Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-04-08
Unsofe Safeguard


District Engineer George
B. Sumner was attributed by
a Star news account March
24) with testifying before a
House hearing that the En-
gineer Corps would be salts
fed with the proposed Gao
Canal Park legislation "only
if the water storage safe
guard is included"
I have a pertinent ques-
ton: What kind of "safe-
guard" can be included in
this legislation that will ade-
quately protect the opportu-
nifty for Metropolitan WASH
ington to develop water re-
sources in the Potomac in
the future if the need is ade-
quately demonstrated?
If no one in this area can
provide an answer, ] can
from bitter, recent personal
experience. The answer is:
None. Once a national park
is created along the east
shore of the Potomac, where
the historic C65O Canal runs,
regardless of any safeguards
written into the bill, the peo-
pie of Metropolitan Washing
ton and Western Maryland
can virtually say good-by to
their interests in the water
resources of that river,
whether the storage need is
for domestic water, irriga-
ton water, water pollution
control, hydroelectric power
development, or fish and
wildlife propagation. Crea-
ton Of a national park will
effectively .Subjugate these
multiple-purpose uses Of the
areas major river to the sim
gle purpose Of scenery pres
ervation along one bank.
This observation is based
on painful actual experience.
Shortly after the tremen-
dous water development
planning for the upper Colo
RADIO got under way back in
the early 1930S, a 100000
acre expansion was proposed
for Dinosaur Monument, in
GLIDING river gorges of the
Green and Yampa tributaries.
At that time, the area was
adequately reserved for water
resource development by
Withdrawals of the river
gorges under the Federal
Waterpower Act of 1920.
The Parks Service sought
to rescind these power site
Withdrawals for the .expan-
sion of DinoSaur Monument.
but the FPC refused two for
NAL requests, in the mid
1930s, contending that the
area was essential for water
storage under any major
comprehensive water resource
development.
A Safeguard" proviso,
unique in legislation and ex-
ecutive orders pertaining to
national parks and monu-
ments, was written into the
executive order expanding
Dinosaur Monument. As a
result of this action and
verbal assurances, the people
in the Upper Colorado River
Basin felt that steps had
been taken to permit parallel
development of water and
scenic resources on the Green
River.
However, when the upper
Colorado investigation was
completed and the develop
ment plan was issued recon-
mending the Echo Park dam
site as the second largest
and most efficient water stor-
age vessel of the system, con-
servation groups throughout
the country objected to the
proposal and overruled, by
lobbying pressure and propa-
ganda, our explicit safe
guard"
A very comparable situa-
ton exists here on the Poto-
mac to the situation faced on
the upper Colorado River
back in the 1905. Water
resources development ex-
perts have testified that
water storage on the main
stem Of the Potomac viii be
vitality necessary in future
years and have recommended
that there be no permanent
change in the status Of shore
lands above Great Falls with
out a written safeguard for
future water development
in the legislation. We in the
West have found that such
a safeguard" is worthless il
the area is included in the
national park system. Ex-
tremists win mount q crusade
that a unit Of the system