native state would preserve an attractive and interesting natural feature of the area. This preservation of the stream in its natural state would not only be in the best interests of conservation, but its establishment as a national river would also be of significant financial impact upon the surrounding area. The uniqueness of this feature to this area would promote wide interest in visits to it with consequent added employment opportunities and monetary flow. Because both the preservation of a lovely, natural area and the financial condition of the surrounding area would be benefited by this action, I urge your prompt and favorable recommendation for the establishment of a Buffalo National River. STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. COLE, PRESIDENT, TWIN LAKES MARINE, INC., MOUNTAIN HOME, ARK. I want to add my voice to the support of H.R. 8382 providing for the creation of the Buffalo National River in Arkansas. As a resident of North Arkansas I feel that the preservation of the Buffalo River as a natural free-flowing stream is important to insure that generations of Americans unborn will be able to appreciate the natural beauty that exists in our nation today. My family and I have made numbers of float trips by canoe from Ponca, Arkansas, almost every mile of the river to its mouth near Buffalo City, Arkansas. We feel that any attempt to dam this beautiful river or to exploit it commercially would destroy part of our heritage as Americans. Our U.S. Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt and others in our congressional delegation have seen first hand what the Buffalo is and what it represents to Arkansas and the United States as a natural, un-spoiled resource which can be enjoyed for generations to come if we can take action to preserve the beauty that exists here. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM AND SANDRA BATES, SPRINGFIELD, Mo. As residents of the Buffalo River area we are much interested in the river's future. We have both floated this beautiful stream and have enjoyed the senic beauty of the region in which it flows. As members of the Ozark Society we have studied the proposed plans which have been suggested by the National Park Service as well as those plans which would dam the river as suggested by the Army Corps of Engineers. In this regard, we can think of no other river in the Ozarks which can match the Buffalo in scenic beauty and natural state. It is rare, in this age of development, to find a wild and natural area such as this, left as God created it. It would seem that in a time when man has lost touch with so many things natural, that his leaders would have the foresight to keep natural areas to which he can retreat and enjoy the earth as it was made; free of his adulterations. We believe that the bill suggesting National River status for the Buffalo River would effectively accomplish this. We have now created impoundments on so many of our once beautiful streams that we must seriously question the value of further recreational development. At this point the Buffalo remains as the one major free-flowing stream unimpeded in its progress through the Boston Mountains and unspoiled by massive development. We suggest that if maintained in a natural state, we will have a development of which we, as inhabitants of this Ozark region, can be especially proud. We will have saved forever this scenic American River in the state in which we found it and in which our forefathers used it. We will have left it living and forever free in the great American tradition which sometimes seems to be vanishing so quickly with our rivers. The effort of your subcommittee in hearing our position are deeply appreciated. May we offer our undying support of (H.R. 8382) and the plans to protect the Buffalo River as a free flowing stream. STATEMENT OF MISS SUZANNE CHALFANT LIGHTON, FAYETTEVILLE, ARK. For about 60 years I have lived in this area, which is near Buffalo River, and so feel I have every reason to urge that the Buffalo be maintained or established as a National River. I am deeply familiar with the picture of the country here and believe that setting the Buffalo River up as a National River is of the greatest importance and most fitting to the picture of this part of the country. I also feel that this action should be taken soon, to prevent the damage that is being done to the River's borders unless this care of it is done. We have a lot of dams in this part of the country, all of which are fine, but I truly believe we don't need another dam on the Buffalo . . . I think another dam would destroy a beautiful natural river and that a dam would not add as much in the way of tourist attraction as a Natural (or National) River designation would do. STATEMENT OF VERNE HUSER, HALFWAY, OREG. My name is Verne Huser. I am a professional river guide both on the Snake River in Jackson Hole, Wyoming (Barker-Ewing Float Trips in Grand Teton National Park) and on the Snake River in Hells Canyon (Wilderness Encounters). I would like for my letter to be made a part of the Buffalo River hearing record. Whi'e I have never floated the Buffalo, I have seen it, and a number of my float trip passengers on the Snake River have told me of canoeing it. As a floater and as a wilderness enthusiast, I support legislation for the establishment of a Buffalo National River. I would also like to suggest the formulation of a citizens' advisory committee such as those provided by legislation creating other protected areas (for example, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways). In addition, I would support wilderness designation for those parts of the Buffalo River drainage worthy of such designation. Free-flowing rivers, wild and scenic as the Buffalo, are scarce in these United States, and with an ever greater demand for water-oriented public recreation, we must constantly safeguard the wild world from excessive exploitation and development, from man's machines that too readily erode the quality of such sacred areas as the Buffalo River. STATEMENT OF SUSANNAH WOODCOCK, FAYETTEVILLE, ARK. As a student of the University of Arkansas and a native of the state, I am very concerned about the future of the free-flowing Buffalo River. In the past few weeks, I have tried to find out exactly why there is an opposition to making the Buffalo a national river, and I find myself unconvinced that there is a reasonable major opposition. Unlike so many of the problems of our nation, the Buffalo River situation seems to be relatively simple. Some wish it to remain natural and others wish it to be developed. Although I have not investigated the matter in every way possible, I have done Some research and I have been told that those who wish to see the river developed have as their reasons flood control and generation of hydroelectric power. At the same time, I have found no one who knows of any proof that either of these reasons are valid. In contrast, I have found support in the National Park Service along with the White River Basin Plan Committee, who both recommend that the Buffalo be left in its natural state. I don't deny that I am in favor of a Buffalo National River mainly because I have floated this river twice and found it to be two of the best experiences I think I shall ever have. I would hope that we can preserve it so that others who love the woods, the mountains, and all nature as I do can have the same experience. And yet if I could have found some real evidence that the development of the river would do more for Arkansas economically or would fill a need either of electric power or of flood protection to the surrounding areas, then my feelings might be different. But with the knowledge I now have, I hope the Buffalo River can be protected. Very simply, the river and the surrounding countryside are beautiful, and I, along with so many others, do not want to see it changed. If you agree with my position, I hope that you can do all that is possible toward the preservation of our Buffalo River. Thank you. STATEMENT OF BETHANY K. DUMAS, BATON ROUGE, LA. I want to urge the Subcommittee to work hard to establish a Buffalo National River as an immediate goal. Pressure from industry and other sources is such that there is great danger that what has in past decades been sporadic and still reversible damage to the area concerned may in the near future be wide-spread and irreversible damage to an area containing the last major free-flowing stream in the Arkansas Ozarks, and one of the most scenic in the entire southeastern United States. The overall wilderness value of the Buffalo River is exceptional. Its destruction in the limited interests of either industry or something like the Gilbert Dam Proposal would be a permanent and unnecessary loss to this country, a loss we cannot afford. It is erroneous to think that the best way to conserve our natural resources is to figure out how to get the largest doilar return from developing them. We can always "make money”—we cannot in future years replace the natural resources we in this country have been squandering thoughtlessly for years. Do what is best for yourselves, your fellow Americans, and future generations of Americans-help conserve what remains of beauty and value in this country. Establish a Buffalo National River immediately. If you do not, we shall all be the losers, and you will be responsible for the loss. STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. SCRUGGS, CRITTENDEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, As an Arkansan and one interested in conservation of our rapidly diminishing National Resources, I am very much in support of H.R. $382, the House Bill calling for the creation of a Buffalo National River in Arkansas. Many times I have enjoyed the pleasure and a great uplift of my personal feelings as I have floated this river with Boy Scouts and with my own family. As a person interested in the great out of doors, canoeing and the beauties of nature, it seems that we have so few places to retreat to in this demanding life that we now live. I am greatly distressed over the efforts to commercialize every effort that is made to establish an area in its natural setting. I am under the impression that currently efforts are being made to commercially develop the old abandoned mining town of Rush, on the lower part of the river. This is an area of an interesting past and one in which the imagination can run wild as tales are told about the existing ruins of that area. I hope that the Bill will enable this area to retain its interesting tales of the past without trying to recreate them through the establishment of a civilized attempted recreation of this ghost village. We hope that we will see the possible establishment of c'ean simple campgrounds along the way that canoeists may find useful in their camping experience. Whatever is done, we hope that this river will not fall prey to the commercialized efforts such as exist in almost all other areas that a person may turn to. I hope that my support of the efforts to create this as a National River will be included in the hearing record. I also hope that my expression might be considered as that of the voices of many Boy Scouts who have floated the river by canoe, where many have seen adventure in the majestic splendors of the cliffs and valleys that few people have access to. These are indeed moments of adventure. This is further evidenced by the great number of people who travel to the Buffalo River State Park to enjoy parts of that great river. I strongly urge that all speed be taken to safeguard this valuable asset of Arkansas. STATEMENT OF H. RAYMOND Gregg, Fort SMITH, ARK. During thirty-two years as a Ranger, Naturalist, Park Superintendent, and Park Planner with the National Park Service, I had opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with the criteria and quality of features included within and proposed for addition to the National Park System, and in travels throughout the United States. I have become familiar with almost every outstanding scenic, scientific, and historic area in the Nation. Against this background, I have no hesitancy in rating the Buffalo River and its environs as proposed for preservation as a National River as fully worthy of addition to the National Park System. The National Park Service study reports, and development plans adequately present the unique scenic, biological, geological, and historical-archeological resources represented in this magnificent watershed. Those of us who have intensively traveled the area are almost unanimously enthusiastic in endorsement of this legislation; and, most thoughtful citizens of Arkansas who have the least familiarity with the region have given the proposal their support. Thus, your favorable action, and enactment of a measure compatible with S. 855, will earn the gratitude of generations to come who may still enjoy the beauties and wonders of this area. Thanks for consideration of this request, and, hopefully, for the expeditious approval of H.R. $382, or concurrence of the House in S. 855, which had unanimous approval of the Senate. EDITOR'S NOTE.-Numerous communications (including letters and petitions) expressing general support for and opposition to H.R. 8382 and related bills, were received by the Subcommittee and have been included in the official files on the legislation. Because they are general in nature, they all are not reproduced in this record; however, a few typical letters are included. (Ten typical letters against the bill follow :) MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N. DAK., November 1, 1971. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: I wish that my husband were able to write this letter to you but he will not be returning from South East Asia until next week. So I will attempt to express our joint views on the proposed Buffalo River National Park. We are strongly opposed to the creation of a National Park on the Buffalo. We are landowners in the area and wish to retain this land and perhaps build our home on it after we retire, which is less than a year from now. I feel that appropriating the land from the farm people now utilizing it would be a gross error in judgement and the end result would only add more people to the ever increasing tax burden of the unemployed and welfare rolls. The people living on the land would not receive enough money for their land to maintain their livePhood elsewhere and they would be even more unhappy in any type of urban development. We feel that the general public is sufficiently conservation minded now that the government does not have to confiscate (I realize there is a difference but somehow confiscate seems to be more fitting) personal property to conserve the natural beauty of our land for the generations yet to be born. I sincerely hope that this letter may add some weight in favor of the people of Arkansas retaining their land. Yours truly, Mrs. KENNETH L. WALTER. JASPER, ARK., October 28, 1971. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not natives of this area, nor do we own land Fordering the river, but we are landowners residing within the boundary set by the Buffalo National River Bill. Before moving here nearly three years go, we lived in an urban area. Even there, we had traffic noise, crime, litter, and most of the water was unsafe to drink. For many years we had traveled through the area to admire the beautiful scenery. We finally decided to move here. We loved this place at first sight. It is quiet and peaceful, and only a stone's throw from the Buffalo River. We have done our best to help with conservation. With considerable personal expenses, (no Government financial help), we dammed our spring, and have stocked the resulting lake with fish. We have many bird feeders in our yard, which we keep filled with bird feed the year around. We enjoy watching the many varieties of birds that take advantage of our hospitality. We are in favor of conserving the Buffalo River, as are all the landowners and nearly all of the residents in the County. In fact, this county had a referendum on the general election ballot in 1968, wherein the voters had an opportunity to vote yes or no, as to whether they favored a National Park on the Buffalo River. The result was, that 97% of the voters voted against the National Park. We feel that establishment of a Natioal Park would not be conserving the river. We do not believe that we are selfish in wanting this river to remain beautiful and peaceful. It is not "off limits" for the tourists who visit the area, the best part of the year. Many of them take float trips on the river (when the water level is not too low), many swim and fish in it too. They are welcome, and are not denied access or use of the river, and surrounding area. If the River is made into a Park, it will be a resort area instead of a wild life recreation area that it now is. Building of roads to the Park, (many beautiful trees must be cut down). Later, litter will be scattered along the roads, more litter at the camp sites, and even in the river. A big increase in an undesirable element of society, as there has been in existing National Parks, eventually the destruction of all the natural beauty. We earnestly solicit your "Do Not Pass" on the bill in question. And please enter this letter in the permanent hearing records. Respectfully submitted. Mrs. GLEN ROSE. HARRISON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL, Harrison, Ark., October 28, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: When deciding on the proposed Buffalo River National Parks, I hope that you and your committee are concerned enough to recognize the deceit and deception presented by those who propose and are in support of this bill. When your committee recently floated the river, why weren't you directed to its head waters and in the upper half of the river rather than being misled by the lower half of the river? The upper half was unfloatable since late June and in many areas it now flows underground. There are many reasons for the defeat of this proposed park and I am sure that you are now aware of most of them. But let's be honest and look at the river as it is year in and year out. How can land be taken by force for a park and primarily for the floating of its river, when it is unfloatable 9 to 10 months out of the year? Sincerely, HERB VAN DEVEN. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, SAN DIEGO, CALIF., November 1, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular I am opposed to the Buffalo River National Park, not only as a landowner, but more importantly, because I think it is both un-American and unethical to have special interest groups force their wills on the people. The rights of the landowners should be considered honestly and democratically. The people on the Buffalo River have requested the Pastoral River plan as a compromise. I support this plan because, under this proposal, the Forest Service will not condemn an individual's land but will negotiate with the landowner concerned for the property which it wishes to obtain. This certainly is a more just process than the Buffalo River National Park plan intends. I request that my letter be made a part of the House hearings when such hearings occur. |