STATEMENT OF MRS. VIRGINIA W. BREMBERG, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIRECTOR, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TEXAS Mrs. BREMBERG. I am Mrs. Virginia W. Bremberg, director of environmental quality for the League of Women Voters of Texas. Since 1954, the league has been directly involved in study and action in the environmental field. We feel that our years of indepth research in some measure qualifies us to speak to the issue before you today. A wide range of environmental problems fight for our immediate attention and concern, as environmentalists man the battle lines from the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway to the Alaska pipeline. Conflicting passions rise as interstate highways are built around business districts or through parklands, as wetlands are filled for construction sites or drained for farming, as vacation resorts are planned along windswept beaches. Central to these and other environmental issues is the choice of land use. How shall we plan for the future use of our land? Competing demands for land are increasing every day-for housing, community development, recreation, mining, and open space. But the immutable fact remains. While our population grows, our supply of land remains constant. In 1970, the United States had a population of almost 205 million, and the most modest of census projections predicts 66 million more people by the year 2000. Where will they live and work? It has been estimated that only 3 percent of the Nation's land is used for urban purposes, but pressure for development will increase. To what extent should the development impinge upon the Nation's cropland and grazing land (58 percent), forest land (22 percent), parklands and public installations (5 percent), and the remaining desert, swamp, tundra. and other lands (12 percent)? How can we unravel the interwoven problems of land use, economic growth, and population distribution? How can we assure that our varied use of land is harmoniously related, efficient, and beneficial to the environment? 1 Perhaps you think we are not being relevant in the discussion of national problems at this hearing-but we feel strongly that each piece of the land use puzzle is vital. We are also deeply concerned with the attitudes of State agencies and their "Please, Feds-we'd rather do it ourselves," the substitution of industrial "environmental messages" in the media instead of truly substantive research and thoughtful environmental improvement, and the deliberately-or so it would seem-planned obsolescence of our natural resources. A public relations man who points proudly to rows of slash pines where once stood a magnificent hardwood forest, and says, "Look at us-we've reforested" is either arrogant or misguided. The company that clear cuts and uses saw timber along with pulpwood because it is easier and cheaper for them than selective cuttings, shows its contempt for-not its concern with our national environ ment. We are regularly told that such drastic measures are employed because of the public demand for products. Gentlemen, can anyone seriously believe that companies have received thousands of letters "de 1 Source: How shall we plan for our land? League of Women Voters of the United States, December 1971. manding" the destruction of unique and magnificent forests--such as the Big Thicket-in order to make more comic books and/or paper products? We think not! You have heard the familiar cry of costs-and there is no doubt that a ream of paper would be a few cents more if environmental concerns played a larger role in corporate practices. The rest of my statement is submitted. Thank you. Mr. ASPINALL. Well, I just wish to make this observation, Mrs. Bremberg. I think that some of our comics in the daily newspapers are just as valuable as some of the trash that is put in there as news. Mrs. BREMBERG. I quite agree, and I enjoy "Peanuts" and "B.C." and the "Wizard of Id," with great regularity and I am a firm believer in reading the comics but I was referring to the comic books per se. Mr. ASPINALL. Well, I am a little bit too old for that right now. Mrs. BREMBERG. I long since passed it but I agree with you. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. TAYLOR. Someone pointed out another generation is coming. Mrs. BREMBERG. Unfortunately, too many of them. I am not necessarily in favor of motherhood when I say too many Mr. TAYLOR. I do not know when you say "unfortunately" whether you mean too many people or too many comic books. Mrs. Smith. On deck, Herman Brown. You may proceed Mrs. Smith. (Mrs. Bremberg's statement follows:) STATEMENT OF MRS. BRUCE E. BREMBERG, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FOR THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TEXAS I am Mrs. Bruce E. Bremberg, Director of Environmental Quality for the League of Women Voters of Texas. Since 1954, the League has been directly involved in study and action in the environmental field. We feel that our years of indepth research in some measure qualifies us to speak to the issue before you today. A wide range of environmental problems fight for our immediate attention and concern, as environmentalists man the battle lines from the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway to the Alaska Pipeline. Conflicting passions rise as interstate highways are built around business districts or through parklands, as wetlands are filled for construction sites or drained for farming, as vacation resorts are planned along windswept beaches. Central to these and other environmental issues is the choice of land use. How shall we plan for the future use of own land? Competing demands for land are increasing every day—for housing, community development, recreation, mining, and open space. But the immutable fact remains: While our population grows, our supply of land remains constant! In 1970, the United States had a population of almost 205 million, and the most modest of census projections predicts 66 million more people by the year 2000. Where will they live and work? It has been estimated that only 3% of the nation's land is used for urban purposes, but pressure for development will increase. To what extent should that development impinge upon the nation's cropland and grazing land (58%), forest land (22%), parklands and public installations (5%), and the remaining desert, swamp, tundra, and other lands (12%)? How can we unravel the interwoven problems of land use, economic growth, and population distribution? How can we assure that our varied use of land is harmoniously related, efficient, and beneficial to the environment?1 1 SOURCE."How Shall We Plan for Our Land?" League of Women Voters of the United States, December 1971. Perhaps you think we are not being relevant in the discussion of national problems at this hearing-but we feel strongly that each piece of the land-use puzzle is vital. We are also deeply concerned with the attitudes of state agencies and their "Please, Feds-we'd rather do it ourselves", the substitution of industrial ‘environmental messages' in the media instead of truly substantive research and thoughtful environmental improvement, and the deliberately (or so it would. seem) planned obsolescence of our natural resources. A Public Relations man who points proudly to rows of slash Pines and says, "Look at us-we've reforested" is either arrogant or misguided. The company that clear cuts and usessaw timber along with pulp wood because it is easier and cheaper for them than selective cuttings, shows its contempt for-not its concern with OUR natural environment. We are regularly told that such drastic measures are employed because of the public demand for products. Gentlemen-can anyone seriously believe that companies have received thousands of letters "demanding" the destruction of unique and magnificent forests (such as the Big Thicket) in order to makemore comic hooks and/or paper products? We think not! You have heard the familiar cry of costs-and there is no doubt that a ream of paper would be a few cents more if environmental concerns played a larger role in corporate practices. You have also heard that some of the marginal pulp mills would have to close if pollution abatement standards are met. May we ask if bad management practices and lower profit profiles are the responsibility of the citizens whose natural resources are being exploited? The traditional disregard shown in the misuse and devastation of public lands must be stopped! It may come as a surprise to some of these misusers-but WE are also owners of these lands and we don't like (or approve) of what is being done. Economic efficiency can no longer be the sole criteria-othervalues such as long-range environmental impact must be taken into account. Just as Superdams have created human, fish and wildlife, and other broad environmental disasters around the world-the continued depletion of our finite resources, such as the Big Thicket is unthinkable. Intelligent land useplanning and enforcement of those plans is the ONLY solution. We were dismayed-but not surprised that some Texas agencies and officials went to Washington to proclaim their opposition to any National Land Use Planning. Having witnessed their vigorous lobbying against even a Texas Land-Use Inventory in the 62nd Legislature, we expected this to happen. We resented the use of our tax dollars by agencies charged with the protection of our natural resourecs to defeat these measures-but we were helpless to stop it. However, we would hope that those of you who must evaluate the relative merits of all testimony, will bear in mind that these officials are often protecting a budget line-item and do NOT speak for the citizens who are paying the taxes. If we quote a statement from what is euphemistically called The American Land Development Association “... while are enthusiastic about saving the muskrat's home and feeding ground, we also know that people want to develop land and people want to enjoy the product of the developer. . . while those who love muskrats can vote, the muskrats can't . . . and not everyone wants to be forced to enjoy nature, to sit in the sun or recreate at a public facility." So much for the Developer's "concern" for our environment! Being fully cognizant of the political realities in the passage of any bill in Congress, may we request that the tags of "moderate". "conservative", "liberal", "left", "right", or whatever be dismissed from the deliberations concerning the establishment of a Big Thicket National Park? Intelligent land-use is NOT the exclusive domain of any shade of political thinking-statesmanship need not be a thing of the past. May we also urge you to be extremely selective in your legislative language in the adopted statute? "Up to" does NOT mean "no less than", for instance. On almost an hourly basis, we are forcibly reminded that "man has dominion over the earth"-may we suggest an alternative? For an "encore", why doesn't man prove he has the capacity to exercise "dominion" over himself? Thank you for holding this hearing and allowing us to participate. 2 SOURCE-Testimony before Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceansand Atmosphere in its consideration of S. 638, S. 582 and related bills, May 6, 1971. STATEMENT OF MRS. WILFRED HIGGINS, REPRESENTING MRS. WESLEY SMITH, PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF DENTON, TEX. Mrs. HIGGINS. I am Mrs. Wilfred Higgins, speaking for Mrs. Wesley Smith, president of the League of Women Voters of Denton, Tex.. which is a community some 300 miles north of the Thicket region. Although we speak in support of the creation of a Big Thicket National Park we realize there are those present who wish to speak in opposition and in the interests of fairness to all, our remarks will be brief. For many months our league has been intensely interested in the proposed Big Thicket National Park. We have held public meetings in our community on this proposal. We have spoken to literally thousands of schoolchildren on the subject. We sought and obtained national and regional publicity in the various news media on behalf of the Big Thicket. We have sponsored a 2-day tour of the Big Thicket area. We have sent to members of the committee and to other related governmental bodies, those time-honored gimmicks that people bestow on those whom they wish to influence-buttons and bumper stickers, urging you to think Big Thicket. And today we come armed with another gimmick-these Big Thicket cups, imprinted with your names, in the hope that they may be a concrete reminder of our concern. By this detailed description of our activities, we hope to impress upon you how very much we care about the establishment of a Big Thicket National Park. As you are aware, the League of Women Voters has positions on many governmental issues, some of which are widely supported by the general public and some of which are not. We can only wish that all of our programs were received with such overwhelming support as has our Big Thicket project. We planned our tour of the Big Thicket anticipating an attendance of about 50 people. We wound up with 172 persons, including a television crew who, in spite of an upsetting experience in a canoe on Village Creek, gave our tour extensive coverage on four successive evening news programs. We were deluged with more opportunities to speak to schools than we could possibly fill and regrettably had to decline many offers due to limits on time and stamina. From first-hand experience, we can assure you that many north Texans are strongly in favor of a Big Thicket National Park. In examining the various bills for the establishment of a Big Thicket National Park as proposed by Members of Congress, our league feels compelled to support one which would not be general in its description of the areas to be preserved, but specific, encompassing areas such as are outlined in N.P.-B.T. 91,009. We further urge that those stream corridors considered as being most important ecologically by competent conservationists be given special attention. We believe that an area of 100,000 acres must be considered the minimum, and would urge that an even larger acreage be included in the park. The League of Women Voters of Denton, with confidence in your good judgment, requests the members of this committee to sustain our faith in a Government that responds not only to the needs of powerful special interest groups, but one that justly serves, as it was meant to do, the best interests of the most people. Please give us our park. Mr. TAYLOR. Just a question or two. Why do you favor a national park rather than a national monument or a national recreation area? Mrs. HIGGINS. It seems to us that this is an extremely important issue. It is to us. A national monument has connotations of something less important than a national park. It is usually of smaller acreage. We feel this is important enough to rate the name of a national park. Mr. TAYLOR. Most national parks are much larger than 100,000 acres. Mrs. HIGGINS. Most of them are, but not all of them. Mr. TAYLOR. And I do not know of any that consist of strips of land. Mrs. HIGGINS. Neither do I, but I think it is a very interesting idea. [Laughter, applause.] Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Mrs. Higgins, in fact the only difference between national monuments and national parks is that Congress creates national parks Mrs. HIGGINS. By statutory Mr. ASPINALL (continuing). By statute. Mrs. HIGGINS. Right. Mr. ASPINALL. Otherwise, the operation is practically the same. Now, I did not understand what you were going to do with those cups. Mrs. HIGGINS. Well, we are going to give them to you and you may file them under C. We prepared one for each member of the subcommittee. Mr. ASPINALL. That is very nice and I understand your desire is that they not only be a concrete remembrance to us, but be a constant reminder. [Laughter.] Mrs. HIGGINS. Absolutely, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Herman Brown, executive vice president, replacing Ed Wilkins, Angelina County Chamber of Commerce. On deck, J. B. Webster. STATEMENT OF HERMAN BROWN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ANGELINA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, REPRESENTING ED WILKINS, CHAIRMAN Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate very much the fact that you have come down here and allowed us to testify in this hearing. I would like to say that I could not agree with Mrs. Jagoe any more about the creation and the preservation of the Big Thicket National Monument or park as the case may be, but that I do disagree with her on the size and that is why my testimony is presented. On November 13, 1968, our organization endorsed the proposal that a Big Thicket National Monument be established. We have endorsed the concept of creating such a monument by the acquisition of 35.500 acres for this purpose. We have since reiterated the endorsement. We feel it is important to preserve unique specimens and phenomena of nature contained in the Big Thicket area. We do not believe that such |