Imágenes de páginas

house, transmission 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 States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any [water resources] project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river might be designated."

The effects of this proposed amendment would be (1) to extend the interim study river protection indefinitely, until further decision by Congress; (2) to remove the unnecessary and potentially conflicting discretion of the administering Secretary to ascertain whether a proposed project "would have a direct and adverse effect"; and (3) to extend this interim protection to include protection against all types of projects which, with direct Federal support, would have "direct and adverse effect" on potential wild or scenic river values on which this Committee and the Congress have not yet rendered a final decision.

2. INCREASE IN FLEXIBILITY IN ACQUISITION OF SCENIC EASEMENTS As you know, the 1968 Act limits the total management area along a designated wild, scenic, or recreational river to, on the average, no more than 320 acres-per-mile (including both sides of the river), of which no more than 100 acres-per-mile may be acquired in fee. This 320 acres-per-mile restrictions works out to a mere 1300 foot setback from the riverbank on each side, on the average. While this may often be sufficient, or even more than necessary in some cases, there is a danger of creating a restriction so inflexible as to, in fact, defeat the purposes of the Act by failing to fully protect the watershed, scenic vistas and recreational values of the designated rivers. We believe that, as a minimum improvement at this time, the Committee should extend the 320 acres-per-mile limitation on scenic easements to a more reasonable figure.

It would be possible, of course, for the Congress to enact specific, non-standardized acre-per-mile limitations for each river as it comes up for designation on a case-by-case basis, overriding the general limitations in the parent Act. The danger, as we see it, is that administrators and the public may be misled by the narrow restriction now in the parent Act, and thereby conclude that options are hopelessly curtailed and that nothing beyond the 320 acres-per-mile may be even recommended or considered. For this reason, we urge the Committee to increase the allowable acres-per-mile for scenic easement and to specify in the Committee Report, for the purposes of legislative history and guidance to those administering this program, that the general restriction in the Act is not to preclude recommendation and consideration of a greater extent of either easement or fee acquisition in particular proposals for particular rivers coming through the study process.


The Wilderness Society believes it is time-high time-to greatly extend the reach and fulfillment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The original Act was highly selective in the rivers it included for study, listing only 27. Many, many more rivers are fully eligible for consideration and, more importantly, in real need of the interim protection given by study designation.

While it may have been appropriate for the Congress to begin this new program with a small selection of study rivers, that consideration must now, five years later, be balanced against the very real need to give this interim protection to additional eligible rivers and river segments. In this way, this Committee can assure that these rivers receive balance consideration and will not be subject to the kind of one-sided development planning that has been a tootypical fate of some many fine rivers needlessly.

The American Rivers Conservation Council and other conservation groups will, in the course of these hearings, propose a number of additional rivers for study. We support the position of ARCC on this aspect of the matter, having observed the care of their research into these rivers and their full coordination with local organizations and citizens fully familiar with each river and its local situation.

We do wish to endorse the inclusion of those proposed new study rivers recommended by members of Congress through the introduction of individual bills. We include not only the bills specifically under consideration, but those more recently sponsored by Rep. Teno Roncalio, which would list the Clark's Fork River and the Green River in Wyoming.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, we wish to support those additional rivers recommended by the American Rivers Conservation Council, and we would appreciate being able to supply additional information on some of these rivers to the Committee as we are able to assemble it.

Thank you.


Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am Douglas Scott, coordinator of the special projects for the Wilderness Society. We appreciate this opportunity to appear today and to consider with you steps to update, improve, and extend the program of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Since 1968, when this committee was instrumental in enacting this Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Congress has taken a number of important steps to achieve the cause of purifying our rivers. The recent amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act hold out the hope that we may reclaim some rivers, perhaps indeed to the point where rivers which hardly occurred to us today may some day be made units of the National Wild and Scenic River System by this committee.

This is much like the concept of reclaiming areas in the Eastern United States, what do deserve and merit preservation under the Federal Wilderness System.

Mr. Chairman, the Wilderness Society enthusiastically endorses Mr. Saylor's bill, H.R. 4864, and related measures, which would make important extensions in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We also endorse those bills which are before the committee, on your docket today, introduced by individual members for the purpose of including additional rivers in the study category.

While we support these proposals, we believe they can be improved upon and we solicit your favorable consideration to the following additional improvements.

First, we would recommend full extension of interim protection that is granted for study rivers. As you know, that protection currently will extend for only a 5-year period, and it's proposed to be extended for only a 5-year period.

Mr. TAYLOR. Excuse me. I don't believe you were here yesterday when we discussed that idea.

I can see one advantage of eliminating the extension, that permits unreasonable delays by the administrators in the Interior Department and Agriculture Department. If they have unlimited extensions, they might figure in terms of 12 years to bring this study around, where it is now less than 5 years. We are trying to speed them up.

Mr. Scort. Mr. Chairman, I think an important distinction, and I appreciate that and we share in your views that the program needs to be considerably speeded up. And this is not unlike the experience we have had over the last 9 years with the Wilderness Act, where a great deal of foot dragging occurs, and much work needs to be done before this committee as you know. But I think the distinction— Mr. TAYLOR. I'm sure we share your desire that the moratorium continue until the studies are completed and Congress takes action. Mr. Scort. I think we might make it a useful distinction, Mr. Chairman, as the Wilderness Act does, between a deadline for the completion of studies and the granting of interim protection. The Wilder

ness Act protects areas, as the courts have determined, until Congress acts on them. But it still puts a 10-year deadline on the President, and as you may recall several years ago, it was this committee and particularly now Senator McClure who raised that point very strongly and helped speed up the process under the Wilderness Act.

We think that perpetual protection until the Congress has determined otherwise is essential to protect the jurisdiction and interests of this committee. You place yourself otherwise in the circumstance where you may just be in the throes of considering a bill for a particular study, or the study may be delayed, and unless you can again and again extend the 5-year limitation, you will find yourself almost caught in a position of automatically deciding to develop the river simply by losing the control this committee ought to have.

In our view, this committee has the full and complete and appropriate jurisdiction over the question of preserving the wild and scenic and recreational values of all of America's rivers. That cannot be entrusted to other committees whose primary interest and jurisdiction and experience is in the development of rivers. And we think this committee ought to hold onto its jurisdiction by the expedient process of granting perpetual protection until such time as it has determined otherwise. And we feel very strongly that this would be a very helpful step in the right direction.

I also should point out that we have recommended some language in the body of my testimony that would accomplish this purpose, by amending section 7(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

And also in that same recommended amendment, we propose that you drop the words "water resources" of which at the moment limits the control to water resources projects. And extend this interim protection to all manner of federally aided or assisted projects, such as highways, transmission lines, and other items that might not be defined as water resources projects, but are just as deadly to these wild values of the river.

We have also recommended that you remove the discretionary authority of the administering Secretary to ascertain whether a particular project is or is not posing a threat to the river values. You have a very serious conflict situation here with the Secretary of the Interior simultaneously administering the Bureau of Reclamation, simultaneously issuing strip mining leases in the West, and at the same time that he should be looking out for the protection of the rivers.

We think that whether a particular Federal action is or is not a threat to a wild river should be a matter for the consideration of Congress and the courts, and not at the discretion of the Secretary.

The second matter on this legislation, Mr. Chairman, we wish to recommend that you increase the flexibility in the potential acquisition of scenic easements to no more than 320 acres per river mile, something like a 1,300-foot setback on either side of the river, on the


While this limitation may be sufficient, or even more than necessary in some cases, there is a danger of creating a restriction so inflexible as to in fact defeat the purposes of the act by failing to fully protect the watershed, scenic vistas, and recreational values of the designated rivers. We belive that, as a minimum improvement at this

time, the committee should extend the 320 acres per mile limitation on scenic easements to a more reasonable figure, perhaps double.

At the same time, we would strongly urge that you include in your committee report language that would clarify the situation for the adminisrators and the public, to specify that when the administrators bring in a recommendation on a new wild, scenic, and recreational river, they do not need to feel themselves limited by the 320 acre per mile limitation. That in fact, if the circumstances warrant it, they should feel free to come before his committee and say, we need the whole watershed, we need 600 acres per mile, we need to go back half a mile from the river, or whatever it happens to be.

As you know, Mr. Taylor, this committee has designated a number of special rivers, the Buffalo National River in Arkansas, the Ozark National River, where it found it necessary to go to a much wider protective zone. And we would worry that administrators might feel that the apparent law set a limit that they could not recommend beyond. We've heard that kind of a limit discussed today by a Member of the Congress before this committee. As though it were written in the stars. And I think some language in the committee's report would clear up that problem.

Finally, we wish to endorse the concept of adding greatly to the list of study rivers. In your committee report in 1968, you listed the principles of the bill. And one of those was to be selective and modest in the original listing of the 27 study rivers. And you said at that time that this was not because the committee believed that there were no other streams than those listed in the bill that should deserve proection, but because it is desirable to gain operating experience before embarking on a more extensive list.

Well, we have 5 years operating experience, not all of it entirely satisfactory in terms of the pace, but we think it is time to recognize that balanced with the need to go slow in this project is the important need to give this interim protection to additional rivers.

I will not list specific ones, but we do endorse those that have been placed before the committee by Members of Congress, including, may I say, the four bills that have been sponsored by Mr. Roncalio, all of which we think are excellent.

Perhaps it is unnecessary to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the time to argue or be considering the removal of any river from the study list as has been proposed in a number of cases. And we do defer to the listing of rivers that has been presented, and will be amplified by the American Rivers Conservation Council, which has gone into this matter very thoroughly.

Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. I suggested that the controversy concerning the Oklawaha should be dealt with in a separate bill and not be put in any omnibus bill that we might develop. What is your reaction to that?

Mr. Scorr. I'm a little hesitant to say anything specific on that, Mr. Chairman, because I don't know the local circumstances. And I gather they are extremely inflamed.

I do think that you have a very good point in expressing the importance of getting this legislation on the President's desk in advance of the cutoff in October. And if that were endangered, then I believe that that type of consideration should have a great weight.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, that time period would be in danger of expiring if this controversial issue caused the defeat of the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT. May I make one additional point, Mr. Chairman, that I failed to make in my presentation?

I've had some discussions the last couple of days with conservationists from the State of Oregon. As you may know, in 1970 the State of Oregon, by means of a petition of the voters of the State, directly adopted a State Scenic Waterways Act, the first successful initiative in that State in 30 some years.

Subsequently six rivers in Oregon have been designated as wild and Scenic waterways under the provisions of that Act. One of those is the Rhode River, the same portion that Congress had already designated under the Federal law. The other five rivers in Oregon merit inclusion in the national system, importantly because they largely flow through Federal lands. And while the State can designate the river itself for protection, it needs a commitment from the Federal Government for its assistance and cooperation in the administration of forest service lands that are involved.

Sad to say, Governor Tom McCall of Oregon, more than 2 years ago wrote to the Secretary of the Interior requesting that these five rivers be designated by the vehicle of the act for inclusion in the national system to gain this kind of commitment for Federal cooperation.

I have not yet seen the correspondence, so I can't be specific on the reasons. But I am told that the Secretary turned the Governor of Oregon down flat, for less than adequate reasons.

We would request the committee to look into this matter. I understand the Governor will be writing to you about this, and the rivers in question are the Illinois River, the DeShoots River, the entire Minum River, the south fork of the Owalhee River, and the main stem of the John Day River, most of these being in eastern Oregon.

The State has already shown its good faith and interest in the preservation of these stream segments, and it is highly disappointing to us that apparently the Secretary has been less than responsive to the overwhelming expression of interest in Oregon.

Mr. TAYLOR. I Would also suggest that this matter be brought to the attention of the Congressmen representing those areas.

Mr. Scorr. I talked with the staff of Mr. Ullman. and he is deeply interested in this, and I imagine you will be hearing from him as well.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, we included all of the bills which had been introduced which provide for river studies, in addition to the departmental recommendations concerning this program. At the time we scheduled this hearing, we didn't have any bills on the rivers that you mentioned.

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, on that point I wouldn't want to say that all of the bills that have been introduced, the eight or nine for specific new study rivers are strictly the result of a random process. But that doesn't really reflect the kind of careful planning that might be done after seeing which additional rivers actually merit this protection and study.

I know that organizations who have a particular interest in this subject have been to other Members of Congress and contacted local

« AnteriorContinuar »