I feel that we are here today to discuss how the Buffalo River will be developed. We have reached a point in time where the Buffalo River will be developed in some manner. If we do not set aside this land for the use of future generations now, then all will be lost. If the land developers do not cut Buffalo River valleys into lots, then it's only a matter of time before a dam will be built. Thus, either way, the Buffalo River will be lost forever. We of the travel industry are aware of all sides and views of how the different groups plan to develop the Buffalo River. But. we are very concerned that proper development will not take place. We are equally concerned for the people of Arkansas, and what is the best for their future. We are concerned as to what will produce the best jobs, most taxes for both the State of Arkansas and for the federal government, and what development will leave the Buffalo River and it's area in a natural state. For these reasons, the three groups that I represent, all feel that the National Park System has the best plan. We feel that this plan will produce the most taxes for the least development cost to the United States government. We also feel that if the land developers, or a dam project fails to produce their promises, we of the Buffalo River area would be left with a vast economic waste land. We feel that one can always build and develop a land development or dam site, but it is rare to have the opportunity to save a wilderness area such as the Buffalo River. We must look many years into the future, and must have the foresight to preserve the greatest natural asset of the Ozark region. The same foresight that you and the members of the Senate had years ago. At that time, you gave the Ozarks the large lakes and dam sites to build a travel industry around, which is now our states third largest industry. Today we need another tool to help continue to bring visitors into the Ozarks. Today we need diversification from what now is commonplace lakes and dam sites. These are no longer the drawing cards that they once were. In the past few years, the lakes and dam sites have gained only 40% in visitation, and some sites in the past 10 years have lost 20% of their visitation. . . however, in the same period of time, the Buffalo River State Park has gained over 300% in visitation. This should only prove what we can expect from the Buffalo National River. We must select a plan that will develop, stimulate, and promote an economic growth and proper development for the Buffalo River and it's area today. During the early sixty's the per capita income of the nation was $2,300 while the per capita income of the Ozarks was only $1,400, which was a loss of over $2.2 billion dollars per year to the nation. In 1969, this income gap has grown to $3.1 billion dollars per year, which is a loss of over $850,000,000 dollars per year in federal taxes. I am not stating that the Buffalo National River will itself correct the complete problem, however, it will make a significant change. With over 6 million people visiting the Ozark region near the Buffalo River, one easily foresees the potential in the National River plan. The average visitor to the State of Arkansas will spend approximately $17.00 per person, per day, thus, the income brought into the Buffalo River area would be great. Twenty-four visitors per day per year, is equal to the economic impact of a $100,000.00 annual payroll. Thus, for each 8,500 visitors to the proposed park, would give this area the equal to a $1000,000.00 payroll. The attendance at Buffalo River State Park in 1966 was over 700,000 persons, while at the Bull Shoals State Park adjacent to Bull Shoals, Dam, it was only 426,000 persons. Thus, the National River would have a much greater impact on the area than say another dam such as Bull Shoals. The Buffalo River is within an easy day's drive of over 25,000,000 people. Tie this in with the tremendous increase in the demand for outdoor recreation, the shorter work weeks, and the increase in the per capita income of the major cities, one can easily see that the demand for this project is now present. If the National River is established and developed as planned, we of the travel industry estimated that private investors would spend over $5,000,000 within the first five years in development of areas adjacent to the National River lands. Add this to the monies spent by visitors, the park should bring in 115,000,000, to 40,000.000 dollars per year. The over all effect of this should include the addition of $16,800,000 dollars in personal income, and create 3.500 new obs. Plus, the taxes brought in because of the National River, would be over 36 more than without such an attraction, within the first few years. Not only would the proposed National River bring in new money and jobs to the area, but since it would be in the very heart of the entire Ozark mountain region, which is most ideal as the central place of interest in a whole complex of diversified recreational facilities. With the large lakes and dams within a short distance, their special attractions would be an ideal complement to those of a wilderness area in the Buffalo River region. Without any doubt, the Buffalo River would enhance the drawing power of these lakes and the Ozarks in general. With all of these developments together, the Buffalo River could easily become one of the nations leading vacation centers. We of the travel industry feel the H.R. 8382 will not only save the last of the free-flowing rivers, but will give Arkansas the necessary tools to build an economy that will provide new jobs, new homes, and give Arkansas a new major travel attraction. We also feel that whatever the federal government spends on this program, will more than be paid back over the years in new taxes. This is not an expense, but an investment in the future that will pay very high profits. Thank you for your time and support. Mr. GASTON. I would like to summarize this, my name is Jim Gaston, resident of Baxter County, in which the Buffalo River flows. I am here today as a representative of the Arkansas Travel Council, the Ozark Playgrounds Association, the Mountain Home Chamber of Commerce. These three groups represent a membership of 1,500 businesses that are directly involved in travel. We sincerely feel that the proposed Buffalo National River will bring in new money, jobs to the area, since it will be in the very heart of the Ozark Mountain region, which is most ideal for a central place of business for a whole complex of diversified recreation facilities. With a large lake within a short distance, their special attraction would be complemented by this national river and wilderness area. Without any doubt the Buffalo River would enhance the drawing power of these lakes and of the Ozarks in general. With all these developments working together, the Buffalo River could become easily one of the Nation's leading vacation centers. We in the travel industry feel that H.R. 8382 will not only save the last of the free-flowing rivers, but will give Arkansas and the Arkansas travel industry the tools necessary to build an economy that will provide new jobs, new homes, and give Arkansas a new, major travel industry. We feel that whatever the Federal Government may spend on this program, that it will be more than paid back over the years in new taxes. We feel this would not be an expense, but an investment that in the future will pay very high profits. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. Mr. JOHNSON. All I want to say is to thank Mr. Gaston for the guide service down there. I think it's a fairly remote area, and after we left you we got lost coming back to town, so I do know that it is fairly off the beaten path, and you can drive for miles past there and not really know where you are going. Mr. GASTON. I wish my friend Mr. Surles was here, I told him I did a good job of guiding and he didn't. Mr. TAYLOR. We thank you for your hospitality while we were down there. Mr. James E. Carter. STATEMENT OF JAMES E. CARTER Mr. CARTER. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, I am one of those unwilling landowners, and I am a little disturbed here about the discussion today about retroactive laws. I didn't think our Constitution allowed this. I had not before heard of this 1967 business and the 1971 business. I suppose that when these were written, those dates were in the future, but nevertheless, I was never informed of this. Mr. TAYLOR. Have you established a new residence since 1967? Mr. TAYLOR. Was there a house on it at that time? Mr. CARTER. No. I bought the land to build a retirement home. Mr. TAYLOR. When did you build it? Mr. CARTER. I haven't, but I am in the process. Mr. TAYLOR. You haven't built it yet? Mr. CARTER. No. Mr. TAYLOR. Have you started it? Mr. CARTER. Well I spent $6,000 preparing to build what I considered to be my final home. This was for survey work and preparing the site. The construction of the building hasn't started. Mr. TAYLOR. Either one of those dates would cut you out as far as being permitted to retain it under either the 35-year provision or your lifetime. Mr. CARTER. Well my question is, Is this retroactive law constitutional? Mr. TAYLOR. Well, the bill grants a privilege that we don't have to grant. It allows property owners to keep their property under certain conditions and for that purpose a cutoff date can be established. Mr. CARTER. But must not this cutoff date be a future date? Mr. TAYLOR. No, I think we can take any date we choose. We have in other legislation. Mr. CARTER. Well, I would like to add some points. Mr. TAYLOR. Well that doesn't affect the matter of reimbursement for your property. Mr. CARTER. I am not concerned about that. I bought the land to live. there, and I would like to do that. I would like to add some points. Some things were discussed here today. There have been some pretty strong statements made, for instance that Lake Erie is dead. Well it is producing presently 60 million pounds of fish. I think there is some exaggeration here going on from both sides of the fence, and it is my understanding that the Lone Rock Dam site, it's author can't and the Park Service can't prevent any dam from being built. Now, the river savers, and I am one of them, I want to save it as bad as anybody, are against development, but the Park Service opposes development and extensive use for tourists. I think these things are basically incompatible. The river is intermittent in parks, it is a narrow shallow stream and I think we should be careful about increasing the river development. Now, the acquisition cost I think is ridiculous. River land is currently going at $800 to $1,500 an acre. The development cost is stated and is worse yet. This would require extensive road building. We sat down and figured out that it would probably cost about $2 billion to really bring a volume of tourists into the area. There is a lot of mention about bulldozing and erosion, and I haven't uncovered any of this myself. I have toured the entire river in these last 6 months. Some may have escaped me, I don't know. But, there was a statement made here today that Arkansas cannot afford to police the river basin and preserve it, so the Park Service should do this, yet the proposal is only to buy 12 percent of the basin. This would leave 80 acres to be policed by the State of Arkansas. I think what we need here is a strong Federal law concerning all rivers in regard to sewage and land erosion and so forth. I would welcome this. I oppose any Federal park or anything similar in the area. I don't think that is the answer. Mr. TAYLOR. Does that complete your statement? Mr. CARTER. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions of Mr. Carter? Thank you, Mr. Carter, and your statement will be placed in the record at this point. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES E. CARTER, COZAHOME, ARK. I wish to go on record as being completely opposed to making the Buffalo River of Arkansas a federal park of any kind. My reasons follow: 1. The river is in no danger. The water is pure. have been drinking it, untreated, for five years, without so much as a sore throat, and I am 115 miles downstream from the headwaters. In the last six months I have toured and explored the entire river basin. I found no evidence of pollution other than air pollution carried there from the cities and highways. I found no destructive timbering operations or other erosion-related activities. I had heard of the wails of the more rabid ecology “guardians" concerning the "desecration" at the P. W. Yarborough ranch west of Jasper. I toured the ranch a few days ago. I found extensive clearing, now in pasture grass, and the area is more beautiful now than it was before. What is more appealing than a clearing in the woods? The Buffalo needs more clearings. Its one drawback is that you can't get to it, and if you do, you can't see it. I have found no timber cutting going on in sight of the river. Generally it costs more to retrieve the logs from this rugged area than they can be sold for. The real threat here is the Park Service. This is a shallow, narrow, lowvolume stream, with the upper half essentially dry during summer vacation months. If the Park Service brings in 1,700,000 visitors a year, as they imply, it would turn the river into a combined sewer/garbage dump, unless each visitor was escorted and monitored. We do not need a park bill. We need strong law enforcement on stream pollution for all streams in the country. 2. Commercialism? I found one log cabin under construction at the Highway 14 fishing camp. That was the sum total for the entire river. 3. 100,000 acres of prime land would be taken from the tax rolls. This will cripple all the affected counties and kill Newton County, which is already half federal (national forest). 4. Our federal parks are becoming hippie colonies. We do not want one in northern Arkansas. 5. Now for some direct quotes from the 1968 Buffalo National River proposal booklet. GPO:1968 0-320-109. On page 10: "To allow uncontrolled commercial development along the river-and that is the greater danger today—would also rapidly diminish the stream's fragile combination of va’ues,” Further down the same column we find: "Though some development has taken place in the Buffalo region over the past two decades, extensive industrialization does not appear likely." These two paragraphs defy comment. Also, on page 10: "A Buffalo National River would add variety and an element of uniqueness to the attractions of the Ozarks." What are we going to do? Color the water red, white, and blue? The river was there for millions of years before the Park Service came into being. Where do we get this "Add" stuff. Everyone who so desires is using the river now, without a single acre being confiscated or a single tax dollar spent. Let's Keep It That Way. 6. Last, an item "overlooked" by the park backers. The normal river level is about one foot. But it can and has risen quickly to 50 feet. I have seen it at 40. An awesome sight. A roaring liquid monster, full of flotsam, jetsam, overturned boats, and water moccasins. There are better places for new parks, if this country really deserves one. STATEMENT OF HERBERT K. FOWLER Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, first of all I noticed that I am also scheduled at No. 39, and I promise that I will testify only once here. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Fowler we have to leave. We have a vote on the floor. I guess we might as well adjourn the hearing for today, because we will have votes I think for the rest of the afternoon. We will meet in the morning at 9:45; you will be the first witness. (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 9:45, Friday, October 29, 1971.) |