Government. Mr. MCCLURE. I wonder if you could tell me if you have cost studies On other rivers or are those cost studies just those confined to your State and area? Colonel BLACK. We have cost studies on all 12. 5 Mrs. RUSSELL. We have cost studies in addition to the ones we have mentioned here. 5 Mr. MCCLURL But you haven't done it for all the rivers under the various bills? Mrs. RUSSELL. No, sir. Colonel BLACK. May I say, in that connection, these three organiza- tions do not have any paid staff, not a single one of us are paid. We do quite a bit at our own expense and we cannot make a benefit- cost study of this as could the Corps of Engineers and the Depart- ment of Interior. Mr. MOCLtTRE. I wanted to ask Mrs. Russell, have you been in the West? S ~ S Mrs. RUSSELL. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCLURE, Have you seen these rivers proposed for inclusion in the West ? ~ S Mrs. Rnssi~a~. Yes. Mr. MoCLuiu~. I am a little startled by the statement on .. .2 and the top of page 3 *here you say those designated as wild rivers should be ma~iaged as true wilderness in accordance with the concepts of the Wilderness Act and should incli~de the entire scenic vista froni the river. Are you ~ware that On some of these rivers ir~ the 1~7èst you can see for a hundred miles? PAGENO="0323" Mrs. RUSSELL. Yes. Mr. McCLum~. Is it your purpose that all of this within a hundred miles should be managed in a wilderness concept? Mrs. Russ1~t~L. I was applying this to the Tennessee River. Mr. McCLtntE. All right, fine. I appreciate that clarification. Mrs. RUSSELL. Because they are a matter of half a mile which would quite adequately protect it. Mr. McCLu1u~. Thank you. I am glad to have that clarification be. cause you startled me somewhat. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mrs. Russell and Mr. Black, for your fine testimony. Our next witness is Denton J. Quick, chairman, Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council, Stroudsburg, Pa. STATENE~T OP DE~TON ~. QUICK, CHAIRMAN, TOCKS ISLAND REOI'ONAL ADVISORY OOUNCIL, STROUDSBURG, PA.; ACOOM- PANIED BY fILES W. MARRON, JR., DIRECTOR OP PLANNINO~ NEWTON, NJ. Mr. QUICK. I have with me, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marron, who is the director of planning, department of Sussex County, and also the chairman of our planning committee for Tocks Island Regional Ad- I visory Council. Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection a copy of your entire statement will I be made a part of the record at this point. Mr. QUICK. Thank you. Our proposed statement, Mr. Chairman, and members of the com- mittee, is in support of the legislation to establish a National Scenic Rivers Act by the Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council. My name is Denton Quick. I am a member of the Board of Chosen Freeholders of ~:~x County, N.J., but I am appearing before you to- day in my c~'~ as chairman of the Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council (~ to offer testimony in support of the several bills which w~ rize the establishment of a national scenic rivers our testin st u baud tion in w - operates. Lg on ti points. 1 is a council of county inties in the States of ~iwillbe~ Iby Delay [ will, there: . The Tocks L ~overnments ii ~ - vania, -~ ;he Federal dev Uhis developmer rvoir ion I ~- - `egiol nile s. ~ ~ k;o Matar )ras, Pa. The imminent c ~ Interstate Highway System, the rapidly incre~ larity of camping and canoeing, and the coming of the `1 projects are all combining to generate what will be, in the next few years, almost irresistible development pressures on the upper Delaware River. These pressures are being most accu- 309 I t by Advisory C~ those seve: and t'of a urse, i ~ the portion of L s (1) the Toel are Water Gap i~ - - futurE PAGENO="0324" rately reflected in one positive indicator : land speculation. The value of land, the demand for land and the search for land along the upper Delaware are all beginning to grow fairly rapidly. The upper Delaware River has many features of regional and national significance which deserve protection or preservation. Among these: The section of river from Narrowsburg, N.Y., to Port Jervis, N.Y., is one of the few truly exciting areas of white water in the Eastern United States. To protect the Tocks Island Reservoir from eutrophication, it will be absolutely essential that the upper Delaware's water quality be kept at a very high level-a fact which in itself indicates a need to protect the upper Delaware from major ecological changes and, thus, from most major developments. The upper Delaware affords various types of recreation-white water canoeing, float trips, cold water fishing, and so forth-which are becoming popular and which will not be offered in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The upper Delaware is rich in history and thus deserves every pro- tection. Some items of historical interest range from well preserved sections of the Delaware and 1-ludson Canal in Pennsylvania and New York through the first Roebling suspension bridge at Barryville, N.Y., to Za.ne Grey's former home in Lackawaxen, Pa. The communities of the upper Delaware retain a charm and way of life which regretfully is fast disappearing in our country. A major part of the charm, incidentally, stems from the location of the corn- munities on a free flowing river whose waters are still of a very high quality. For these and many other reasons it is essentia~I that the upper Dela- ware be preserved where appropriate and otherwise protected through au orderly plan of development as quickly as possible. Mr. Ohairman, we are not here today to argue that. the upper Dela- ware River be an integral part of any scenic rivers bill this committee may approve. Rather, we are arguing that it is essential that a system he established in and through which ( 1) certain obviously wild rivers-and there are very few of these in the United States-can be protected immediately, and (2) other rivers can be protected after study because of their unique scenic, historical, cultural, or ecological features or values. Such a system should be established by congres- siona.l adoption of a bill which is : (1) comprehensive in its delineation of types of rivers which can be included in the system ; (2) highly flexible in the techniques or powers that can be used for establishing elements of the system ; and (3) all government in approach ; that is, that PermitS elements of the system to be established by actions of the Federal, State, or local governments. Both H.R. 90 and H.R. 8416 appear to meet these tests. We are particularly pleased that H.R. 90 and H.R. 8416-as well s~oine of the other scenic rivers' bills-permit a scenic river system I i)e established through a variety of land control techniques. (Mr. Quick's statement follows:) STATEMENT OF DENTON J. QUICK, CHAIRMAN, TOCKS ISLAND REGIONAL ADvIsORY COUNCIL Mr. Ohairman and members of the committe, my name is Denton .T. Quick. I am a Member of the Board of Ohoseii Freeholders of Sussex County, New ~ersey but 310 PAGENO="0325" 311 I am appearing before you today in my capacity as Chairman of the Tocks Is1anc~ Regional Advisory Council (TIRAC) to offer testimony in support o~ the several bills which would authorize the establishment of a National Scenic Rivers System. The Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council is a council of county governments involving, in all, those seven counties in the States of Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey which will be affected by the Federal development of a major portion of the Delaware River. This development, of course, involves (1) the Tocks Island dam and reservoir project and (2) the Delaware Water Gap Na- tional Recreation Area. TIRAO was forn~ed in 1q65 when it became apparent to the top elected officials in the approximately 4,200 square mile region that (1) the legislation authorizing the establishment of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area would be enacted by the Congress and (2) many of the problems that would be created by the estimated 10,500,000 visitors to the national recreation area would be regional rather than local in nature. TIRAC was created for two major perposes : first, to be the means through which the top elected and planning officials in the region could identify the regional problems and opportunities which would be generated by the damp reservoir and recreation area projects ; and, second, to be the region's principal means for marshaling the resources which would be needed to effectively deal with the problems and opportunities identified. Since it was created and staffed, TIRAO has been developing a program with two principal thrusts. Thrust number one has been directed toward protecting the quality of the region's environment-which is now nothing less than superb-well into the future. This thrust has resulted in : (1) the initiation of a number of water and sewer studies throughout the region, including the Delaware River Basin Com- mission's important water and sewer study which involves the 1,000 square miles of land whose waters drain into what will be the Tocks Island reservoir ; (2) TIRAC's unique solid waste study which, next year, will culminate in a plan for effectively disposing of the solid wastes generated by the present and future residents of and visitors to the region ; and (3) TIRAC's proposed regional vector control program. Thrust number two has been directed toward identifying (1) the kind of growth which can be anticipated for the region and (2) the steps which must be taken at different levels of government to effectively guide this growth. This thrust has resulted in the initiation of an ambitious regional planning program which is much too detailed to be described in this statement. A major reason why TIRAC has been able to undertake such an ambitious pro- gram is because of previous work of a planning nature which had been financed by the State and Federal governments. The most important single study in this area is "The Potential Impact of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area on its Surrounding Communities" which was financed by the Pennsylvania State Planning Board and the N.J. Division of State and Regional Planning with some Federal assistance. This study, more than any other, Mentified the forces affecting the Tocks Island region and how these forces might be expected to interact with growth forces generated by the national recreation area. This study, for example, carefully delineated those forces other than `the Tocks Island projects which were and are generating growth in the region. Among these forces `are: . . . The interstate highways. When Interstate Route 80 is completed in 1970, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, will be a mere `one hour's driving time from Man- ~ hattan. When Interstate Route 84 is completed, many parts of Pike County, Pennsylvania, and Orange and Sullivan Counties in New York, will be one hour's driving time from major parts of Connecticut. . . . The suburbanizing forces unleashed by the New York metropolitan area. Given generally good roads, many persons are now moving into parts of Sussex and Warren Counties, New Jersey, and commuting to their jobs in Paterson and Newark and the Oranges. This trend can only `accelerate when the interstate highways are in full operation. These `two factors, combined with higher per capita ineomeand greater amounts of leisure time, have already triggered a spectacular land boom in most of the Poconos and parts of the Catskill resort areas. In Monroe County, Pennsylvania alone, there are now 115 active second or seasonal home communities~-most of which have the p~tential for becoming permanent home communities. I PAGENO="0326" 312 the ork and I region has long been of the large Es the Delaware been a majo: other smalle I Jerv~is, ~ ~r York.] The imminent completion of the inten creasing popularity of camping and ~ projects are all combining to generate irresistible development pressures on ti are being most accurately reflected in The value of land, the demand for 1 Delaware are all beginmin The Upper Delaware l~ . ~ ~ ~ of regional and j ~ nificance ~ which deserve protectL~ ~ 1~rese~ , ~ ~ g these- The section of river from Narrowsburg, 1 . . ~ . _~ , to Port Jervis, New York is one of the few truly exciting areas of white water in the Eastern United States. To protect the Tocks Island reservoir ?~"~ lutely essential that the Upper Delawar ; water c high level-a fact which in itself indicates a need to i ware from major ecological changes and, thus, from r ments. The Upper Delaware affords various types of reereation-w canoeing, float trips, cold water fishing, and so forth-which popular and which will not be offered in the Delaware Water ~. ~ . itional Recreation Area. The Upper Delaware is rich in history and thus deserves every protec- tion. Some items of historical interest range from well preserved see- tions of the Delaware and Hudson Canal in Pennsylvania and New through the first Roebling suspension bridge at Barryville, New York t~ Zane Grey's former home in Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania. The communities of the Upper Delaware retain a charm and way of life which regretfully is fast disappearing in our country. A major part of the charm, incidentally, stems from the location of the communities on a free flowing river whose waters are still of a very high quality. For these and many other reasons it is essential that the Upper Delaware be preserved where appropriate and otherwise protected through an orderly plan of development as quickly as possible. Mr. Chairman, we are not here today to argue that the Upper Delaware River be an integral part of any scenic rivers bill this committee may approve. Rather, we are arguing that it is essential that a system be established in a~ which ( 1) certain obviously wild rivers-and there are very few of 1 United States-can be protected immediately and (2) other rivers c tected after study because of their unique scenic, historical, c~ logical features or values. Such a system should be established by adoption of a bill which is : (1) comprehensive in its delineat~ rivers which can be included in the system ; (2) highly flexible in t~ ~ ~. or powers that can be used for establishing elements of the system ; and ( all-government in approach, that is, that permits elements of the system to established by actions of the Federal, State or local governments. Both HR. L and H.R. 8418 appear to meet these tests. We are particularly pleased that H.R. 90 and H.R. 8416-as well e~ of the other scenic rivers' bills-permit a scenic rivers' system to be estal through a variety of land control techniques. Given the nature of our economy and the extensive Federal and State land holdings in the region, we would prefer that outright land acquisition be kept at a minimum and t be accomplished through the acquisition of easements or Thank you very much for permitting us tO make this statement. any questions about the statement, I w~U e pleased to answer them a s is addedthe obvious ir Iphia metropoi LygrOund, the re . role that will - - - Recrea ~r to I' ate highway ~dthec'~ ~ioator: earch for Ian be pro- or ceo- Congressional PAGENO="0327" I / VTJ . Pittsburgh REGIONAL ZONE MAP Radius - Miles Millions - People SO 2 100 23 150 32 200 38 250 49 1960 Census Population Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area - PAGENO="0328" 314 Mr. TAYLOR. Tell us now again the person who is with you? Mr. QuicK. This is Mr. Marron, Mr. Jules Marron. We appreciate the opportunity of presenting our statement, and we have filed with you 50 copies, gentlemen. Mr. TAmoR. The Aspinall bill that we will probably work from lists the Delaware River in the study stage. Pennsylvania, New York, the segment from Hancock, N.J., to Mattamoras, Pa. Mr. QUICK. That is right. Mr. TAYLOR. If we leave it in as it is are you satisfied? Mr. QUICK. Yes, we are. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. Mr. QUICK. I might say there is something unique in this : As a seven-county organization which completely embraces the Delaware River project, Sullivan County in which lies this `TO miles of which you are speaking, those people have been definitely asked to make their recommendations, which they did, and it has passed by resolution of the council. Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, anyone else have any questions? The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. ~ As I understand from your statement, which I have read, that the creation of the Tocks Island Recreation Area has actually TIRAC Members State Boundary - County Boundary (State Boundary) © 0 TOwns and Cittes D%~N5Jt Scale 0 10 20 5 15 25 PAGENO="0329" 315 created problems which somehow take away from scenic recreational value . of that area ? ~ Mr. Qtrioit. No. No. We are making this statement, in asking for the scenic rivers protection, . we don't want these problems tooccur, and we are afraid because of the great increase in land value, the people have come along and what you asked of these other people here, create camping and so on, we want the fishing, we want the canoe- ing, but we don't want hurdy-gurdy establishments along its area or the threat of pollution. Mr. Km. Thank you. Mr. QUICK. Does this answer your question? Mr. TAYLOR. I thank you very much, Mr. Quick. . Mr. QrncK. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. The next witness is Mr. William P. Weiler, president of the New York-New Jersey River Conference, Chatham, N.J. STATEMENT OP WILLIAM P. WElLER, PRESIDEl~T, NEW YORK. NEW JERSEY RIVER CONPERENCE Mr. WElLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the com- mittee. The New York-New Jersey River Conference is made up of seven canoe clubs and organizations in the New York-New Jersey area whic1~ total about 700 members. Mr. TAYLOR. Would you like to have your statement in the record at this point or do you think you can read it all? Mr. WElLER. I am not gohig to read it, sir. I would like to make a few comments. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection the statement will be placed in the record. Mr. WElLER. We canoeists of the New York-New Jersey area heartily endorse this national scenic rivers program. We hope to see many of our national rivers preserved through this protection. In addition, especially we look forward to seeing the Delaware River, and this is the same stretch which the previous witness just.got through talking about, from Mattamoras, Pa., north or upriver to Hancock, N.Y., and which serves as the boundary line between New York and Pennsylvania, we would like to see this included under the program. In addition, we would like to see that portion which will remain below the Tocks Island Dam when that darn will be completed, and down tic the vicinity of Trenton, N.J., we would like to also see this section included as a wild river or a scenic river or under any one of the categories which are mentioned in these scenic rivers legislation bills. Now, I would like to add that our organization has made a survey of the number of privately owned canoes of certain clubs on the Dela- ware River in 1967, and we total 3,000 canoes from this group. We have reason to believe that if we included the canoes rented from canoe liv- eries that this total would be raised to 6,000 canoes on the Delaware River in 1967. River canoeing has been losing out to other sports due to the con- struction of clams. River canoeists do not appreciate lake canoeing. PAGENO="0330" 316 Our sport, as opposed to other sports such as motorboating, our sport deserves consideration for these reasons : Canoeing promotes physical fitness, causes no pollution of air or water, makes no noise, causes no disturbance such as wake or waves and gives a man time to enjoy his surroundings and blend with them. We canoeists of the Greater New York area heartily endorse this legislation and urge its speedy passage. Already, as we prepare, pro- posed rivers are `being withdrawn or attempted to be withdrawn as we have seen here this morning. We will never save too many rivers. The error will be to save too few. We ask that you give us strong legislation protected from weakening amendments. It must protect not only the rivers, but the headwaters on which `they depend and the watershed areas saving a segment of stream will be an empty gesture if this loses its water supply. Somehow later on provision will have to be made to protect the watersheds of our scenic rivers. (Stá~thment of Mr. Weiler follows:) STAPEMENT OF Wni~IAM P. Wm~, PRESIDENT, NEW YOEK-NEW JERSEY RIvER CONFERENCE It is reassuring to conservationists and outdoor people to find our national legislators introducing bills such as these. It is gratifying to find them, not merely reflecting public opinion, but leading it. However, there is always the question, Is our best good enough'? I would like to express some thoughts and opinions of the people I represent, canoeists and kayakists of the greater New York Metropolitan area, My orga- nization is made up of seven clubs which total about 1,700 members. We not only canoe, but hike, swim, camp and fish as we'll. I cannot emphasize too much how important we feel it is to establish a scenic rivers program, for the following reasons: 1. Man has in the past and continues at present to develop rivers and their valleys in the following manners and for uses: ` (a) To conveniently route highways. (b) To route his railroads. (c) Building ~1ams for power. (d) Building dams for water storage. (e) Building dams' for flood control. (1) ~3uilding dams for recreation. (g) Building dams for irrigation. (h) Building dams for real estate exploitation. 2. In many of these cases there Is a built-in fallacy, at least where multiple use is claimed. (a) Siltation fills in the water storage area, often at an alarming rate. ( b ) Can flood control and recreation always be compatible? In the east, the latter is most needed during late summer and early fall, the hurricane season. Suppose, with a storm impending, the water behind the dam is dumped to make room for the anticipated deluge. Then the storm misses, leaving the reservoir empty. Recreatiçn is lost. ` (c) Can water storage and recreation be compatible ? During a hot draught, when recreation is most needed, the water level would recede. 8. When man builds a dam for recreation, be loses more than he gains. ( a) He exchanges the native anadromous fish for lake fish. (b) Dams' help motor boating but hurt canoeing. (c) A dam is not necessary for swimming, hiking, or camping. (d) Dams destroy more scenery than they create. The' dam itself is ugly. (e) Natural habitat and scenery is replaced with artificial, at a great cost In time, money and energy. 4. On the other hand, the passage of this' legislation will insure that at least PAGENO="0331" 317 a very small percentage of our rivers will be preserved in their free flowing condition the way nature created them. ( a) Natural scenery will be preserved. (b) Natural habitat will be preserved for certain types of indigenous animal and plant populations of this environment. (0) Sports such as canoeing, hiking, fishing and camping will be pre- served in their orginal forms as practiced by the Indian and white settler. This is our heritage. 5. ( a) We could already have too many dams. How many rivers do we have without a single dam.? Many rivers exist today as a string of dams and lakes. (b) We are constantly building new dams. (C) The building of dams tends to perpetuate itself. Organizations are created, skilled people trained, and these must keep active and employed. ( d) We do not question that dams have certain usefulness, and that many are necessary. But it would seem to us that we are overbuilding. 6. Other changes that this legislation will protect our rivers from are: (a) Pollution. ( b ) Siltation. (o) Construction such as highways, industry, etc. ( d) Atomic power plants. These too, will change our rivers, by warming their waters. Yes, we will need these things, and they may be preferable to dams and hydroelectric power. All the more reason to save just a few rivers. We canoeists of the greater New York area heartily endorse this legislation, and urge its speedy passage. Already, as we prepare, proposed rivers are being withdrawn. We will never save too many rivers, the error we will make will be to save too few. We ask that you give us strong legislation, protect it from weakening amend- ments. It must protect not only the rivers, but the headwaters on which they depend. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Weiler. You are in agreement with Mr. Quick? Mr. WEir~ER. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. Anyone else have any questions? The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Km. I wonder what you refer to in the way of weakening amendments ? Amendments like what? Mr. WElLER. I would think certainly not being anything like an expert on legislation- `Mr. Kn~. You make a statement here, you don't want any weakening amendments. What do you mean? Mr. WEILBR, I would like to see a strong bill when it is passed. Mr. KYL. What is a strong bill? Mr. WElLER. A bill very similar to some of the bills which are being studied by this committee, in particular Representative Aspinall's bill is a good bill, and also Representative Saylor's bill is a good bill. Mr. Km. If you compare those, one of them is approximately 20 times stronger than the other one. Mr. WElLER. Well, that is true., Perhaps if the bill is too strong it won't pass. Mr. Km. The thing I guess I am trying to tell you here we have so many people write us letters and come to testify before the committee and always they talk about weakening amendments. Now, the job of this committee is to write a bill which satisfies the majority of the people and does the greatest amount of good that can be done at reason- able cost, and we don't think any amendment adopted by this commit~ tee is a weakening amendment. It is too easy for you people to think that any amendment is a weakening amendment. PAGENO="0332" 318 This committee will try to write a good bill. It probably won't be ~% bill that everybody likes because I get letters from the water skiers, too, and they would like to have a case behind a motor boat and the like. You see the problem we have now in this committee any time we get any kind of a bill there is a conflict among the users, some want a wilderness area, some an ar~a for camping, some wan.t a motor boat and some a canoe. We have some 200 million people to consider in this, and there are going to be some amendments. Mr. WElLER. This is what I would expect, sir, and that is why I am here to represent our side of the picture, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. If the gentleman will yield. The witness believes if he doesn~t toot his own horn for himself and those with whom he has associated, nobody else is going to toot it for him. Mr. Km. You know I believe you are right. Mr. WElLER. Thank you. Mr~ TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Weiler. The next witness is Mr. Keith Taylor, Izaak Walton League. I might say that practically every bill that comes before this comrn mittee gets some amendments, some of them get several amendments. Our ambition is to strengthen the bill or include it, make it. more palatable and workable rather than weaken it. Mr. Taylor? STATEMENT OP KEITE TAYLOR, PRESIDENT, WEST VIRGINIA DIVI. SIGN, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OP AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY GROVER C. LITTLE~, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, our statement is being passed out. I have just a few brief remarks here. I am Keith Taylor- Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection your entire statement will be made a part of the record at this point. Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. I am Keith Taylor, State president of the West Virginia division of the Izaak Walton League of America. With me is Grover `C. Little, national vice president of the division of the izaak Walton League of America, and an executive director of the West Virginia division. I have five brief points, sir, that we would like to make a statement on. No. 1, we support HR. 8416. No. 2, we want a scenic river system established in the Monogahela National Forest now. I refer to the Cranberry and segment of the South Branch, Shavers Fork of Oheat and Greenbrier. Mr. ASPINALL. You mean in the national forest? Mr. Ki~am TAYLOR. Monogahela National Forest in West Virginia; yes sir. No. 3, our State legislature has passed three separate resolutions sup- porting and calling for a study of scenic rivers in West Virginia. You have received for the record copies of these resolutions from State Senator Carl Gainer or chairman of the Natural Resources Com- mittee in West Virginia State Senate and for the record, sir, I have a PAGENO="0333" I 319 letter here from Thomas Goodwin, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Resources in the West Virginia House of Delegates in sup- port of 8416. Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection it will be made a part of the file. Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. For the record I have statements for support for scenic rivers in West Virginia, especially in the Monon~ahela National Forest from the mayors of the following cities : the city of Hunting- ton, which I would like to address to this committee. Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection they will all be made a part of the file. Mr. KEmi TAYLoR. From the city of Beckley, from the city of Wheeling, from the city of Parkersburg, from the city of Charles- burg, from the city of Point Pleasant, from the city of Williamson, from the town of Delbarton and from the city of Kenova. These are all letters of support for scenic rivers in the State of West Virginia, sir. I wish to make them a part of the record. Mr. TAYLOR. They will all be made a part of the file. Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Yes, sir ; thank you. My last point, sir, is that we want this committee to consider the wishes of all the people in West Virginia, not just a sparsely populated segment that is close to Washington and can easily be heard. Thank you. (Statement of Mr. Keith Taylor follows:) STATEMENT OF KEITH TAYLOR, PRESIDENT, WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA I am Keith Taylor, state president of the West Virginia Division of the Izaak Walton League of America. We welcome the opportunity to appear at this hear- thg and want to express our gratitude to this committee for making it possible for us to be here. The West Virginia Division of the Izaak League wishes to present this state- ment for the record in regard to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislation (S. 119, HR. 8416) pending before the Congress. Our division consists of 26 chapters and various members at large from all over our state, and it functions as a democratic organization representing many people. And, I might add, they are overwhelmingly in favor of Scenic Rivers in West Virginia. We feel we represent the public interest and we are so dedicated. West Virginia has been blessed with many irreplacable scenic rivers which are being erased by poor planning ; overdeveloped by junk and bus camps, pol- luted and littered by many ; dredged, silted, muddied and dammed at will; poisoned and encroached upon by commercial interest without respect and pro- tection of these God given wonders for the people of West Virginia. We call for action, as action is long past due, to set aside some of these rivers or segments of rivers for recreational, esthetic, fish and wildlife, educational and scientific purposes. The League in West Virginia has been interested in Wild and Scenic Rivers for several years. It was January, 1965 when Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 9 passed the West Virginia Legislature and the llouse of Delegates con- curring therein-"that the Legislature urge the Federal B~ireau of Outdoor Recreation and the National Recreation Advisory Council to give serious consid- eration to the establishment of a "Wild River Area" on one or wore of the fol- lowing rivers : ~acapon, Lost River, Shavers Fork of Cheat, Dry work çf Cheat, Blackwater, Fotomac, and Greenbrier Rivers ; and, be it Resolved further, that the U.S. ~ Army Corps of engineers in planning high level c'ams and reservoirs exclude from consideration those rivers and streams above mentioned so that their natural characteristics apd wilderness-like environment may be maintained for the enjoyment o~ the people of the State of West Virginia and out-of-state- visitors". This resolution was drafted by and received strong support from the League in West Virginia. PAGENO="0334" 320 At our Annual State Convention, held at Morgantown, W.Va. June 10-11, 1967, Resolution #8 was adopted unanimously, which called for the preservation of Scenic Rivers in the mountain state. In July, 1967 we supported Resolution #2 at our National Convention held in Milwaukee, Wi~eonsin calling for the establishment of a National and State System of Scenic Rivers. Then in January, 1968 we drafted and supported a resolution calling for a financed interim committee study by the West Virginia Legislature of Scenic Rivers in West Virginia. This resolution passed the West Virginia Legislature on February 3, 1968. This study has begun, and the committee will report back to the next general session of the Legislature in January, 1969 with its findings, conclusions, and recommendations and policy statements, together with drafts of any proposed legislation to carry its recommendations into effect. The League believes our rivers should be classified into two classes. Class 1, remote wild river areas which are on the verge of extinction in West Virginia. Class II, naturally wooded or pastoral river environment generally paralleled by a roadway. Segments of some of our rivers such as the South Branch and its tributaries from Petersburg to the headwaters, the Shavers Fork from Parsons to the head- waters, the Greenbrier from Marlinton to Caldwell, and the Cranberry, totally from its mouth to its source, are in the boundaries of the Monongahela National Forest and should be considered for immediate action in a federal bill since there is no controversy existing concerning property rights. We feel the above named rivers in the National Forest should be in the "instant category" and considera- tion given them now for admittance to the National Scenic River System. Other rivers which should be considered for classification and study are in the Cacapon, Shenandoah, Back Fork of Elk, Williams, the South Branch below Petersburg, Blackwater, Elk, Gauley, and Little Kanawha. The League is aware of a minority opposed to Scenic Rivers in a small segment or area of West Virginia. We are in hopes that some arrangement or spirit of cooperation can be forthcoming in the Cacapon and Shenandoah Areas of West Virginia, and that the majority of land owners will support a workable plan. The League in West Virginia does not advocate the seizure of private lands but does feel the public should have access to public waters. When we hear someone voice opposition to a Scenic Rivers System, we wonder whose interest he or she represents. They are certainly not representing the public interest. We know this does not represent the thinking and desires of the State of West Virginia, and we wonder if this truly represents the thinking in the Second District. I have letters addressed to the chairman of this committee from mayors of our largest cities supporting a plan for Scenic Rivers, which I wish to enter Into the record. I also have a letter addressed to the chairman of this committee from State Senator Carl B. Gainer, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee in the West Virginia State Senate, and from Thomas Goodwin, Chairman of the Sub- Committee on Natural Resources in the West Virginia House of Delegates, which supports the study and development of Scenic Rivers in West Virginia. Please make these a part of the record also. May I say that the letters of support for Scenic Rivers in West Virginia and the Monongahela National Forest comes from all over the State of West Vir- ginia-from the Greenbrier Valley to the Highlands from the coal fields! in the southern part of the state to the population centers of the Kanawha and Ohio Valleys. We do not feel that a small, sparcely populated segment in Eastern West Virginia speaks for the State of West Virginia, but due to the nearness to our nation's Capitol, it lS' easier for many of them to be heard. We want this! committee to consider the wishes of all the people in the State of West Virginia. The West Virginia Division of the Izaak Walton League pledges all the sup- port they can muster to establish a Scenic Rivers System in West Virginia. We will lend all the help and support we can to the West Virginia Legisiativ~ In- terim Committee studying Scenic Rivers in West Virginia, and will aid In any wray we can the committee Ofl Interior and Insular Affairs. After years of participation and study into our river problems of this nation, the League concludes that only by classification, and protection can some of our few remarnrng ~tr~m~ t~fi ~aV~d from total ruetion. We whole-heartedly snp- pi~vf a Scenic Rivers System in America, as well as West Virginia. Thank you again Mr. Chairman for letting us appear here. PAGENO="0335" 321 Mr. TAYLOR. You mentioned the Monongahela National Forest. Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. What particular rivers are you wanting to refer to? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. I named them, sir, the Cranberry in toto ; it is all in the Mo~iaongahela National Forest, and segments of the South Branch of the Potomac, segments of the Shavers Fork of Cheat, and segments of the Greenbrier, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. And you recommend those be placed in the study stage? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions? Mr. ASPINALL. I don't know what has happened to Cacapon and Black Water? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. In our statement, sir, we went further, sir, but because of time we didn't refer to it here. Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman. . What does the league mean when they say they do not advocate the seizure of private lands, but do feel that the public should have access to public property ? Are you saying no lands should be purchased? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. No, sir ; we feel the land can be purchased, and that through zoning and easements-sir, I just believe there are peo- pie in this country that will sell access to these waters, to these public waters, and the public should have the right of access. Mr. KYL. You are aware of the fact that in most of the areas the cost of acquiring easements now approximates the cost of purchasing the land? Mr. KErrH TAYLOR. Yes, sir. Mr. Km. You are not advocating any reduction in expenditure here, what you are really saying is you don't want the Federal Gov- ernment to use eminent domain to acquire the lands? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Sir, there are some critical locations where the Federal Government would perhaps have to use the eminent domain to get this land. Mr. Km. You really do beiieve in seizure of the lands? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. In certain areas. Mr. Km. There is one other thing. I think perhaps you go a little bit far when you say "when we hear someone advise opposition to a scenic river system we wonder who he or she represents. They are cer- tainly not representing the public." This is a statement which presents trouble. If you present further testimony of this kind it would be ad- visable to leave out words of that kind. That is all. Mr. ASPINALL. I have a question. Do you believe a person's home is any more inviolate from invasion than the invasion of a person's other property ? Do you think the public has a right to go over a person's property, a farm or a yard or whatever it maybe? Mr. KErrii TAYLOR. With permission, sir. I think he should seek permission to do that. Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, if you get permission to do that all right. But as I understood you a while ago in answer to the first question it led me to believe that you thought the public should be just generally permitted to go over a person's farm. Mr. KErrfr TAYLOR. No, just as our Nation's highways are routes of I PAGENO="0336" 322 transportation, I think our waterways should be avenues of recreation, and these are public waters and I say we should have just some access to them. Mr. Aspm~ui~. You can get itby purchase ol' permission that is all, one or the other. Mr. KErm TAYLOR. That is right. ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~` Mr. ASPINALL. If you can't get it that way then you are not going tohave it. Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. That is correct, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. You mentioned in here the classification among two clAsses? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. What is your.conception of the way in which a wild river would be managed, in connection ~ with the control of usage of the property along the banks of the river? Mr. LITTLE. Sir, you are speaking in the categories of the scenic rivers, of the scenic rivers as we would like to see them in West Virginia, wild rivers, we believe should be wild rivers. We feel that a desig. nated zone adjacent to the waters should be preserved in their natural state as they are now. We believe if it is designated as a wild river it should be treated as a wild river. Mr. MCCLURE. You would assume there is no cultivation or agri~ cultural pursuit along that river? Mr. LIrrLE. Not a wild river, no, sir, and we have rivers that can qualify as this as their characteristics are right now. Mr. McCLtnti~. I would assuthe you would not want any grazing or lumbering? Mr. LITTLE. Not on a wild river, on a pastoral river such a~ a Shenandoah, and these we believe in as they are. Mr. MCCLURE. Because everybody's terms of definition are different. Mr. LrrrLE. This is true generally. We would like to See a scenic river system in the State of West Virginia, it will be set up on a wild river, based on under the broad scope of scenic rivers. It will be set up on a wild river, those that `do qualify such as the Life magazine carried in the December issue on `the Cheat, segments of the Cheat. We also have those like the pastoral and wooded natural rivers. We have all of these in West Virginia., now. I would like to ask--excuse me, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. This would require, would i:t not, public ownership of that land? Mr. LITTLE. This would require, and this is a good point, sir, because most `of our wild river segments, most `of this is in public lands. Now- Mr. MCCLURE. It would require public ownership, however, wouldn't it? Mr. LITTLE. Yes, I say it is under public ownership now, the wild parts. Mr. MoCLUi~. And there is a costeven though it is in publiô owner- ship of devoting even public lAnds to a single purpose, there is `some cost? Mr. Lirri~E. There is some cost,' that is right, `and the `amdunt of the cost wou'd be to what extent adjacent lands, to what degree you would like `to lc~ep or we' ~uid like tGkeep in a wild area and?this, sir, wOuld PAGENO="0337" 323 have to be worked ou~t with the TJ.S. Forest Service because they are the ones who manage the Monongahela National Forest. Mr. MOCLtmE. I appreciate that statement. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much. . We have five more witnesses, th~ House will go in session in a few minutes, but we will go along as we san. ~ The next witness will be Mr. Poineroy, Chief Forester of the Amen- can Forestry Association. Mr. Pomeroy, we welcome you again before the committee. STATEMENT OP KENNETH B. POMEROY, CHIEF FORESTER OP THE &MERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION Mr. PoMi~noY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, may I submit my statement for the record? Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of any objection, your statement will be made `a part of the record at this poin~t. Mr. POMI~ROY. The American Forestry Association is h~arti1y in support of the basic philosophy expressed in H.R. 8416 and related proposals. We would like to offer three or four suggestions for your consideration. On page 3, line 1 of H.R. 8416, it is suggested that the phrase "or within de fa~to wilderness areas" be deli~ted. This, in effect, would tend to extend the wilderness area and the Wilderness Act which has already been passed by the Congress provides mechanisms for doing t~hwt. On page 6, line 10, we would like to suggest addition of the Wolf River in Wisconsin, as a scenic river. We were attracted to the proposal as outlined in H.R. 6166, and we like what the State of Wiscousin is doing to try to protect this stream until Congress can act. Mr. TAYLOR. Were you here the other day when a group from Wis~ consin proposed adding the Wolf River? Mr. POMEROrI-. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. You agree with that? Mr. POMEROY. I am personally acquainted with the Wolf having lived in that area several years ago. Page 9, line 1, we suggest that the Missouri portion of the Eleven Point River be added for study. On page 10, after line 25 we also suggest that the Smith River in. California be added for study. These are the main points we would like to suggest. (Statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:) STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. PO~EBOY, CHIEF FORESTER OF THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman atid Members of the Committee: I am Kenneth B. Pomeroy, Chief Forester of The American Forestry Associa- tion. The American Forestry Association ~ is heartily in support of the basic phi- losophy expressed in H.R. 8416 and related proposals for the establishment of a s~ystem of wild and ~cenic rivers. This legisiat,ion will have lasting benefit and in generations to conic will be hailed as one of the milestones erected by the con- servation Congresses Of the 1060's. Establishment of this system and administration of the program undouOtedly will encounter some complex problems. Therefore, it is suggested that initial 92 560-68-----22 PAGENO="0338" 324 efforts be confined to rivers flowing through ~1and that is owned in large degree by the Federal government. When a system of management is perfected, then other streams can be added to the program. The following suggestions are offered for your consideration. Page 3, line 1.-It is suggested that the phrase "or within de facto wilderness areas" be deleted. This provision would tend to expand the Wildernes~ System beyond the intent of the Wilderness Act. Any area that qualities as Wilderness can be added to the System~ un~ier the provisions of the Act. Page 6, after line 10.-Add the Wolf River iii Wisconsin as identified in ILR. 6166. We are attracted to this proposal to classify the Wolf as a Scenic River because of the steps taken by the State of Wisconsin to protect this beautiful stream. Also, I am personally acquainted with this river having fished in its waters during the years when I lived in Wisconsin. Pa~~je 9, line 1.-We recommend study of the Missouri portion of the Eleven Point River. We can understand why people in Arkansas might not wish to have the downstream portion classified as a scenic river. But there are a number of people in Missouri who would like to have the portion of the river in their state so classified. Page 10, after line 25.-Add Smith River in California for study. A portion of this fast-flowing stream might be a good s~enic addition to the Redwood Scenic Highway being planned by the State of California. Page 12, ~eetion 6, regardi'ng acq~i$ition.-We urge that maximum efforts be made to control the scenic rivers system by means of easements and zoning ordi- nances. Title in fee should only be taken when other means fail. Page 17, $ection 9 regardAn~g prospecting and `mining-We concur in the pro- visions of this Section, Page 19, section 10(a) regardin~g adm'tnS$tratioii.-We concur in this Sectien as written. But we hope the legislative history of the Act will show that this Section pertains to multiple use of commercial forest lands and that timber har- vesting, when done judiciously, is an accepted use of the lands. In most instances buffer zones along stream banks and selective cutting at greater distances will protect scenic values. Mr. MCCLTJRE. Mr. Chairman. Each of these points are with rela- tion to H.R. 8416? Mr. P0MER0Y. Right. Mr. McCLuiu~i. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. You were here, I believe, when the opposition was presented to the Missouri River section of Eleven Point? Mr. POMEROY. The Arkansas ; yes, sir. We appreciate the feeling of those people, and our recommendation here just pei~tains to the Mis- souri por1~ion of the Eleven Point. Mr. TAYLOR. What about the Arkansas portion ; are you leaving that in, too? Mr. POMEIIOY. It is all right with us if you leave it out. We merely are suggesting th~t the Missouri portion be studied. Mr. TAYLOR. The main opiposition was to the Arkansas portion? Mr. P0MER0Y. That is correct. Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions ? The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. McCLURE. You make a reference here to selective cutting. Do you think selective cutting could be done within some distance of the banks of these streams but I would take it you would be opposed to clear-cutting in the same areas? Mr. POMEROY. About 30 years ago it was my responsibility to draft a program for preservation of road-side strips along the major high.. ways m the Manistee National Forest, and it is my opinion that judicious cutting can be carried out and it is also necessary in a place where people are going to travel because of dead snags and other health hazards. I PAGENO="0339" I 325 Mr. M0CLURE. You would be in favor of that kind of a program of judicious use of the forest resource along these rivers? Mr. POMEROY. It would be primarily to preserve the scenic values though rather than to harve~t timber. Mr. MoCLuite. Yes. Mr. POMEROY. I was just not excluding timber cutting as a part of the treatment. Mr. M0CLURE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to express my apprecia~ tion for some very construgbive suggestions here. I appreciate your statement. Mr. POMEROY. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Pomeroy has an outstanding record in the field of conservation. He has given a lot of thought to it, and we do appreciate these recommendations, Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. POMI~ROY. Thank you, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. We are trying to get the best possible praxtical bill. Mr. POMEROY. If I may offer one other comment, it is refreshing *to me to see citizens of Florida talk about a river that I know in an area where I lived, and offer to do something themselves. So often people come to this committee and want the committee to do it for them. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, we have that same theory. We appreciate local units of government taking the lead in doing things for themselves, and local individuals doing things for themselves. I think we have gotten too far away from that. Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. We say let Washington do it. That applies to welfare and everything else today. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. POMEROY. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. We now have a group of witnesses from West Virginia. Mrs. John P. Goulding of Sheperdstown, W. Va. I received a letter from Mr. John Moulton stating that Mrs. Goulding lives on a farm near the Potomac River, and the water was up so much this morning that her hired man couldn't get across the river by boat as he usually does to take her to catch the train so she couldn't be here, so the river prevented her from testifying about the river. Mr. MCCLURE. Was it a wild river this morning? Mr. TAYLOR. The Potomac River has become a wild river. Mrs. Goulding will be permitted to testify along with the West Virginia witnesses tomorrow. We have Mrs. Virginia Burns of Charles Town, W. Va., Mr. Bernard Leimaster, president of Upper Potomac River Basin Protective Asso- ciation, Martinsburg, W. Va. They can come up. Mr. MOULTON. Mrs. Burns is here, but Mr. Leimaster has asked me to present written testimony of his for the record, and I also' have four letters- Mr. TAYLOR. State your name. Mr. MOULTON. I am John Moulton of Charles Town, W. Va., and I Mve letters from a Mr. Stokes of Charles Town, Mr. 0. B. Hendrix of Shenandoah Junction. Mr. TAYLOR. Are you authorized to us~ the time of Mrs. Virginia Burns and Mrs.- PAGENO="0340" 326 Mr. MOULTON. Just Mr. Leinmster's time is all and I just have t& give these four letters in. Mr. TAYLOR. These are four letters that you would like to submit for the file? Mr. MOULTON. Yes ; these people asked to have that. Mrs. Buims is here and she wishes to take her own time. Mr. TAYLOR. Mrs. Burns, you can come forward now. Mr. Moulton has been before our committee in the past and we welcome you back again. Mr. MOULTON. Thank you, sir. STATEMENT OP MRS. JOHN LOCKE BURNS, JR~, cHARLES TOWN, w. VA. Mrs. BURNS. Thaiik you, gentlemen, since they are my own thoughts.. Mr. TAYr~oR. Yes, Mrs. Burns. Your statement is rather short, you. ma*v read it up to 5 miimtes time. ~`rrs. BURNS. Thank you. Gentleinei~, I (~)i~1B to speak to you as a farnier's wife of 23 years. I came to the farm as a bride in 1945 when horses were st:iII used, there wrere 1C) and we had two tractors, you can't pet a tractor. I fed threshing hands and gave them breakfast so that they could 1)e in the field by 7 o'clock in the morning. Sometimes they worked a couple of hours and the rains came, and you. couldn't thresh any more for clays ; than you had to start all over again. ~ :N'r~v husband and I prayed for rain so that the alfalfa could grow and we would have hay for the winter, then we prayed for sunshine when we wai~tecl to thresh wheat (the rain has fallen a week at a time all(l the wliea.t rotted in the shock) , then for rain again when the corn was supposed to grow and tassel. ~V~re withstood ti'e heartbreaking drought, when we walked across the bluegrass pasture and the grass was all brown and spring back like wire under our feet. ii\iy husband farmed the land, and his father before him, and his grandfather. I-ic has 1)een gone 7 years and he left it to me outright. It is now farmed by my brother-in-law, and at my husband's request will be left to his sons who are farmers. Now, I am told in this bill and others, that the Government wants this land for a playground, that there is more than a possibility that it I ~rjll be taken from me by eminent domain or by scenic easements (it ~TOlild never truly belong to me again). When I read of these scenic and wild rivers bills, I am almost made to feel that no longer does the right of ownership exist. Mr. TAYLOR. Does this particular bill affect your farm? Which river are you on ? Mrs. BURNS. I am on the Shenandoah. Mr. TAYLOR. It is in the study stage of the bill. Mrs. BURNS. I think it is, I think it is. Mr. TAYLOR. All right, proceed. PAGENO="0341" 327 Mrs. BURNS. When I read of these scenic and wild rivers, I am a1~ most made to feel that no longer does the right of ownership exist, that the land is to be wrested from m~ and delivered to strangers so that they can have a good time. I hear that for a farmer to sell his land at a profit is wrong, but 1 also hear that the Government can show a profit by selling back or leasing back land that will be taken by eminent domain. . The farmer has been castigated for taking advantage of the appre- ciation in his land value which is all he has to show materially for his hard work. With the depletion of any profit that might accrue from .a rise in farm prices, by the out of proportion increase in the cost of what he must buy, he has received less than when prices were lower. Believe me, the farmers don't receive an increase in pay for their labor. The appreciation in land value is the farmer's only equity. It's all he has to show for his life's work. He has worked through week days and Sunday, Christmas, and New Year, because the stock is just as hungry on one day as another. On the farm there are no legal holidays. Most of the farmers and landowners whom I know don't want to ;sell anyway. They just want to be able to keep their land, because it ~s a livelihood, a way of life, and a part of them as dear as their life's blood. Could it be that at election time it will sound so noble to say to those who have not worked for this land, "Here is a place to play, look what :i have done for you." Can these people play with a clear conscience on the land of which rnother people have been robbed? What will become of the owners ? Can they start life anew? The Government is not noted for being generous in cases of eminent domain, so they won't be able to replace their land with that of equal ~value. I wonder if Mr. Udall has ever done a hard day~s work in his life. Believe me, the farmers I know' don't have to jo~ up and down trails 1:0 get their exercise ; when night comes they are just thankful to fall into bed. Gentlemen, I thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you, Mrs. Burns. We commend' you on your interest. We know you have come a long way today in order to testify. Mrs. BURNS. Thank you so much. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, the bill we have before us, H.R. 8416, has the section of the Shenandoah River that is in West Virginia in the study stage. I would think that after study if it is recommended that this river be placed in the system that encouragement will be given to a continuation of farming along the river banks and bottoms. Mrs. BURNS. Well, we would rather keep it in our own local plan- ning, in our own group. I am a member of the planning commission which has been in existence for a year, and there is a comment, there a thing I noticed offhand, there are just a few people who are irresponsible in our territory, there are j'ust a few, and if it weren't for that we wouldn't need planning, but most of the people think `too much of their land to want to see it defaced or ugly. Mr. TAYLOR. The Shenandoah River is one of the beautiful rivers ~f the Nation. PAGENO="0342" 328 Mrs. BURNS. Yes, it is ; thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you very much. Any questions? Our next witness on the list isMr. Stewart Brandborg. I understand that he is not here. He will be permitted to place his statement in the record at this point. Is there anyone here who is listed for tomorrow who can't come back and would like to have a few minutes now? Is there anyone listed for tomorrow who can't come back and would like to have a few minutes now ? If not our hearing will end and we will- Mr. 1~AZEN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Fisher had two other let- ters that he wanted in the file. I wonder if we could include them in the record, along with the others that he presented this morning ? He is not present and he sent them in and he would like to have them in the record. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection a letter from Mr. John Huff to Congressman Fisher, dated March 15, 1968, will be made a part of the record at this time. The second letter from Mr. Otis Meredith, dated March 15, 1968, will be made a part of the record at this point. In the absence of objection, the letter addressed to me from Congressman Walter S. Baring, recommending an amendment to the bill, dated March 11, 1968, will be made a part of the record at this point. (Letters mentioned above follow:) CITY 01? BOEBNE, Boerne, ~ March~ 15, 1968. Hon. 0. C. Fisnnn, 1?ov~se Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dn~&n REPRESENTATIVE FISHER : We have read House of Representatives Bill No. 90-Scenic Rivers Aet-~and very strongly feel that the Guadah~pe River shorald be dropped from this bill. We won't burden you with all of our objections to this bill, and there are many,. but we feel that the development of our Guadalupe River through all the coun~ ties concerned, including Kendall County, can best be served by not including it in this bill. We urge you to use your influence in getting the Guadalupe River deleted from this bill. Sincerely yours, JOHN ARLEIGH HUFF, Ma~yor.. HOUSTON, Tax. March 15, 1968. GENTLEMEN : I am advised that a public hearing, will be had on the above proposed legislation on March 18 or 19. I recommend that the Guadalupe River be deleted from the Bill, for the following reasons: 1. The Guadalupe River, lying wholly in Texas, was added by amendment to S. 119 and does not qualify under the report submitted by "The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs", which report originally accompanied S. 119. That report was properly limited to "reserve certain public lands for a Natural Wild Rivers System". The rivers listed in S. 119 are practically all located in states where land titles emanate from a Federal source and are therefore Federal pub- lie lands. This is not true in Texas. Texas statutes provide, and Texas Courts have held, that the beds of all navigable streams are held in trust by the State for the use and benefit of all people. Thus, Texas already has provided under its own laws for the preservation of public rights in its streams, differentiating it from the legal status of the rivers located in western states. 2. Under Texas Statutes, the Texas Water Rights Commission (Article 7477) and the Texas Water Development Board (Article .8280 et seq.), together with Article 7621 enacted in 1967 and known as the Texas Water Quality Act, all as