surveys on the Pacific coast, including the work accomplished on the Point Reyes Peninsula by the National Park Service.

I was interested this morning in many of the comments, and I think it would be of interest to the committee for me to go back just a little ways and recall that in 1928 or 1929 the late illustrious Frederic Law Olmsted, who was then retained by the State of California, made surveys for the State of California of beaches and park potentials. Point Reyes was one of the areas that he signified as being preeminent in quality for public use.

Later the National Park Service in 1935 did make a survey of the Point Reyes Peninsula, and at that time it was understood by the Service that the total acreage of the peninsula and the whole physiographic unit bounded by Molinas Bay and Tomales Bay was 56,000 acres. The National Park Service recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of that entire acreage as a national seashore.

If the National Park Service at that time had known what we later found to be the case, that is, that the acreage is more on the order of 64.000 than 56,000, I am sure that the Service would have recommended a public use area of 64,000 acres be acquired. The San Rafael Independent-Journal, which is our local newspaper in the county, earlier this week, March 21, has printed a map which depicts the 20,000 acres on it which everyone agrees, including the opposition, would be the central heartland of the proposed national seashore, but the caption is misleading because it says, and I quote:

The 20,000-acre version includes approximately the same lands originally suggested for a national park by Conrad S. Wirth, head of the National Park Service.

This map is misleading, Mr. Chairman, because it commits the Service to an original seashore proposal of 20,000 acres, and it must refer to the proposal made in 1935, which is the only one Mr. Wirth made, and that was for 56,000 acres.

Another point I would like to take just a moment to clear up is the relationship of the so-called ranching area to the public-use area. It is not true that the line of the ranching area is fixed in the minds of the planners so solidly that there would be no flexibility. I was one of the planners who helped to work on this map and this proposal, as I stated a moment ago, and our thought was this, Mr. Chairman. The ranchers are there; the dairymen are there. They contribute greatly to the quality of the scene. They, in fact, maintain the pastoral scene, which historically goes back to early Spanish and Mexican days. This is one of the few places in our western region where you have typical or nearly typical conditions, I should say from the evidence given to me by historians more competent than I; where you can see, as Dr. Gustafson read in the quotation, something great to look at that has historic significance, which is in this case the ranching country that goes back a long time in our history-well over 100 years ago.

I do not believe that the National Park Service, or the Sierra Club, or any of the rest of us, have any hard-and-fast, fixed notions that just because we have a line on the map, it has to be this way. Of course, there has to be compromise worked out, as several of the members of the committee have indicated this morning. But someone, somewhere

along the line has to come out with something positive enough so that you have a point of departure and a point of reference, and that is the meaning of all of this.

The communities of Bolinas, which is here, and Inverness and Inverness Park, have been allowed on this map substantial acreages over and above what they occupy at this time. În the opinion of those of us who worked on this proposal for the National Park Service we assume that what is being allowed for these communities is enough for them to expand into this sufficiently.

The entire peninsula is unique in its physiographic unity. You could not very well have a national park or a national seashore with just one segment of it representing scientifically, scenically, historically, and culturally the meaning of the whole Point Reyes Peninsula, because much of what is important there in those terms would be left out. However, the ranchers and dairymen are again so important in terms of their perpetuation of a very fine and useful park, and of the scene as a whole, that we need to try as best we can to work out something that would keep them in business if they wanted to stay, and still retain the land for public observational value.

Apparently, from what our good friends think-and certainly we have the greatest admiration for the people such as the dairymen and the folks who have come here today along with the rest of usperhaps we have been wrong as planners. Well, I suppose again there must be areas of compromise that can be reached in one way or another.

However, in conclusion let me say that from the standpoint of the Sierra Club, whom I am representing here, at this time we are sure that nothing short of the 53,000-acre area, with either tenancy through some deed provision, or a leaseback arrangement, or however it can be worked out, is the only safe and secure way to protect this region adequately for public purposes and those private uses that probably could be made.

I would like to say, with reference to a remark that was made here, I think several times this morning, that the Federal Government and the National Park Service never consulted with anyone on this matter. I would defend the Service against that remark. I do not think it was said maliciously in any sense of the word at all, but I would remind everyone here that in 1958 when the San Francisco Chronicle first announced the national seashore proposal, the West Marin Chamber of Commerce called me personally and requested me to appear at the little town of Nicasio at an evening meeting. I did appear and that meeting went on for 2 to 3 hours. I think most if not all of the ranchers on the peninsula were represented there, and many other people also.

I was questioned for a long time that evening, Mr. Chairman. It was a friendly get-together type of meeting, and it is a little bit. interesting and somewhat historic now to remember that a young man sitting directly across from me at the dinner, whom I had never met before, later became our Congressman, Mr. Miller. I was glad to make his acquaintance at that time. Later the California State Chamber of Commerce held several, or at least two and I think perhaps three, meetings at which this subject was discussed. Those meetings were attended widely. The proponents held one or more public meetings themselves at the College of Marin in Kentfield,

Calif., to which everyone was invited. Notices were sent around and news announcements were made. Also 11 months ago-11 months and a few days ago-a congressional hearing, elaborately staged, and with all sorts of charts and maps to show the situation fully, was held in Marin County.

About a year ago the National Park Service retained the services, as an employee, of an able appraiser, a land specialist, a Mr. Barnett, who visited every property, every individual property, and spoke to every owner, or the owner's bona fide representative, discussing the matter of acreage and the matter of the use of the property and, in general, the proposal. We hired the gentleman as an employee for that specific purpose.

Ever since that time, I understand, there have been some mimeographed materials placed in the hands of owners and others concerned-I think probably statistical and economics data which I do not recall the exact nature of-but the point is that it was an effort to keep everybody informed. I do not know how the National Park Service, with its limited budget and limited personnel, could have done more to keep everyone acquainted with the subject than they did. In my own experience, time and time again people who are representing the opposition came into our office and were given maps and were given full and complete information as best as we could provide them.

I give you this information because I think that it is wise for the committee to have someone here with this background who might not be representing some of the other folks on the opponents' side. I wish to thank you very kindly for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Penfold, I understand, is the next witness for the proponents. Mr. GUSTAFSON. Mr. Penfold is going to give some economic data showing the recreational income generated by park proposals in an

area.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. I might suggest this: While I do not listen with my stomach, my stomach has communication with my brain on this thing. So I would strongly suggest that if you have any material to submit you make it as brief as possible. At the same time I do not mean for you to be so brief that you cannot be complete in your statement, but if you will consider the feelings of the committee, we will be appreciative.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, I am a little embarrassed this morning in that it had been my understanding that this hearing was to be for folks from California, who had come across the country to present their views. So I do not have a prepared statement. Perhaps under the circumstances, and in view of the comments you made at the opening of this hearing, and the comments that Mr. Aspinall made, it would suffice just to say that speaking for the membership of the Izaak Walton League of America in California, that the league solidly supports this legislation.

Ön the matter of the economic and tax base subject, I might supplement it to say that this complaint of loss of tax base is nothing

new. The question is raised, and it has been raised in practically every project which the Federal Government has ever proposed involving the acquisition of land, and in almost every instance where a State program involves the acquisition of land. We think, ourselves, that this does not follow.

We believe that national parks, rather than reducing the tax base, stimulate the creation of a new tax base. Just citing a couple of very quick examples for the committee, which could be supplemented in great detail, we find for example, that in 1956 visitors to the Great Smokies National Park spent more than $28 million in the communities surrounding the area. In Teton County, Wyo., where the Jackson Hole National Monument and later the Grand Teton National Park were in serious controversy for much time, we can report it has registered an increase in real and personal property assessed values from $4.6 million to $8.1 million in an 8-year period. The county sales and use tax revenues jumped from $7.6 million to $15.3 million during the same period.

North Carolina's Dare County assessed valuation-and I might mention that in our National Park Service System probably this national seashore area comes closest to the proposed Point Reyes Peninsula-their assessed valuation rose from $11 million in 1950 to $25 million in 1959, largely due to tourism resulting from the establishment of Cape Hatteras National Park. During the same period also. local taxpayers have enjoyed a tax cut from $1 to $0.80 per $100 of valuation, which I think illustrates, Mr. Chairman, that a national park would not necessarily prove to be a liability as far as Marin County is concerned in California.

I will be happy to supplement my statement with a more formal statement, if the chairman wishes.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Penfold. You will be given the opportunity at a later time. As I stated previously this is a preliminary hearing, and an accommodation hearing. This does not conclude, in any sense of the word, the hearings on this bill.

Mr. PENFOLD. After today?

Mr. RUTHERFORD. We will have a hearing at a later date for the proponents and opponents as well as the personal observations of this committee. We will advise you accordingly through the normal procedures. Thank you.

Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you.

(Mr. Penfold's statement appears on p. 171.)

Mr. RUTHERFORD. The next one here is Mr. Clifton, I believe. Mr. GUSTAFSON. Yes. May I say just one word. Mr. Al Clifton of the Vedanta Society is a qualified supporter. We do not maintain that everyone is in complete agreement with our proposition. Mr. RUTHERFORD. Proceed, Mr. Clifton.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED T. CLIFTON, PRESIDENT, VEDANTA SOCIETY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

I am

Mr. CLIFTON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Alfred T. Clifton. the president of the Vedanta Society of Northern California, a nonprofit church corporation which owns a 2,000-acre religious retreat in Marin County known as the Vedanta Retreat.

This property lies just along the easterly border and within the boundary of the proposed Point Reyes National Seashore, as the boundaries are defined in the bill now being considered by your committee.

The Vedanta Society believes, and has already so stated, that establishment of the proposed seashore would be of great benefit to the public. The society regrets, however, that the National Park Service seeks to acquire the land of the Vedanta Retreat. The society believes this would be wrong in principle, as it would unnecessarily and irreparably damage the society's spiritual ministry. For the following reasons the society requests exclusion of the Vedanta Retreat from the Point Reyes National Seashore.

1. The Vedanta Retreat is intended to serve religious people wishing to practice the disciplines of meditation and contemplation. It was purchased and is being developed with the specific intention that it should serve this purpose for centuries, if not for all time. When it is sufficiently developed, qualified and earnest individuals of all faiths wishing to practice religious meditation and contemplation will be welcomed there.

As

We believe the quiet practice of these religious disciplines is not inconsistent with the general purpose of the National Park Service in the proposed seashore. Furthermore, the intention of both parties is to keep the lands well forested, substantially as they are. far as the Vedanta Retreat is concerned, such wooded land is absolutely necessary to secure the peace and quiet which are the essential conditions of contemplative life.

2. It has been suggested that even if the Vedanta Retreat were included within the boundaries of the seashore, the society's continued use of the property for religious purposes would still be acceptable to the National Park Service. This being so, this use of the land should be acceptable if the retreat remains independent and becomes a neighbor of the seashore.

The fact that the National Park Service might, as we understand, allow the continued use of the property for religious purposes would indicate that the Park Service does not consider the property ready for seashore purposes. Therefore the question of acquisition of this property should not arise.

However, to provide now for the possibility that the Vedanta Society might, for some unavoidable reason, be obliged to sell the property in the future, the present bill could authorize the Department of the Interior to buy the Vedanta Retreat, when and if offered to the Department by the Vedanta Society, without additional authority from the Congress.

3. The retreat has already been under development, as an independent private institution, for 15 years. The society considers this independence one of the vital assets of the retreat. The society feels very deeply that the independence of this religious institution should not be interfered with.

4. If the retreat is included within the boundaries of the national seashore, the National Park Service would quite possibly require the management of the retreat to be in accord with the wishes of the National Park Service. In other words, the policy and development