Explanation of amendments proposed to S> 27, the Canyonlands bill, and to Senator Moss's Amendment 58, offered April 22, 1963

Typescript statement by Utah Senator Wallace F. Bennett to be given before the Senate Interior Committee, explaining amendments he proposed to add to Senate Bill 27, the legislation introduced by Utah Senator Frank E. Moss to establish Canyonlands National Park.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR WALLACE F. BENNETT GIVEN TO THE SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE 24, 1963 MAY EXfLANATION OF AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO S. 27, THE CANYONLANDS BILL, AND TO SENATOR MOSS'S AMENDMENT 58, " Attached are OFFERED APRIL 22, 1963 my proposed amendments to S. Park bill, National to and 1963, by my junior colleague, ments that The amendments and I was on offered are" the amend­ These the next daysll when I few May 17. statement for two submitted with the in Utah and had been for was Second, I wanted during his absence. precise text of the amendments with key officials the Washington in here rather than merely It previously discussed. without that consultation Governor did not to rely some George D. Clyde and other and in Utah ideas unilaterally act I con­ clear to general the on to wise seem such a vital matter. on April 22, on the -vsubcommat t.ee would not wish to that sure sider amendments me not were first, Senator Moss reasons: time, Committee the to "within 58, No. Senator'Moss. submit I promised to statement sent my amendment, the 27, the Canyonlands can now report key State officials join support of these amendments. in Amendments to the Moss Amendment 58 of April 22. 1963--Park Boundaries I fully support which revises Park, with but The first northeast area the the boundaries two change proposed corner Therefore, of the it support the boundaries The across not were second change the of April 22, 1963, of Canyonlands National the proposed is the I am potash deposits, should be deleted. in the north advised Other than in the that this potash that, I proposed by Senator Moss. southern end of the proposed park. of acres is under and calls for the deletion of in his amendments 960 deletion of proposed park. included in Senator Moss's bill added 58, No. exceptions. is known to have rich lease. Amendment, Moss -section strip These introduced in April 22. a sections January, but were -2- approximately 19,500 This southern addition consists of of According land. hunting country which is deer evidenced by the fact Game the Utah State Fish and to Senator Moss left that out it Department, park, in the needed not is acres it is as January of his bill. Under my proposal acres in size. bill, a This The first proposed language on S. 27. Introduced outright a entirely unprecedented language. to my My amendment when coupled with the amendment proposed (e) park, restores knowledge, traditional the including notice park by national and, section 2 1963 January 14, of novel use amended Moss 27 is to eliminate the in S. change 1 which establishes page the in than nine per cent. reduction of less to 258,600 acres to compares Amendments approximately 238,140 the park would be in the Federal is solely of manner of as sub­ new creating Register. This technical, clerical is national a a more orderly procedure. The second change a nature. State and School Lands The remaining two changes with the proposed vital protect the interests to entitled to State lands, including in utah with they subsections the benefits the park unless where new the school are no page one (b), 2 of Utah's school lands, are sections the All references bill, since phrase. of "the My same endless to made. and 2 (d), whatever to our children who are We have had so acres of locked up within sad into national schools. are experience pars The Moss bill completely, in my adoption of these amendments. "equal value" are over eliminated from the Moss interpretation of this provides that the land exchanges shall be classification," which fully protects the interests State is both of the Federal that required under is amendments, coupled could be being locked disputes arise amendment (c), school that attempts to meet the problem; but to do opinion, requires 2 of my ariSing from the thousands of changes use on and of the the present government, law. and this all -3In summary, be shall Federal State these created until lands State all lands arbitrated Mining the Moss bill above am before tinue the then, the bill this he regulations that leasing laws. in he con­ But Therefore, fully, the broad new change is I propose to use still on the able be to adopted, otherwise would arise under same strike apply the comprise lands which areas would be discretionary authority granted significantly Moss bill would be these keeping with the expressed intent may now whole, in or ThUS, truly important domain. this public domain. the and mineral The Secretary would the public If on purports to part in laws. language from the bill but the gives the Secretary of Interior authority to, by Senator Moss. same of the Moss bill application of the mining mining and mineral leasing of 11 Secretary of the already has provision, "general regulations," negate, this govern­ "general regulations" within the park establish broad Immediately pro­ top of page 3 of the near appears It would strike from page proposing. beyond those which and a changes. these additional authority given to the Interior to amendment basic changes I effecting for out State and Federal the park Protection and Mineral The next in no They also establish cedure under which differences between ment may be exchanged are State. in the elsewhere provide that amendments land protected the under narrowed. it would the Moss that obviate many problems billo For example, this change clearly would permit full development of oil fields after the 25-year period where only well one time but where to that is in doubt under the had been discovered by exploration prior developmental wells had been sunk. no Moss bill. The full field could be developed equipment, pipelines, buildings, etc., and all would be permitted. activities. I same would hold respectfully urge amendment and to make report the bill. on The this the true Committee understanding This clear necessary to do for related to both in the so mining adopt my Committee -4Roads change calls for commercial The next If by the Moss bill outside the park. these roads Under my ing, and grazing tinue effect in outside of this not is privileges to permitted con­ rights established those who have 25-year period, park roads built both within and outside of use could be tied up needlessly. both before and after the park, If the Moss bill. Such rights and privileges would have little value without the park. opportunity the the in mining, mineral leas­ the authorized by acres (e), section 5 assured of will be of done, thousands new park. the thousand-foot right-of-way along roads built the on (d), the United States will be of laws the park which will be Under the or proposed section 5 new of outside of mineral-rich lands areas adopted, amendment is not the "Chinese wallsll barring commercial activity could become in substantial authorized of roads use to use the roads. This amendment ing with the intent of Senator Moss, but is offered is keep­ in doubt under the terms in of his bill. Hunting The proposed ing within 200 yards covering only ment me at that request the deer are either bank of of small a of area the area area Colorado and Green I and of rivers in that this the game. should be the rivers, offering this am fish and game people adequate management administration of the the within the park. hunted from the comprise the Canyonlands to assure (a) permits carefully regulated hunt- section 7 new Utah, in who amend­ inform deep canyons that amendment Because is of necessary the geography, relatively simple. Predator Control cattlemen and others Local concerned park. that The undertake new a living adjacent to the the Park Service will not section 8 is control offered to direct the area are predators in the Park Service to control program for this purpose. I fully support creation of a new Canyonlands Park in Utah. Because of the opposition in the House to "multiple usell in national parks, the Moss bill could delay by months or years the creation of a park. However, I have agreed to support the bill if amended, and will do so, even though a smaller "pure park" bill would in all likelihood have a much better chance of gaining Congressional approval. ### /Y)'\)l j:A£ _''._ _ ''; STATEMENT BY SENATOR WALLACE ,F. W,f wFid., BENNETT :2.." JULuf. S 1963 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, W 12 CANYONLANDS PARK Congressmen, that the people of Utah want called the Canyonlands has been in what park they want it planned but area, a Republican two by the Governor and the shared is my belief, It such in way a that it will permit maximum development of both the mineral and the non-mineral such a park. in the resources It hoped that before hearings begin in the Senate was a by all in representatives Governor and looking toward such it out. are There as by the agreement, an to them until scheduled for the 25th, the many interested reaction to these bill Oa! eJP:'1 ClYde April 19,- and Governor (1fA'" Since the hearings are rVw {I 6.(. April 22. it reason senator' proposed by manifestly impossible to is individuals and groups proposals. new principe but the .,..-- until me to work not been able have we Canyonlands the in not available did not receive preliminary work done some many reasons for this, that the changes were well as 24 hours of the announced opening of the hearings, and while there has been Moss Congress, the state Administration. We are now within is supported program which could be it would be possible to work out of Utah's Certainly I strongly favor area. in Utah to " confer wit obtain their Yesterday, Apil 23rd, I called Senator Moss and expressed my belief that for the good of the park we would all be better off under the circumstances could either be search for an There are postponed or recessed to permit many that need to be areas studied, At a meeting April 6, the Governor and I suggested that of the park, as delineated in S. 27, held with the our was wise for a of getting responsibility the proposed boundary on the grounq. in Salt Lake the on northeast known to be rich in working party into problems the question of since the it would be desirable to eliminate all out, it would be and many is or possible of this from the proposed park, and that this to continue us The chief among these actual boundaries of the park. minerals, hearings agreed position. that need to be resolved. area if the area Obviously, as much in order to be and this as to work set up charged working out party 'P -2of the utah should include representatives of the Park Service, state agencies directly involved, 7 possibly representatives of and interested private groups. It that felt also was from the proposed park thing that which could be areas necessary could also be therefore at this size by studied point bill eliminates only more is gests a are park were 25-year period more either on new Moss land 1n there and a greater possible development of mineral the that remain inside whatever park areas The bill, S. 27, sug­ uninterrupted exploration and in which resources of this study idea, would be permitted. There though the Chamber of Commerce resolution a opposing any limit. seems this question of necessary and of the kind year period, a time desirable of activities and IVfJUJ/j ._------ it tUlC However, area. careful yesterday adopted Before left within the park in that area, land finally determined upon. general acceptance time The the known mineral of acres involves development of the mineral was be: prepared by the Utah state Geologist. that may exist in boundaries agreement proposed park. of the 18,000 maps agreement for basis no Another problem which needs values it if selecting such additional e known mineral judging from the search for might there implement these suggestions, and section of the proposed the northeast is much same group described above. the to there the boundaries or this felt that recommendations for The There has not been time the ground by a desirable, to try and maintain approximately the or present acreage. areas beauty, park boundaries, in the included the on it was time, same scenic obvious no determined could also be working party. with areas At the attempt should be made to eliminate an to guarantee continued It was we must use can develop a be of the extent of resources settled, clear that will be permitted to make clear the to limit however, \ nr;71 understanding during this 25- development necessary after the period ends. also understood that if this phase of the bill is adopted, clearly spell out the rights of the producer to move through -3- park property, and over gathering systems and across rights with the operate to his forth in the bill. set rights to 36,000 some immediate an the boundaries, quibbling has acres of Utah school lands contained While of the As a these school use by locked up including estimates of equality of system, due state of Utah, the to feel we solved of OV and intended and for since the strongly that this prob:1 that to in authorizing legislation. the establishing new boundaries and the park roads for mining and mineral have only they will the people of the State, been available not be for immediately and therefore time is a few accessible needed to study develop and study other amendments that might result from the work of the on-the-ground survey party. The people of Utah would like to have a park To summarize; the Canyonlands area, but they would like to have its size and location controlled so as to preserve for normal development as much as possible of the known mineral resources. The people of Utah realize that their best hope of getting such a park depends on the opportunity to eliminate or reduce existing conflicts of opinion to an absolute minimum, so that their representatives can present a common front to the Congress. If this is to be accomplished, it would be better to do it before the hearings 1n the Senate rather than afterwards. Time and the pattern of events have made it impossible to accomplish this purpose before tomorrow, April 25. Therefore, we hope that the hear­ ings can either be postponed or recessed to give us the added time needed. in preventing the exchange of now dedicated is These amendments It is obvious them and could not be lands are amendments--one dealing with activity. to there that generally agreed 1 result of the meeting in Salt Lake, Senator Moss has j suggested two days. lands satisfactorily must be other that 600,000 acres already support of Utah's is clearly set forth the basis of should technicalities, from school revenue it in the exchange of these lands for lands outside Questions like these value. some over so do with the yet resolved the bill exchange, such an to as proposed park boundaries. should be support to 25-year phase-out could not be obtained. if the third problem not A agreed park administered under so-called pure park much smaller standards in accordance property It is my understanding that Senator Moss a with necessary, pipelines with telephone communications and rights-of-way necessary other park roads, and if STATEMENT BY SEN. \1ALLACE F. BENNETT GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE INTERIOR THURSDAY, APRIL 25 1963 . COMMIE . CANYONLANDS NATIONAL PARK Chairman: Dear.Mr. appreciate I the Utah, every other citizen of the Canyonlands the 72,000 the first testify Last year, there could not be was if men did not set to there was both in full and free or Washington and happened sari1y disturbing. the Easter recess, to attend the returned to down this is and together. another year. on April 6 to there, together with Canyonlands the We did not definite amendments, features create did we but of the bill an atmosphere specific agreements could be sought, in Utah. since has been disappointing, but not Congressman Burton and and the Governor left I the remained Service and I assume interested with in the neces- in Utah for state early last week Conference of Western Governors. outdoor associations which of the Utah Congres­ successful. write he suggestion, Utah's very was that me sit District immediately to Washington, where with the Park come First discussion of the in which my both were in whose thought the meeting At Salt Lake in Senator Moss and I cooperation What has not was called the bill on but members all that might be amended with profit, of mutual 1962, in with him definite boundaries a area now said to could beginning to this end. a delegation to meet I is I have of good will George D. Clyde invited lies. develop my bill to recreation a disagreement happen Congressman Laurence Burton, try as appearing today, in substantial no resolved exchange ideas. area country in during the Committee's Canyonlands hearings, Senator We have made sional 1991, March as park developed a before you. Unfortunately, that Governor see then chairman of the full Committee, Anderson, thought early to Congress affecting what in However, the bill on I want of the Needles introduced Canyonlands. As area. acres Like privilege of appearing here this morning. after Only Senator Moss some conferences representatives of national park, he prepared some new -2- amendments April 6 conference, participate to sorry that direction of in the move in the they came in Utah have had sorry that but discussions late so time of none had us in our opportunity an I also am interested groups of the none these glad that produced them. which that am suggested solutions study them before to I last week. announced late amendments which he hearings opened the today. Clyde by telephone last night, minutes I talked with Governor after his joins return from Arizona. heard, the hearings witnesses have been that and of we so may that continue being consulted which chance a search our interested people associations. that a If this program great national park has been and the that Because he faced with a is I maximum resources united position will feel concerned will all try to parties can sit down far to eliminate in existing we as much of the of quickly as much as there is a good have both can area. Legisla­ thirty as a I am sure possible. if all disagreement and support for outdoor of the Utah session atmosphere of good will, areas bill, privilege same national that sure so the on conferences, but of course, move an Committee with united the the still believe with Senator Anderson that I he practical development of underlie special for these allowed the have ture, Governor Clyde expressed the hope that may be say that 27 be recessed S. devised under which be can a on extended to done, be can for in Utah the rich natural days to me request that after the presently scheduled in the me authorized He interested we can come move back to program which most of the people of Utah will approve. I am sure Committee ful all if this for the of the people recess can be of Utah will be granted, privilege of appearing before and you I grateful to personally the am grate­ today to present this idea. \._ A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, VA., CHAIRMAN JOHN SPARKMAN, ALA. WALLACE F. BENNETT, UTAH JOSEPH S. CLARK, PA. JACOB K. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, WIS. MILWARD L. SIMPSON, WYO. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., N.J. PETER H. DOMINICK, COLO. PAUL H. DOUGLAS, ILL. JOHN G. TOWER, TEX. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, MAINE JAVITS, N.Y. EDWARD V. LONG, MO. MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, OREG. THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, N.H. COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY MATTHEW HALE, CHIEF OF STAFF an I _clo ur-e • . STATEMENT BY SENATOR WALLACE F. BENNETT SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE May 17, 1963 CANYONLANDS NATIONAL PARK SHOULD BE CREATED During Canyonlands hearings the Acting Chairman then agreed time and leaders in Utah on introduced until April throughout the state. people and amendments bill conferences, Governor Clyde Based upon these I, together with many and Since leaders, Governor Clyde and other state conferred by telephone and by letter with many other and not were just three days before the hearing. 22, I have met with time that individuals 27, which S. to amendments the Moss This 15, today. interested and affected consult with needed to 27, the S. on Subcommittee, Senator Moss, Public Lands the hold the hearing record open until May to was of April 25th held others state, in the should be further amended the Moss that feel follows: as 8oundaries: Senator Moss from the to area introducing in the deletion was wildlife enthusiasts, since it is therefore, deer his amendment Moss not is first and of of these April these clear that second the park. the These added same Utah sportsmen and by the affected county, as the people same This fish and San were Juan, disappointed, approximately 19,500 acres, lands along the or 30 southern border in 22. 30 and 1/2 sections. it was to have preceding Congress. proposed amendment, therefore, essential 28 sections well hunting country. park in January, My of sections amendment were as when Senator Moss 1/2 My of welcomed, particularly by and it proposed park which would included therein by his bill been the of the south 27 in January took out lands S. the lands is to delete from the By leaving them out impliedly acknowledged that the administration of the park, can be of lands and from this appropriately deleted now. proposed amendment relates to the northeastern portion Senator Moss in his (some 18.000 acres) eastern borders. should be of April deleted This, however, took out only portion of the known mineralized the provision which amendment areas permits mining in the and mineral 22 provided that along the a northern relatively northeast. But, activity for a small if minimum -2- 25 years within the park is appropriately amended of the deletions recommend, quate, provided description section and a land of 28. section then, In summary sections I have If the bill 234,140 acres amended in his April out the 22 Salt is 28-section deletion the well as the as is Lake of reduction a I and Of Moss either the course in be the only eight per cent. deletions of the all amendment. 254,600 acres compares to suggested by Senator have been of This 960 acres, the area proposed, the park would I have as This size. amended Moss bill. Except for of all described. is in The deleted. is 960-acre This proposed by Senator Moss should be approved, 1/2 land more township 27 south, range 20 east, is half lease. half a shall Senator Moss may be ade­ recommended by and the west potash under now this of 29, section that I as recommended I have January bill in his April deletions 22 or grew City meeting of April 6. Roads: respect to With park, the bill should be to of the and use mitted commercial This should be after the to roads amended to may be made amended to provide clearly that full by commercial the terms provide that such or roads commercial for all termination of amendment is the an amendment commercial 25-year period. of the to the adjacent recreational to the roads are per­ bill. continue may uses access Moreover, are end of that required period, in bill. constructed outside should be users It adopted both before is to the park permit full feared that unless and commercial outside of and after adopted the roads would become "Chinese effectively blocking areas the Moss authorized to be bill, use of who users uses 25-year period to the extent that such under the Moss large located within the proposed grazing activities. and develop rights established prior As be of the park under use keeping with the intent an will mining, mineral, includes the bill that roads the such walls," development in the park. (more) -3The Moss bill provides thousand feet of a is 125 lock up in width for per mile. acres that It feared that is needlessly much acreage of Therefore) the bill stration of right-of-way lands such should be narrowed to This park. right-of-way would these provide either for admini­ multiple as average an having little scenic value. land amended should be the outside roads all shall be right-of-way the use they or areas) sharply. Predator Control: Even now wool growers ence in there in other parks) predator control problem for cattlemen and a Canyonlands it a cattle in the surrounding amended to make clear that carry out to The Moss an the bill predator effective Interior may prescribe it continued application for also archaeologic values that of the area." scenic) of concern the Secretary probably would such broad bar 25-year period) of these activities scientific, and Again, past experience justifies discretionary authority the mining and tIThe Secretary general regulations such a of rights established during provides that necessary to preserve the deems Park Mining Activity: bill provides However-, should be control program. leasing laws within the proposed park for that period. he would area incumbent upon the National is it and thereafter to maintain and develop as Canyonlands the Therefore area. 25-Year Mineral Leasing and mineral that feared is experi­ of unfavorable In view area. breeding ground for predators that would kill sheep and become Service the is effectively much, the hands in if not of all, mining and mineral activity. The bill would be were amended to rules stered fue and now apply to by the Bureau of Land Management. his to in this respect if it require the application by the Secretary of the regulations that Secretary narrow significantly improved the public domain This as still would same admini­ permit protect truly important areas) but would substantially discretionary authority under the Moss Bill. This same type of administration should be established during the 25-year period tat continue thereafter. applied with respect to those rights -4- addition, In clear that all at of the end 25-year period will the the areas also show that it the is shall be given to mining permitted to do made period which that rich is both to make companies oil activities in minerals amended it if not indeed and has I have as accessible that will area, true field 011 an prior discovered installation of necessary for including pipelines. to mar at the at great of the area thousands can developed be Americans of to permit mining and mineral time same potential. economic recommended, to hundreds its wonders while at the be opinion of experts that the Canyonlands country is the is should be same equipment, and If the bill of rights same mining companies would Similarly, 25 years. the of end The exceptionally thrill Thus required to develop are time. buildings It companies. the that permitted to drill any necessary holes after the 25-year would be to intent drilling and sink shafts based upon discoveries core prior to the committee1s report should The fully developed. concerned are renewed be to effect in leases permitted be make report will its in and other mineral oil, gas, valid until committee the I hope significant degree the beauties any all. State and School Lands: Utah's since there area, the school income from which would go Parks state and school receive and Monuments lands benefits no interest an 36,000 acres approximately are other National children have to our recognizes this problem. lands. However, school land in Uniform School the Fund. In throughout the State of Utah, have been locked from these of Canyonlands bill the in and in In his the bill school our children Senator Moss bill should be amended to provide that the park will not be established until all school and state lands are exchanged for other Federal lands the in State of Utah. Such exchanges should involve both the mineral estates and not be confined to the surface estates, advocated by the Department the State of Utah is anxious of to Interior. Let me the and as make surface apparently it clear that exchange the lands and would not in .. . -5- attempt to delay creation any way strongly support creation cials also fact, Governor to exchanges that willing to submit any dispute on is compulsory arbitration problem will the Bureau directs of party third qualified a if obviated be of Land if Management Secretary the proceed to Interior of to now exchange lands. All page reference Thus bill. 9, "equal value" to lIequalize the phrase 16. line State The does "same classification" of the is virtually impossible to undeveloped land, land exchanges. Game Management: If the to not object to exchanging for page on 9, lin.e 10, amendment my to the to connection with other delete the game management therefore in the park. Because of the present time this hunting geography of the area, regulate hunting without danger S. 27 May Not it bill is amended, could delay perhaps years. meeting at Salt I to it Lake river bottoms carried out by should be relatively easy visitors. agreed to support Senator Moss's bill, am fearful that the approach embodied Congressional approval This amended Approach: Be Best I have the by boat and carry the deer out by boat. to Although is park, in should be permit carefully controlled deer hunting along the area the problems except to the land added southern portion of The bill enter respect in river bottoms. hunters: who it repeatedly substantial the but occurred amendment At lands value with equal is omitted from merely invites interminable 22 Moss no should be the phrase adopts there will be value" Moss of committee by the April the provided as struck from the should be determine what and use Such delay has delay. if In Canyonlands park. a desired. is This the George D. Clyde of offi­ State for the park, the of fear was City. of S. in 27, the the park for months and expressed to Senator fJIoss at the April 6 As a result, he agreed to support a much -6smaller park without adopt the provision of mining multiple of his activity and mineral Nothing has changed House a of Committee may National Park. bill to that If is controversial provisions such considerable delays if not alter my seems in a that view most Senate-passed bill could such cause bill a approval Senate This would make of in inclusion the likely, the activity and mineral outright rejection the during the 88th Congress. to permit mining as 25 years minimum of a park. the April 6 so, Committee refused to House permits which in since refuse the if use an empty gesture. For the good the of approved at the outset 100,000 acres I have agreed and will do but be so, rapidly as if it is the at desired if bill time same to of create it that a Senate approximately "pure par-k" so-called support the Moss to recognizing the best procedure if the be better Canyonlands National Park a administered under However, might it park, standards. is amended, this may not National Park as possible. Conclusion: I strongly support creation of respectfully urge adoption in this statement to the people submitted to to the The text Canyonlands National Park, amendments perfect the bill of Utah. the of a of that and make I have the park outlined more the proposed amendments committee within the next ####"# few days. and desirable will be