68 CONFERENCE ON NATURAL BEAUTY 



Mrs. RICHARD B. GRIPPING. Frequent mention has been made 

 of the lack of coordination and diversity of aims of the Federal agen- 

 cies charged with administering aspects of conservation programs. 

 I would like to give two illustrations of overlapping and nondirected 

 functions and aims of Federal agencies in the conservation field 

 and make a suggestion directed to outdated public land policy in 

 the West and the part a ref raming of this policy might play in improv- 

 ing intergovernmental cooperation and coordination. 



In Montana, where at least 40 percent of the land is in the public 

 domain and where the headwaters of the two major main stem 

 rivers rise, historic and current conflicting aims and overlapping 

 functions of agencies in the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and 

 Defense become highly visible in the field. While dozens of 

 examples are available, two current illustrations of bureaus and 

 agencies engaged in jurisdictional disputes and overlooking emphasis 

 on the preservation of natural beauty would suffice: 



1. The Bureau of Reclamation proposal for a Sun Butte dam 

 on the upper forks of the Sun River represents the first major inva- 

 sion and nullification of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The proposals 

 have been found impractical, infeasible, or destructive of wildlife 

 and the purposes of the Wilderness Act by the Corps of Engineers, 

 the Montana Fish and Game Commission, some officials of the Forest 

 Service and most local volunteer conservation groups. On the 

 other hand, proposals are supported by the local chamber of com- 

 merce in the hope that a dam might provide some flood control. 



The proposed dam would inundate or render unusable for wil- 

 derness purposes approximately 54,000 acres of the Bob Marshall 

 Wilderness area. It would destroy the habitual calving grounds, 

 nurseries and migration routes of the Sun River elk herd one of 

 the last remaining (although dwindling) major herds in the Nation. 



The arguments used by the Bureau favoring dam construction in 

 the Sun Butte area are specious and use the damaging 1964 floods 

 on the Sun River as a wedge to find local favor. An irrigation 

 dam, which is proposed, cannot, by its nature, contribute significantly 

 to spring flood control. In a time of seemingly insoluble farm sur- 

 pluses, bringing extra acres under irrigation seems questionable at 

 best. The possible benefits from the dam do not weigh well in 

 the balance with the initial encroachment of the purposes of the 

 Wilderness Act, nor with the Act's philosophy that neither special 

 private interests nor government itself should be permitted to despoil 

 the few remaining wild areas held in perpetuity for posterity. 



