LANDSCAPE ACTION PROGRAM 473 



possible, with replenishment of the renewable resources. Followed 

 faithfully, this concept also provides for construction or installation of 

 facilities that blend harmoniously with, and perhaps even enhance, 

 the beauties of nature. 



Adherence to the principle of conservation, in the context of the 

 latter half of the 20th century, requires that we will have planning 

 before we have action. 



While I think it is unnecessary to do so for this audience, I would 

 like to point out, for the record, that the Committee on Interior 

 and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, of which I 

 have the honor to be chairman, has jurisdiction in many areas that 

 have a direct effect on the appearance of the landscape: Water 

 resource projects; mining generally; the public lands, including res- 

 ervations created from the public domain ; and units of the National 

 Park System, to mention the most significant ones. In approaching 

 legislation within the Committee's jurisdiction I have consistently 

 sought to apply the conservation standard to which I referred at the 

 outset; and I believe that our Committee has likewise consistently 

 approached problems before it with the same standard in mind. 



Extremists have been most vocal in spreading alarm concerning 

 future land use. On the one hand we are told that, unless the United 

 States retains practically every inch of land it now owns, we will 

 soon be crowded into standing room only; on the other extreme 

 we are besieged by developers seeking to obtain the right to utilize 

 any and all lands with financial pressures becoming paramount above 

 all other considerations, including aesthetics. 



It has always been our desire that programs presented to the 

 House Interior Committee be completely engineered and developed 

 in advance to permit us to evaluate all aspects to the fullest and per- 

 mit us to base our decisions on knowledge of the facts. We have had 

 to weigh, and increasingly we will have to weigh, between develop- 

 ment which many call progress and preservation; increasingly we 

 will be required to decide questions of how proposed projects involve 

 alteration of the earth's surface, the flow of rivers, and the intrusion 

 into areas previously set aside for some other purposes. Given the 

 facts and permitted to make choices, we will continue, as I think 

 we have in the past, to authorize those proposals that will enhance 

 the landscape and provide features pleasing to the eye rather than 

 those that will destroy the area or substitute features that distract 

 from the countryside. 



