| OCR Text |
Show 129 "indefinite future," whereas extracted resources such as uranium and oil were finite. Udall praised the study and called it a conservative cstimatc. 390 Clyde and Bennett said the study confirmed their arguments - that multiple use and tourism combined would bring the most money into the statc. 391 The editorial page of the De!,Wet News and Salt Lake Telegram sided with Clyde and Bennett: "Development of Canyon Lands [sic] National Park can be a tremendous boon to Utah. So can development of the underground resources in the same general area. Let's make every possible effort to have them both."392 The conclusions of the Clyde committee and the university's economic study set the stage for the Senate subcommittee hearings - inserting conflicting assertions into an already heated debate. During the hearings in Washington and Utah, more than one hundred people testified. All the witnesses supported some sort of national park, but they varied widely on bow much land should be included and what uses would be allowed. Although Bennett was not a member of the subcommittee, Senator Alan Bible of Nevada, the Democratic chairman, invited him to question witnesses. The animosity that had grown between Udall and Bennett erupted when Udall testified. The Deserer News and Salr Lake Telegram reported that "Mr. Udall appeared to be particularly incensed at Sen. Bennett's charge that the administration bill would be a ' di saster to the state' and its school children" because of the potential impact on state revenues. 393 Bennett used the 390 White, "Park Value S 10 Million," Deseret News and Salt lake Telegram, March 27, 1962. 191 Deseret News and Salt lake Telegram, ''Park Potential Study Draws Clyde Praise," March 28, 1962, Bl. m Deseret News and Salt Lake Telegram, "Canyons Can Serve Two Goals," March 29, 1962, Al 4. 193 Deseret News and Salt Lake Telegram, "Park Opinions Stir Udall, Bennett Tiff," March 29, 1962, Bl. |
