Page images
PDF
EPUB

tional area if you have then you know that the campers bring the same things with them, that they can enjoy at their own home in the cities, portable airconditioners, TV's, radios, record players, all this that makes a hash of the whole idea. They never pause to enjoy the peace and quiet of the hillsides and river, the thrill of a colorful sunrise and sunset, the fun of watching wild-life at play, to be waken in the mornings by the birds singing, to go to sleep at night by the same birds settling down for sleep.

5. Take a poll on the people who have left the United States for other countries. We have taken the time to talk to them. Their reasons for going? Taxes too high. No privacy. The government took our land and covered it with a dam. Places that they have gone? The foremost, is Australia. Why? Australia is like the United States was and will never be again. A place where they can start again. Not everyone likes to live shoulder to shoulder, there are those among us that need room to breathe, room to walk and wonder over the miracles of life. We do not like to see piles of cans, trash dumped out, our rivers spoiled, our air polluted. America. The Beautiful. Think! It is almost too late.

6. For the city people who state that they want to see the country, there are many guided tours, where they are about to sit back and be shown the best of all we can offer. These tours will bring in as much revenue as the "Natonal Parks". If there must be "Parks for people" then have them be the "Wilderness Areas's" IF people "in". Leave all vehicles parked miles away, under an attendants care, and then let the people walk and climb and enjoy. We think that there would be very few who would do this.

7. Last but not least. We were given the right to carve our homes out of the wilderness. We were given nature to use and enjoy, BUT we were not given the right to destroy, yes even to extinction, nature at its best. Think before it is to late. Is more revenue, more ruin, more loss of rural people to other countries, really worth it? Can we not have some places left in their natural state. and not have some promoter come in and envision $$$$$$$$? Don't relegate us to the "pages of history" as an extinct way of life. Don't exhibit us in a display in a museum.

Our past history should give you the hind sight to see what will happen if this River Bill passes.

STATEMENT OF GARNER MILAM, JASPER, ARK.

The landowners along the Buffalo River in Newton County, Arkansas do not oppose keeping the Buffalo River in its present state. They do oppose, and rightly so, those from outside the area and those within the federal government telling them what must be done with their lands. These same landowners have never been consulted by the National Park Service or by anyone else, with any authority, in regards to what they, the landowner, would like to see done with the river or how the landowner might cooperate in keeping the river in its present state. without having to give up their lands.

The Buffalo River is open, under private ownership of the land, for anyone to enjoy and has always been open for the public to enjoy. This same river will remain open for the public to enjoy as long as it is in private ownership.

Should the river and surrounding lands become federally owned, then it will be questionable if the river can still be enjoyed. By and large, the landowner keeps his property cleaned up from litter left by those careless persons who have had the privilege of enjoying the river and its uniqueness. When, and if. the landowner is relieved of his property, then who will look after it? Will the National Park employees do nothing but collect little left by the hoards of people who will be drawn to a river, that will probably be billed as a wilderness river. I rather doubt that the Park Service employees will function in this manner. Some of the lands inside the proposed boundaries have been handed down from generation to generation. The present owners have deep roots in this land. How can these people be compensated by the federal government? For generations these lands have been cared for and have been given the care that only private ownership gives. The river and its immediate area is as much a wilderness today as it was 30 years ago. Contrary to those, who are shouting that the land is being destroyed, the land and its beauty is not being destroyed nor is the river and its bluffs being defaced. The only way that the beauty of the Buffalo River can be destroyed is if the federal government furnishes the money to do so, by declaring this river a National River.

Ample consideration has not been given to the impact to the local economy of Newton County, should the Buffalo and over 43,000 acres of prime land, go into federal ownership. With 41% of the land in the county already within the boundaries of the U.S. Forest Service and other untold thousands of acres owned by the state and non-profit organizations, the tax base in Newton County would suffer a blow that would be hard to overcome. It would take untold thousands of dollars monthly spent in the county to replace the tax money lost from the acreage involved in the National River proposal. Loss of these revenues would eventually mean that Newton County could not survive as a county unit of government.

The Buffalo River is vastly over-rated, too. The river, in its upper reaches in Newton County, does not fit into the pattern that proponents of the National River would have you to believe. The river is short of water most of the year, with the exception of two or three months in the early spring, when it can be floated and fishing is reasonably good. Other than these times the river can not be even classified as a river, It is a mere small stream that can be stepped across in some areas and jumbed across in others. In some places the riverbed is completely dry. Is this the river that the proponents of the National River legislation tell us that has whitewater canoeing, good fishing and many other fine qualities? Surely not!

Local residents are also concerned that the establishment of a National river would disrupt the way of life in this country. They fear that many undesirables would be drawn by the lure of a wilderness river owned by the federal government. Law enforcement would be overburdened should an influx of people of this nature, come to the area.

Local landowners have for generations kept the Buffalo River a pollution free stream and if given the opportunity will continue to do so in the future. Residents are concerned, that if the river should go into the hands of the federal government, the hoards of people that will be turned loose upon the land, will indeed, destroy the beauty of the river and its surroundings.

Granted three are some provisions in the House version of the Buffalo National River Bill that are more acceptable than the Senate bill, but neither bill can do justice to the local landowner, or for that matter to the Buffalo River. I urge you and your committee to give the Buffalo National River bill a "do not pass" recommendation and thus save the Buffalo River from being destroyed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. CUNNINGHAM, MALVERN, ARK.

This citizen, begging for attention in this matter has spent many hours talking to people along the Buffalo River. I have found that over nine out of ten property owners do not want a national river. I have found that nine out of ten do feel the river should be protected from pollution and left a free flowing river. This, they believe can be done by Arkansas citizens without allowing this property to pass from Arkansas to the United States Government.

By making this river a national park when our United States now has parks that it can not properly develop and care for seems to be an injustice to the tax paying public of the highest nature.

This will be an expensive purchase for the tax payers of the United States as the Buffalo River people will go to court to get a fair price for their homes and land. Some are third generation residents. Land alone will cost in excess of $50,000,000 dollars. While the monetary cost is great. . . the greatest costis the loss to Arkansas of its 132 mile long "streak of gold". Arkansas can never recover it. Arkansas needs it and they would protect it. The world would be welcome to enjoy it and it would not be "locked up" with a sign reading "Keep Out . . . Violators Subject to Fine and Imprisonment . . . U.S. Government".

Making a national park out of the Buffalo would be selecting against the black citizens as this would be, due to its geographical location, a white man's park. Black people have never been great users of our national parks. I have just returned from ten days in the San Juan National Forest elk hunting. There were thousands of hunters there and not one black man. I did not see one. By choice they will not use the Buffalo River if made a national river.

As I write this memo, there is a meeting in session in Jasper, Arkansas attended by concerned citizens desperately trying to defeat this proposed national

park issue. The Newton County citizens spoke recently when 97% of the voters voted against a Buffalo National River.

STATEMENT OF JOE F. CULVER, CATOOSA, Okla.

I am a land owner in the concerned area and I am opposed to the passage of this legislation for the following reasons:

(1) Buffalo River Area residents and land owners are almost solidly opposed to a National River. Ninety-seven percent of the voters in Newton County voted against the proposed park when the issue was placed on the 1968 ballot. In June of 1971, I visited Marshall in Searcy County and Yellville in Marion County, and had conversations with local politicians, farmers, store owners, realtors, laborers, housewives, and I found not one person who was in favor of a National River— all were opposed.

(2) This legislation will remove lands from tax rolls in already financially distressed counties. The Marshall Mountain Wave, a local newspaper, reports that in Newton County, the additional lands removed by nationalization of the Buffalo, would leave only 48% of the county on the tax rolls. The local county government would suffer greatly from lack of funds caused by this cut-back. Searcy County officials also indicate that appreciable tax income will be lost due to the nationalization of the river.

(3) Nationalization limits future use and development of the area.

(a) There is already underway development of land into home sites of 1-6 acres each, with the river frontage being retained for access to the river by the whole area. With nationalization, and subsequent limited access to the river, these off-river acres are not attractive to prospective owners, and their value is sharply cut. This in turn reduces the potential evaluation of tax rolls in the affected areas.

(b) In development of this kind, scenic qualities of the river could be controlled by enforceable development guide lines to prevent improper development and pollution. This can be accomplished without nationalization of the river.

(c) Electric power, usage of which is on a sharp up-swing in the Buffalo area as well as the country as a whole, could be generated by a dam on the lower Buffalo, which would extend impounded water up-river about 25 miles according to the Army Engineers, still leaving more than 109 miles of free-flowing river to be kept in its natural wild state. The Army Corps of Engineers originally was in favor of such a dam on the lower Buffalo, but have changed their recommendation. It would appear that this occurred as a trade-off with other government agencies. The people of this country should not be subjected to such tactics, and local peoples should have a strong voice in the development of their area.

(4) This under-developed area of Arkansas can become self supporting if allowed to do so. With nationalization, its main asset is removed from its use and control, and the area may revert to not much more than a ward of the government.

(5) Ecology buffs are making an undue example of preserving this river, giving no concern to the inhabitants of the area. It may be possible that the 14 federal agencies who developed this plan are overzealous in developing areas that will be under their control. I feel that Congress should assure that expansion of the agencies is not the prime concern, but that the concern is for the welfare of the people in the involved area. It would seem to me that preservation of these people is as important as (perhaps more important than) preservation of the river in its pristine state.

As an alternate plan to the one now being considered, I would like to propose that a set of guide lines, for the preservation of the natural state of the Buffalo River and for the development of the adjoining lands, be set up under the control of local agencies with the federal government acting only to insure adherence to the established gulde lines. Local people should have a strong voice in the establishment of these guide lines. Development of off-river lands could still occur without detriment to the natural beauty of the area. A suitably located dam on the lower Buffalo would supply power and conserve the pure, unpolluted water, and still preserve 100 miles of free-flowing river.

The only thing that would be changed in this plan is that federal agencies would not be forced to expand, for this plan could and would work under local control. The Federal Parks and Recreation Subcommittee of the Interior and

Insular Affairs Committee could serve great assistance in setting up the guide lines to work with. The Corps of Army Engineers could greatly assist by laying out and constructing a properly situated dam. But in general, control of their area and their destiny would and should be left to the local people.

STATEMENT OF MRS. FRANK A. KOERNER, CHICAGO, ILL.

1. Within 50 miles of the proposed park there are six large lakes: Beaver Lake, Table Rock Lake, Lake Taneycomo, Bull Shoals Lake, Lake Norfolk and Greers Ferry Reservoir. These recreational areas provide public and private campsites and accommodations, with facilities for year-round boating, fishing and other recreational activities.

2. A close study of the terrain and general environment of the Buffalo River will show that the only good this bill will achieve is the prevention of dambuilding by the Army Corps of Engineers.

3. In its upper 70 miles, the Buffalo River is almost dry for six months of the year, during, in fact, the vacation season when it could be expected to have the largest number of visitors.

4. Throughout the year it does not have sufficient volume of water, or rapid enough flow, to handle the effluent from sanitary sewage from a large influx of visitors such as the million-and-a-half contemplated in the plan of the National Park Service. This plan contemplates only primitive sanitary facilities with no special sewage treatment.

5. The river can be floated in its upper 70 miles for only 6 to 8 weeks in the spring. The National Park Service says the best way to use the Park would be by floating the river.

6. The top soil in this area is fragile, and random hiking and camping would quickly destroy the ground cover, producing excessive erosion. Furthermore, during the summer period of greatest use, the area is dry and hot, and the possibility of forest fires is therefore greater.

7. The National Park Service says it will be unable to charge admission because of the number of access roads. By the same reasoning, it will be unable to control usage or prevent destruction, crime, and habitation by drug addicts, phenomena which the Director of the National Park Service has recently testified are increasing alarmingly in other National Parks.

8. At the present time the river is protected from despoliation by the landowners, but it is, and always has been, freely available to canoists and sports

men.

9. The terrain is not suitable for industrial development, so this poses no threat to the river.

10. There is a growing influx of retired people to this area, which brings outside money into the economy on a general basis. Park concessions and related activities would not necessarily help the local economy, but only the concessionaires, who might not be local people at all.

11. Creation of the Park will arbitrarily displace many hundreds of people from their homes against their will. While there is provision in the bill for some people to stay on their land for a limited time, which ones stay, and how much land they can keep, is solely at the discretion of the Director of the National Park Service. This dictatorial approach to private property is so far removed from our American traditions that this alone is reason enough to defeat the bill.

12. Removal of this much land from the county tax rolls will force curtailment or abandonment of many county services. While provision is made in the bill for "last assessed tax" payments from the U.S. Treasury for a period of five years, this only postpones the final problem, while making no provision for the normal increase in tax revenue both from increased tax rates and increased valuation due to property improvements. It can only have the effect of destroying the counties as political entities.

STATEMENT OF L. A. POTTER, MARSHALL, ARK.

House Resolution 8382-legislation to create a Buffalo National River-contains faults which are detrimental to the Nation.

As a farm lad playing at damming and channelizing a small spring branch I learned that it is watershed water which changed the charteristics of the

72-466-72-13

stream. My best efforts to alter the stream's bed were consistently erased by each single rain storm.

On a larger scale, so it is with the Buffalo River. I strongly maintain that to "save" the river as a natural stream you must control its entire basin. You just cannot turn people loose with their machines to clear land, to farm, to build roads, homes and towns or even to travel through or camp within the basin. Each new road, field and roof adds its bit to the ultimate destruction of the river's natural state.

If you are serious in your attempt to "save" the river you will include in your bill means for the removal of all people and their works from the basin. After all, when measured against the total population of the Nation, the number of people affected will be a very, very small portion of the whole. Since this provision for the final control of the entire water shed of the Buffalo River is not in your proposal I am sure that one of three conditions exist:

1. Authors of the bill are ignorant of the physical changes being rapidly brought onto the river by the alterations occurring daily in the water shed. 2. If they are aware of the changes affecting the river the authors lack the guts to write necessary preventative measures into the bill.

3. Or the authors, through vanity, wish to have their names attached to yet another Federal Land Grab scheme.

My next two points concern H.R. 8382 only as this legislation appears as a part of a fatal malady that is killing America.

H.R. 8382 is a class favoring bill. The park created by it, you claim, is to provide recreation but you do not say for whom. Will the ghetto kids use it? Will families who lack means for proper food and shelter find sport along the Buffalo? Or are the authors of the bill, well established themselves, simply wanting to selfishly create a diversion for other of their class who can afford to travel to the Buffalo?

Yes the bill favors people with income who are free to travel and able to supply canoes, tents, cameras and other gear requisite to luxurious lounging at taxpayer's expense.

Historically the Buffalo area, too, has been a hiding place for criminals. The late Col. Wentworth in his history of cattle trails mentions the Buffalo as a stop over for herds of cattle stolen from drovers using the Chisholm trail. Once local authority is enfeebled through local tax loss, what guarantee does the bill provide for prevention of crime in this wild area? As one who has hunted for his strayed cattle in the hundreds of mountain hollows around my ranch I can attest that an army of law enforcers will be needed here.

Most serious fault of all the bills like H.R. 8382 is the threat to private ownership of land.

Most of the men I interviewed during my W.W. II experience as commander of a training company were sustained through their trials by the certain knowledge that they could own and establish a home when the war was ended.

Some of us had a home. Others parents had homes to which these fighters could return. Around these homes we would plant trees and lawns and gardens that our children could enjoy and their children, too, in time. A matter of putting down roots we felt. We won that war, remember?

Many of us attained our goal as we did with our 1000-acre ranch on the Buffalo. Others saw their dreams fade when they found their chances for home ownership being gobbled up by now technology which led to the super farms. supercities, super highways and super air ports, of the 1950's and 60's. And so many who dreamed of home ownership in the 1940's see their children and grandchildren homeless and rootless in the 1970's.

What dreams will sustain these nomads as they go forth to their work and destinies? And should W.W. III begin, will they even go forth? Will they dream of lazy days camping on the Buffalo river, a stream they've never seen or cared to see or could afford to see? A river which, unless your committee prevents it by wise, courageous action, will be a gravel filled dry branch called by Act of Congress. Buffalo National River.

Instead of establishing so-called non-places, like Buffalo National River, for non-home owners to traipse to for non-recreational vacations, a wiser course, it seems to me, would be to re-establish the dream of land and home ownership as a certainty. Return land to people which government holds and then take no

more.

You claim a wish to keep Buffalo River a pure, natural stream. I do too but I can't see the spilling of millions upon millions of tax dollars into doing it.

« PreviousContinue »