Page images
PDF
EPUB

would be most unhappy if the bill were carried out as written for family winter recreation which could conceivably include just tobogganing and other forms of snow play which are perhaps more suitable for family togetherness and small children than standing in long, cold lines at ski lifts. Although ski lifts are not specifically mentioned by H.R. 6891, most people assume that they will be built.

In a survey of the 12 leading California ski resorts as listed in the California Winter Sports Guide, 1965–66, California State Chamber of Commerce, Travel and Recreation Department Publication, 1964, I note that 10 of the 12 have overnight accommodations at the site or within 41/2 miles. The farthest away are two which are 6 and 10 miles distant.

People who demand the convenience of a road for access, who demand the convenience of lifts for skiing, are also apt to demand the convenience of nearby overnight accommodations. Since the nearest areas are the small community of Camp Angelus, which would be more than 15 miles away and Big Bear which would be more than 30 miles away, it is very probable that motels and/or hotels would be built at the Dry Lake site.

If overnight accommodations are to be built at Dry Lake, additional water would be consumed by people using showers and sanitary facilities in these motels. If 50 gallons of water per day per person is used in this way–for even 1,000 persons a day-one-fifth of the 5,000 which might visit the area—this would amount to 50,000 gallons of water a day. Where is this water to come from? And how will the effluent be disposed of? This area contains the headwaters of the Whitewater and Santa Ana Rivers. While it is difficult to prove how much harm this sort of use—winter and summer—would do to our watershed, no one has suggested that it will help in any way.

My third area of research regards an analysis of the types of groups and individuals who oppose and support H.R. 6891. I concluded that a greater variety of groups of many types oppose H.R. 6891. The groups supporting H.R. 6891 are mainly chambers of commerce, ski associations, and realty boards with a motivation of improving the economy of their local communities or providing a place for downhill lift skiers to pursue their hobby every possible day from November to June, without having to travel the long distance to Mammoth on weekends when snow was not available in southern California.

Individuals who oppose H.R. 6891 include many more professors, scientists, and teachers.

Individuals who support H.R. 6891 include more real estate men. Some might hope to sell privately owned land near the access road to the ski resort at Barton Flats for the building of overnight accommodations and other commercial facilities. Some might hope to reap a benefit from skiers using their communities for overnight accommodations. However, it is difficult to imagine someone driving as far as Lucerne Valley or Victorville over a long, icy road, and perhaps, having to put chains on and off, to stay overnight there. Yucca Valley, where my parents lived for 12 years, I am very familiar with. For the realty board to contend as they did in a letter to me that they support H.R. 6891 for "the future growth of the desert" is quite unrealistic. The long roundabout road from Yucca Valley to Lucerne Valley to Big Bear Lake to Barton Flats or via Beaumont, Banning, and Redlands would be quite impossible for the skier at the Dry Lake

ski resort. I would not attempt to "guesstimate” how much the Yucca Valley economy would be bolstered by tourists from Arizona who might stop overnight on their way to a ski resort at Dry Lake.

It is interesting to note that the Rancho Mirage Chamber of Commerce is on record in opposition to H.R. 6891. They do not state their reason. But is only reasonable to assume that they might feel it would be a detriment to their economy for any large number of the wealthy families who now use the Palm Springs-Rancho Mirage area—for their family winter recreation by swimming in pools under the warm desert sun on winter weekends—to start patronizing Dry Lake ski resort in massive numbers.

Perhaps those who justify Government expense in building a public road to ski resort as their rainbow to a "pot of gold” will find it as illusive as the usual “pot of gold” sought at the end of a rainbow.

The only city of any size to the east of Lucerne Valley and Victorville and Barstow is Las Vegas, Nev. It is unlikely that skiers from Las Vegas would swell the motel trade in any of these California desert communities to go to the Dry Lake ski resort because they already have a ski resort very nearby at 11,919-foot Charleston Peak.

(The material referred to follows:)

I. ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A. ACCESS-RAINBOW TO A POT OF GOLD?

1. How would "access from the north" be achieved ?

(a) By foot or horseback as advocated by one person who supports H.R. 6891 ?

(1) There is no ski lift resort in the California, Southwestern, Pacific Northwest, or Rocky Mountain regions which is accessible by foot or horseback only. This statement is verified by personal correspondence during the past week with the four regional Forest Service offices.

(2) It is doubtful if a ski resort of any size could operate for long if it did not have an access road or sufficient parking.

(6) Gondola lift?

(1) Sugar Bowl resort on old Highway 99 in California is reached by a gondola lift of about 12-mile distance. Because of its wealthy clientele and corporate structure, the Sugar Bowl is unique as a ski resort.

(2) A gondola lift to the Dry Lake area would have to be considerably longer than one-half mile if it were to begin outside the wilderness area.

(3) The added expense of such transportation would not be suitable for an area designated for "family winter recreation."

(C) By road?

(1) Ken Dyal has said, “I do not want any access roads into that area nor parking" (letter of May 6, 1965).

(2) There is no ski lift resort in the Southwestern, Pacific Northwest, or Rocky Mountain regions which is not accessible by road. There is no ski lift resort in California other than Sugar Bowl which is not accessible by road.

(3) There would have to be a road and parking for a ski resort at Dry Lake if H.R. 6891 is enacted. 2. Could the road be closed in the summer as many advocates of H.R. 6891 have

suggested ? (a) There are no ski lift resorts where the access roads are closed in the summer in the California, Southwestern, Pacific Northwest or Rocky Mountain regions (verified by personal correspondence last week).

(6) The road to Dry Lake ski resort would be open during the summer.

(c) More and more of the larger ski resorts are striving for increased summer business or considering the start of a summer trade, according to the California regional office of the Forest Service.

(d) Government expense in building a road to a ski resort is justified by those who consider it "a raibow to a pot of gold”—the ski resort shining at the end.

B. OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS

Overnight accommodations at most of the 12 southern California ski resorts are at the site or within 41/2 miles. Only two areas have accommodations as far as 6 or 10 miles distant. Since the access road alone would be about that long, the Dry Lake ski resort site would be farther from overnight accommodations than any other ski resort in southern California. It would be over 15 miles from Camp Angelus and over 30 miles from Big Bear, depending upon the location of the access road.

Chart of accommodations at southern California ski resorts which have lifts or

tows, 1964-65 [Number people accommodated at area (walking distance) in motel-hotel rooms (R),

cabins (C), housekeeping (H), dorms (D), youth group facilities (Y)] A. Angelus Crest areas:

Accommodations
1. Mount Waterman, 32 miles north-
east of La Canada..

44 (R) 6 miles.
2. Kratka Ridge----

44 (R) 10 miles. B. Big Pines-Wrightwood areas:

3. Blue Ridge 342 miles west of
Wrightwood

150 (RC), 500, 312 miles.
4. Table Mountain.-

80 (R) 1 mile, 300 (RCHD) 4

miles. 5. Holiday Hill.

880 (RCHD) 2 miles, (Y, W/k). C. 6. Mount Baldy ski lifts 11 miles north of Upland---

69 (C), 200 (C) 412 miles. D. Big Bear Lake areas:

7. Green Valley Snow Bowl--- 350 (RCH; Y).
8. Snow Valley (Keller Peak)

50 (R), (Y).
9. Snow Forest.

12,000 one-half mile.
10. Snow Summit 112 miles east of
village

16,000 nearby.
11. Rebel Ridge 3 miles east of vil-
lage

400 (CHD) 1 mile. 12. Moonridge 3 miles east of village. 12,000 nearby. Source : "California Winter Sports Guide1964-65, California State Chamber of Commerce Travel and Recreation Department.

Therefore, it is very probable that overnight accommodations would soon be built at the Dry Lake ski resort site. There is nothing in H.R. 6891 to prevent the installation of any facilities. At Dry Lake, where would the 50 gallons of water per day per visitor come from? It takes a lot of water for 5,000 to 10,000 showers in motel or hotel rooms. And how would the effluent be disposed of without endangering pollution?

People who demand the conveni of ski lifts also tend to seek the conveni. ence of nearby overnight accommodations.

Ski lift users would soon demand overnight accommodations.

When I asked a member of the Citizens for San Gorgonio why they advocated “no overnight accommodations,” he said “The conservationists would never allow it."

After the lifts are installed, the demand will be so great, that overnight accommodation will be proposed for the Dry Lake ski resort.

It will be argued that more people could conveniently spend a weekend at the area, thereby increasing profits, if overnight accommodations were available at the ski resort.

It would also be argued that it is dangerous and time consuming for people to have to drive long distances over curving, icy mountain roads to find overnight accommodations.

C. WHY YOUTH CAMP LEADERS OPPOSE H.R. 6891

1. Results of personal questionnaire sent to youth camps near San Gorgonio Wilderness Area : Of the 14 camps who responded 13 oppose H.R. 6891, 1 said, “No position is permitted” (Glendale Area Girl Scouts are not allowed to take a stand on “political issues”).

2. All agreed with the ideas expressed by

(a) Howard Amend, camping director, Boys Club of Pasadena : “I feel wilderness is an absolute necessity for a complete and rounded camping program.”

(6) Roy Coble, general secretary, YMCA, Redlands : “We are opposed to any commercial facilities or development in the San Gorgonio area. When any commercial activities begin, the wilderness area is through forever.” Consideration should be given to the thousands of youngsters that use this area now and for our future generations that can use and enjoy this area as it is now.

D. ANALYSIS

[blocks in formation]

GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS OPPOSING AND SUPPORTING
(RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND OTHER RESEARCH)

1. Types of groups on back side (see app. VI.B.)

(a) Groups who oppose H.R. 6891 and are against ski lifts in acreage withdrawn from San Gorgonio Wilderness Area : Conservation groups, youth camp groups, church groups, horesmen, sportsmen, garden clubs, historical societies, park commission, scientific groups, audubon societies, YMCA groups, museum.

(b) Groups who support H.R. 6891 (with reservations) (see app. VII): Chambers of commerce, realty board, skiing associations, Argonauts (I'm not sure of their purpose).

(c) Conclusion: A greater variety of groups oppose H.R. 6891 than support it. There are many more kinds of groups which I personally know oppose H.R. 6891 and support the Defenders of San Gorgonio Wilderness. However, even on the basis of the limited response to my questionnaire, the clear pattern of types of support emerges. 2. Types of individuals on each side

a. Individuals who oppose H.R. 6891 and are against ski lifts in acreage withdrawn from San Gorgonio Wilderness Area (See app. VI.A.): Professors, 8; teachers, 4 (1 is a principal) ; engineers, 2; attorney, 1; accountant, 1; authors, 3; YMCA secretary, 1; real estate insurance, 1; manager, Desert Electric, 1; medical doctor, 1; auto dealer, 1; investments, 1.

b. Individuals who support H.R. 6891 and are for the ski resort (See app. VII): Real estate men, 5; attorneys, 2; sporting goods dealer, 1; optometrist, 1; dentist, 1; builder, 1 (or more).

C. Conclusion: A greater number of teachers, professors, and authors oppose H.R. 6891 than support it. Real estate men tend to favor H.R. 6891.

Although handicapped by lack of time and incomplete response to the questionnaire, the pattern of support is apparent.

APPENDIX

I. COMPARISON OF H.R. 6891, ETC., WITH WILDERNESS ACT PROCEDURES FOR

MODIFICATION OF AREA

A. The Wilderness Act provides that "any modification or adjustment of bound

aries of any wilderness areu shall be recommended by the appropriate Sec

retary(sec. 3(e)) H.R. 6891, etc., make no provisions that the appropriate Secretary shall take the initiative in deciding whether a modification or adjustment of boundaries should be brought up for consideration.

H.R. 6891 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to remove up to 3,500 acres of wilderness area whether he recommends such action or opposes it. The Secretary of Agriculture has no decision in the matter, other than designation of the most appropriate sector to be withdrawn for the purpose of "family winter recreation." B. The Wilderness Act provides that the appropriate Secretary shall hold a

public hearing or earings sec. 3 (d) (1) (B)) The Secretary of Agriculture would be conducting the hearings if Wilderness Act procedures were being followed. The U.S. Forest Service, which is under the Secretary of Agriculture, would be involved in the hearings.

In all past decisions the U.S. Forest Service, consistent with its motto “the greatest good for the greatest number" has consistently ruled that the greatest value of San Gorgonio lies in its preservation and protection as a wilderness area-not as a ski resort.

Under H.R. 6891, the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service are permitted to testify at the hearings but have no part in the ultimate decision. C. The Wilderness Act provides that the public hearing or hearings be held "at a

location or locations convenient to the area affected(sec. 3(d) (1) (B)) H.R. 6891 makes no such provision. Our Congressman, Ken W. Dyal, sent a personal request to the committee asking that hearings be held in San Bernardino. This request was granted by the chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. If Wilderness Act procedures were being followed, no such personal request would have been necessary. The Wilderness Act requires local hearings. D. Wilderness Act provides that The proposed modification or adjustment shall

then be recommended with map and description thereof to the President. The President shall advise the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to such modification or adjustment and such recommendations shall become effective only in the same manner as

provided in subsections (6) and (c) of this section(sec. 3(e)) H.R. 6891 makes no provision for Presidential review or recommendation. E. The Wilderness Act specifies procedures for public notice and publication (sec.

3(d) (1) (A)) H.R. 6891 makes no such provisions. F. The Wilderness Act provides that the Governor of the State, the governing

board of the county, the Federal departments and agencies, shall be invited to submit their views on the proposed action at the hearing or by no later

than 30 days following the date of the hearing (sec. 3 (d)(1)(C)) H.R. 6891 makes no such provision.

II. PRECEDENT SETTING DANGER OF H.R. 6891 IN RELATION TO THE WILDERNESS ACT

Piecemeal destruction of the national wilderness preservation system could result from the passage of H.R. 6891 which would set a precedent for bypassing Wilderness Act procedures for modification of area.

A new law passed by Congress has procedence over an older law. Other special interest groups could use a similar method to secure withdrawal of portions of wilderness areas for their particular benefit, contrary to the national policy of wilderness preservation as stated in the Wilderness Act.

Although he was discussing amendments to the Wilderness Act which might exclude the entire San Gorgonio Wilderness Area from the national wilderness preservation system, the remarks of Congressman Fogarty on July 30, 1964, bear much relevance to the present situation : "Now this is not only unreasonable-it would be a dangerous precedent. We would be saying that we are only giving lip service to the creation and protection of these dedicated areas—that any time the pressures were strong enough we would back away and let the wilderness be dismembered." (Congressional Record, July 30, 1964, p. 16863.)

III. SAN GORGONIO WILDERNESS AREA

A. Physical description

1. Location (including elevation).-In the San Bernardino Mountain area of San Bernardino National Forest; east of Redlands (about an hour's ride) at the upper end of the Santa Ana Canyon; about 85 miles from Metropolitan Los Angeles; from 7,200 feet to 11,502 feet in elevation; near more than 26 youth camps of the Barton Flats and Forest Falls areas.

2. Acres and square miles.—34,718 acres; 54.25 square miles; about 4.3 percent of San Bernardino National Forest (812,633 acres); and about one-eighth of 1 percent of land area of southern California (40,994 square miles).

3. Highest peaks within area.-Jepson Peak, 11,201 feet; Lake Peak, 10,156 feet; San Bernardino Peak, 10,624 feet; East Peak, 10,691 feet; Grinnell Mountain, 9,722 feet; Anderson Peak, 10,864 feet; Shields Peak, 10,701 feet; Charlton Peak, 10,818 feet; Dobbs Peak, 10,454 feet; and Mount San Gorgonio, 11,502 feet.

4. Terrain.-(a) Contains outstanding examples of Ice Age geology. There are glacially carved cirque lakes and moraines which mark the southernmost edge of glaciers that at one time covered most of North America. One Ice Age glacier side is in the Dry Lake area. (6) Lush green meadows, fed by numerous springs, are seen at South Fork Meadows and other areas.

« PreviousContinue »