The frontiersman., 1952-08-07
LITTLE SUSITNA WITHDRAWAL OPPOSED
 BECAUSE OF VAST DEVELO LOPMENT PLANS

it, we will cancel it.
 Tn all earnestness," he ques- tioned in closing the Army case, 'are the objections of sufficient importance when weighed against the need of the Army to warrant denial at this time?"
 Too Many Withdrawals
 Leading the list of objectors was the Republican candidate for Delegate to Congress Bob Reeve. Using the same speech he gave in Palmer last spring, he based his case on the evils of withdrawals, citing an exhaustive point by point record of withdrawals in Alaska. He claimed that fifty mil lion acres had already been re- served for the military in Alaska.
 ''We must take positive steps to stop this withdrawal of our lands if we are to progress" he said. We must also take steps to have these withdrawn lands returned.
 Anchorage is a dead end toWn," he added, Tt is a one crop community-federal. There is only one remaining outlet where we can expand and build our economy on a lasting basis and that is the Susitna area with it's vast potential for agriculture, timber, and recreation"
 Turnagain Site Proposed ....
 The Anchorage Times Bob At wood emceed the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce ca e against withdrawal. He preceded the testimony with the dramatic assembly of a withdrawal puz- gle map" of the Anchorage area. Piece after piece representing withdrawals for moose reserves, classification, military purposes, CAA, Matanuska Valley Colony, Indian reservations, power cites, and many others was placed on a bare map coverng only the pri mary physical outlines of an area bounded by the Talkeetnas, the Chugach range, the Little Susit- ma River, and midway down the Kenai Peninsula.
 The final wedge shaped piece, representing the proposed Susitna withdrawal left only a tiny white space that was Anchorage, now hemmed in on all sides.
 This visual drama led up to the Anchorage C of C's counter pro- posal. Lifting the wedge-shaped piece from the Susitna area, At wood fitted it in across Turna- gain Arm, with the outer arc fit ting tightly against the northern shore of a vast moose reserve on Kenai Peninsula and the firing point of the wedge on an Alaska Railroad gravel pit near FuroW Creek, some two or three miles south of downtown Anchorage.
 Then came the testimony to bolster the Chamber case against Susitna withdrawal and for the alternate plan. Witness after wit ness was called by Atwood. He cross-examined many of these witnesses to establish facts impor- tant to his case.
 Petroleum Potentialities
 Ralph Brown of the Alaska De- velopment Board submitted that the new site was preferable to the Susitna area not only be- cause it was almost entirely over water, but because the impact area could be increased to a 90 degree angle with the east term mus near Hope.
 Brown said that the vast with drawn areas in Alaska were cit ed by Senators opposing State hood in the last Congress. They doubted that there was enough good land left to insure Alaska a healthy economy. He said that military land grabs in Alaska were all out of propor tion to those in the states. Fifty-two mil lion acres have been withdrawn by the military in Alaska, he said, against 2O,75O,O0O acres in the en- tire continental United States.
 Development of a potential pe- troleum reserve in the Cook inlet