mandates the construction of what we believe to be an unwise road. would be worse than no bill at all.

Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. As I understand it, you oppose the paragraph in Congressman Lloyd's bill which authorizes the State to build the road: you oppose any language that we might place in the bill which would authorize the State, after completing the study, to build the road?

Mr. McCOMB. We believe that the National Park Service should be the one to build the roads in the national recreation area.

Mr. TAYLOR. If a road is to be built, you would favor it being constructed by the National Park Service?

Mr. MCCOMB. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLOR. What would be your position on a proposal to authorize the National Park Service to build a road?

Mr. MCCOMB. We would oppose a decision now by this committee to build any specific road. We might, after careful study, come to cenclude that a road would be acceptable but, with the absence of a real study of alternatives, we are opposed to building a specific road at this time.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Utah?

Mr. LLOYD. I might state there is no proposal to establish a particular route at this time. The proposal is to authorize a road across the Escalante River based on a route to be determined by a study. Would you oppose that?

Mr. MCCOMB. Well, there seems to be a general understanding that such a road would cross the Escalante somewhere in the lower part of the river, and we would oppose that.

Mr. LLOYD. You are opposed to that even if the Park Service accepted it; you would still be opposed to the authorization at this time? Mr. MCCOMB. At this time; yes.

Mr. LLOYD. The Senate bill provides that studies shall be made to determine what roads are needed for the purpose of this bill. Then, in the Senate report a definition was given to the phase "purpose of this bill." It says: "to afford permanent statutory protection."

In other words, under the Senate bill a road could only be authorized after a study if it would afford permanent statutory protection to the scenic Glen Canyon natural recreation area.

Do you feel it conceivable that a road that would cross the Escalante River would afford permanent statutory protection to the scenic Gien Canyon area?

Mr. McCOMB. Well, I have had a hard time reconciling that particular phrase in S. 27. I think it is possible that there might be a road

Mr. LLOYD. I have within the last few days and few weeks received upward of 200 telegrams and letters from all parts of the United States opposing the construction of a road. This is obviously a professional organized lobby. If a 2-year study, as proposed and provided by the Senate, were to be authorized, do you think there would be any chance for these 200 associates of yours to reverse their opinion about the construction of a road across the Escalante?

Mr. McCOMB. I think there is a possibility. I might add there was concern expressed about appropriations by the Sierra Club along

with some other conservation organizations. They realize the Park Service needs more money. I would like to see us agree on something. And I think if we both got together and supported a road to be built in that area, we would find the money.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions, from the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. KAZEN. No.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

Without objection, the statement and attachments submitted by Mr. McComb will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statement and attachments follow:)

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCOMB, SOUTHWEST REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SIERRA CLUB

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am John A. McComb. I am the Southwest Field Representative for the Sierra Club. I have an office located at 2014 East Broadway, Room 212, Tucson, Arizona, 85719, but my territory includes and I have a special love for the canyon country of southern Utah. I am personally familiar with the area under consideration here today. Mrs. June Viavant, Mr. Jack McLellan, Mr. Paul Salisbury, and myself all testified as a panel representing the Sierra Club at the field hearing on this legislation held in Kanab, Utah on May 27, 1972. I believe that our position was well presented in written and oral statements at that time. It is my purpose today only to briefly summarize that position for the benefit of those committee members who were not in Kanab, and to answer any questions.

1. The Sierra Club supports the establishment of a Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. There is general agreement among all concerned that permanent, statutory protection should be given to this great scenic and recreational resource. We hope that differences of opinion on some of the details of this legislation will not unduly delay its passage.

2. The Sierra Club asks that H.R. 15073 be amended to include about 131,400 acres that will protect the heart of the Escalante Canyon Country. Most of this area, some 118,000 acres, is included in S. 27. The remaining acreage of 13,400 acres is in four small tracts encompassing the upper portions of several spectacular tributary canyons to the Escalante River. The recommended additions are shown on the attached map of the Escalante-Waterpocket Fold area.

3. The Sierra Club also asks that a provision be added which would require a wilderness study of all potentially qualifying lands within the recreation area. This review should be completed within two years.

4. The Sierra Club opposes the designation by Congress of a specific road corridor from Glen Canyon City to Bullfrog and favor instead the provisions in all the bills which require a study of road alinements within and adjacent to the recreation area. The subject of the road corridor clearly was the most controversial at the field hearing. Many of the proponents of this corridor expressed the fear that a study would kill the proposed road.

If this proposal cannot stand the scrutiny of a careful study of all alternatives, then it should definitely not be locked in by an Act of Congress. The Sierra Club believes that there are a number of alternatives to this proposed road which would both meet the transportation needs of this area while protecting the wilderness of the Escalante region. We ask that the section of H.R. 15073 (Sec. 8 (c)) designating this road corridor be deleted.

5. The Sierra Club endorses the concept of a Canyon County National Recreation Area as contained in H.R. 15073. It recognizes the exceptional nature of the land surrounding the proposed Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and would confer upon the Bureau of Land Management the authority they need to administer these lands.

We are concerned, however, that the inclusion of this new and meritorious concept in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area legislation will delay the enactment of this overdue measure.

Thank you again for this opportunity to present our views.

Mr. TAYLOR. The next witness is Mr. Harry Crandall of the Wilderness Society.

STATEMENT OF HARRY CRANDALL, WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. CRANDALL. I will submit a prepared statement for the record. Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Crandall was not received when these hearings were printed. If received at a later date it will be placed in the committee file.)

Mr. CRANDALL. Since our representative at the field hearing on May 27 outlined our views, I did not feel it was proper at this time to take more of your time than is necessary. However, we will file a more detailed statement for the record later.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much.

Any questions?

Mr. LLOYD. No questions.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Kazen?

Mr. KAZEN. No questions.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Crandall.

The next witness is Mr. Jefferson B. Fordham.

STATEMENT OF JEFFERSON B. FORDHAM, A CONCERNED CITIZEN

Mr. FORDHAM. Since the hearing is at such a late hour, I would not presume to detain you gentleman. I wish to say that I speak as a citizen rather than a representative of any organization.

I do have some observations about this subject which, from a philosophical standpoint at least, I would like to share with you. I think I can do this briefly by relying primarily on my written statement. First, may I identify myself as a resident of Pennsylvania. I am a law teacher and I am greatly interested in urban affairs and in the legislative institution and process. For a number of years I have shared with other a very abiding and powerful interest in the preservation of our great and natural environment including that of the eastern Utah Glen Canyon region.

So, if I may, Mr. Chairman, let me stress certain broad considerations which seem to me should be taken into account in dealing with a matter of such great public importance as that which confronts your committee.

I should like to point out that this is an area of great and natural beauty that exists in southern Utah and that defilement or debasement is not something that can be replaced or remedied; it is something that is irremediable. The finest works of human art are nothing in comparison with the beauty and loveliness of such an extraordinary area. I would like to remind you that man has the power to deface and mutilate what nature has brought about, and the simple truth is we are making a decision in respect to the protection of this area which is not for now but for always.

Let me try to place our responsibilities in the very broadest perspective. That perspective is far larger than man himself. As a living organism he is a creature of nature. What is distinctive about his kind is the capacity to engage in calculated modification of the natural order. He is strongly inclined to be guided by what he thinks is best for man in the way he treats the land, the air, the sea, and the flora and fauna. This homocentrism is understandable. But it is far from enough. For, in truth, man, the thinking organism, is a trustee for all of nature. In a matter such as that at hand, it is the Members of Congress, the representatives of the people, who bear the fiduciary responsibility. It might be said that even in ecological terms this is fanciful, since man's welfare depends in any event upon his living in harmony with the natural order. Certainly, there is such dependence. But we all know that more is demanded of a fiduciary. than one asks of himself in his own interest. If we perceive ourselves as trustees for the total natural order and particularly for whatever forms of life may exist on this planet now and hereafter, we see vistas beyond short range self-interest.

Viewed in this broad perspective, the focus canyon country is obviously an area to be governed by a strong conservationist policy. That region is a unique, priceless and irreplaceable natural asset that, in its own way, is of incomparable beauty. It is an asset that can be preserved not by economic and other development but only by keeping it as it is. Cattle and sheep can be grazed elsewhere, energy can be generated elsewhere, communal development can be pursued elsewhere but nowhere else on the face of the earth is such a region to be found. The highest values which exist in that extraordinary country are its manifestations of natural forces and the beauty of form, light and color that they express.

In the face of mounting demands for opportunity to pursue various developmental activities in the area it is essential and urgent that