This is why I said that, in the case where the people of the government here are concerned, these matters should be handled through local government.

Mr. RUPPE. In the areas that have been suggested for this national seashore, there obviously is a good deal of tension over the acquisition by the Federal authorities of any private land. Is it fair to suggest what type of land use the private owners envision for the future? Do you think the average person or landowner in Umatac looks to continuing use of the land in the manner in which he and his family have been accustomed to for generations, or do you feel that the people in Merizo, or Umatac, think of commercial development, local development as witnessed in other areas of the island? Is there any uniformity of opinion as to how private lands should be utilized in the future?

Mr. BAMBA. Actually, they are in favor of further development, commercially or otherwise. Now, because of the lack of utilities such as sewer, power, and water, it makes it rather impossible to proceed with development there, you know, as this is from the northern part of the island that most of the developments are concentrated over this area, because the utilities are there, and it is cheaper to develop. But I am sure that in the future, when these facilities are extended to the southern end, that the development of the south would be made, so there is need. What we are concerned with here is that condemnation is going to be made and that the people should be given land in exchange of land the Federal Government or military has had more than their share of the land than we have, and I am sure that, if they could only stay within their actual needs and leave to use what they don't actually need, that you won't find that much concern of the people.

Mr. RUPPE. Yet, if there is commercial development, and it is foreseen in Umatac or Merizo, doesn't that indicate that the people who are there and who presently own small plots of farmland will be most likely selling these pieces of property?

Mr. BAMBA. I think most likely they will join with the Government rather than sell it. It's pretty hard around Cetti Bay to buy a peice of property there, and usually in the course of development for the future. generations.

Mr. RUPPE. In other words, you hope that, rather than losing the land, they can perhaps have a piece of the action if any commercial development does come into being in the area?

Mr. BAMBA. Commercial or subdivision.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is all. I don't have any further questions. I just read through your statement again, and you gave us a lot of useful information. We want to thank you for joining us and being with us on our trip out here. We have had a very fine stay here in Guam. We are very thankful that so many of your territorial legislators testified before us today representing committees of the Guamanian Legislature and we appreciate hearing from the minority. It is certainly very important for us to get into the record the feelings of the legislators as the elected representatives of the people of Guam. We are paying a great deal of attention to the statements submitted here by those representing the Legislature of Guam.

We want to thank you again for being here.

Mr. BAMBA. For the record, Mr. Chairman, I am just sorry that you didn't take advantage of the real nice surf that we had yesterday. Mr. JOHNSON. I watched some of those people on the surfboards. and I don't think I could make the grade there. All I managed to accomplish down there was getting my feet wet when I got off the boat.

Our next witness will be Senator Paul Calvo, the minority leader of the Guam Legislature.

(Mr. Calvo was not available at this time.)

Mr. JOHNSON. In the absence of Mr. Calvo, we will move on to Our next witness, Mr. Gerald Perez, who is Gerald Perez, who is the director of the Department of Land Management of Guam. Mr. Perez.

STATEMENT OF GERALD PEREZ, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAND MANAGEMENT OF GUAM

Mr. PEREZ. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to present the views of the executive branch, concerning the establishment of the Guam National Seashore.

To many local and transient residents, a national seashore on the island is a dream come true. To others, the seashore is viewed with ambivalent concern, particularly with regard to further acquisition of land by the U.S. Government. It is against this background that I ask your committee to evaluate our position on House bill 12340.

DESIRABLE FEATURES

Guam's limited land area, coupled with the expectation of continued socioeconomic growth at present rates, renders imperative a decision to establish large open areas for multiple-purpose recreation use. The proposed seashore represents a unique area on Guam, comprising not only a variety of plant and animal habitats, but also encompassing areas of combined historical, archeological, and geological significance. In short, the proposed seashore offers maximum outdoor recreation potential unlikely to be equaled elsewhere on the island.

Due to limited resources, Guam has been unable to develop and reap benefits from its outstanding, but latent, natural resource potential for multiple outdoor recreation. In order to meet local and national outdoor recreation objectives, sufficient areas need to be acquired, developed, and properly managed. Such an undertaking obviously requires national resources such as provided for in bill

12340.

The bill recognizes Guam's limited land area and indeed limits total acquisition to a maximum of 19,000 acres. Since a minimal area is not specified, it is assumed that the total park boundary can be reduced to an area commensurate with the dictates of local needs. The bill also recognizes the importance of local planning agencies, and makes it possible to achieve a level of planning responsiveness not likely possible otherwise.

PROBLEM AREAS

Although this bill authorizes various types of private land use within the park boundary, the implementation of inherent land-use

regulations will probably tax the most imaginative of administrators, especially in terms of:

(1) Acquiring approximately 1,200 acres of private land;

(2) Developing and implementing particular types of land-use patterns to accommodate local needs and simultaneously be compatible with national seashore objectives; and

(3) Processing land use variances-initial evaluation and processing, sequence of approval and inspections, enforcement of conditions, hearings, et cetera.

A second potential problem is that of the seashore master plan, over which the government of Guam has no review authority. Certain territorial lands presently designated for specific uses may be placed in another use category to the detriment of existing local programs. While the seashore cannot be effective with conflicting or incompatible uses, the government of Guam should nevertheless have the opportunity to present alternative land-use patterns prior to consent of territorial lands being acquired.

A third problem area is centered around the economic impact resulting from the total land area tied up by the seashore. Although this facility would greatly enhance cultural and outdoor recreation opportunities, thereby deriving some economic return, I hasten to point out that large areas, upon which residential, commercial, and other public facilities can be developed, will necessarily have to be given up. This will further constrict the total land area available for development and would aggravate already inflated land prices. Moreover, the impact of revenue loss attributed to the acquisition of developable areas within the seashore will add strain to our already limited Government resources.

Guam has a unique landownership situation, where already over 35 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. Much of this area is idle, even though it includes the best areas for residential, commercial, industrial, and other developments. Because of this, the following questions need more than a cursory examination:

(1) Can the seashore's total boundary be reduced without jeopardizing administrative effectiveness or seashore goals and objectives? (2) Must the seashore be entirely under Federal ownership?

(3) Could not Federal ownership be restricted only to certain key areas in the seashore, the remaining areas retained as territorial parksdeveloped with BOR funds-and managed jointly with the Federal Government?

(4) Since the villages of Umatac and Merizo constitute less than 1 percent of the total seashore area, does it really matter that these two villages should be in the park? In these two villages, could not the seashore boundary encompass only the lagoons, reefs, and immediate beachfronts?

(5) Could not territorial public lands be acquired through long-term lease arrangements in lieu of fee simple acquisition?

(6) What guarantees do the people of Guam have in terms of the following:

(a) Development of all proposed seashore facilities; and

(b) Nontransfer of the seashore, or portions thereof, to other Federal agencies?

RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the foregoing discussion, the government of Guam urges the committee to seriously consider, and if necessary incorporate as amendments to the bill, the following points:

(1) The Governor be allowed to review the proposed seashore master plan and report recommendations to the Secretary;

(2) These recommendations be incorporated into said master plan to the extent that they will not be of considerable detriment to national seashore objectives;

(3) The total seashore boundary be reduced to delete at least the present municipalities of Umatac and Merizo, thus freeing them from ultimate control by the Secretary of the Interior;

(4) As much as possible, all territorial lands needed for the seashore be exchanged for other Federal holdings on Guam;

(5) All territorial lands no longer needed for the seashore be reverted to the government of Guam at the same price that they were originally acquired by the Federal Government;

(6) All territorial lands acquired for the seashore not be used for any other purpose;

(7) With regard to private land, eminent domain be used only with the consent of the government of Guam;

(8) Private owners be given maximal opportunity to exchange their land for other Federal property on Guam.

(9) Before acquiring either private or government lands, the Federal Government assist the government of Guam in conducting optimum land-use analyses to determine highest and best use of affected areas in relation to economic, esthetic, scientific, educational, and historical benefits derivable therefrom; and

(10) A government of Guam-Federal seashore management program be explored in order to derive optimum mutual benefits at minimum cost to both parties.

In conclusion, the government of Guam tentatively endorses House bill 12340, but with strong reservations as outlined above. A final position, however, will be forthcoming following final determination of the above recommendations.

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank you, Mr. Perez, for a very fine statement on behalf of the Department of Land Management.

Now there are a number of matters of concern in your statement here. I don't want to go into all of them at the present time. Your points are very clearly stated, and then you give us your recommendations. Now, many of these things are considered in the establishment of a national seashore and they will be considered from time to time. They would first have to approve a master plan for development. Now the master plan will be carefully prepared and everyone will have an opportunity to review it. Probably they will want to hear from local people and have it open to criticism and suggestions. Then they will try to reach an understanding and perfect the master plan before they seek funds from the Appropriations Committee so that they can proceed with development.

Now, again, some of the matters you raise here are pretty tough hurdles for Congress. I am glad to hear that you do support the measure and I am sure that every consideration will be given to the people of Guam in trying to work this out. We will try to come up

with a seashore bill where everything will be pretty much spelled out. Mr. Burlison?

Mr. BURLISON. I would like to join the Chairman in thanking him for his presentation. I would like to only make one observation with respect to one point that was raised in your statement. This is the request that Umatac and Merizo be left without the confines of the seashore. The great danger, I think, that the Park Service has in this type of arrangement would be the almost unbelievable commercialization that that would likely result in if this were done. Now it would be hard for you to visualize it now, but I think it wouldn't be too unreasonable to expect that after this seashore became operable that we would see hamburger stands and soda pop stands and various other types of commercial developments that would certainly detract from the seashore and its purpose, so I just want to make that observation as one explanation for the reason that the Park Service likes to, or finds it necessary to, retain control over areas that are within the province of our National Parks. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ruppe.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you first for a very fine statement. I think you point out the potentials and the fact that the people of Guam would like such a seashore. Yet you are certainly frank in listing the problems that you foresee because of previous experiences and your recommendations are wise and sound. Some of them, I think, on the surface are very easily achievable. Others, I would suggest, have to be reviewed by the Park Service and by this committee to determine whether they are acceptable to in a seashore proposal. But I believe, sir, you have indicated there are about a 150,000 acres on Guam. Am I right in that?

Mr. PEREZ. Well, between 140,000 and 150,000 acres.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, with a 150,000 acres, I think you must certainly be much more careful in the disposal and use of your lands than perhaps any of us would be back in the mainland United States. Certainly, 19,000 out of 150,000 is a very large percentage of your island. We would obviously have to be concerned with that fact, and you should be concerned with it, because there is no question but that if the seashore is developed, once the deal is made and the legislation is passed, you have to live with it. You can't go back and change the provisions of the law under which the park was established very easily. Once the legislation is concluded, that is just about it. There is rarely a change, and rarely can you go back and say I wish this, or that, or the next thing had occurred. I think you are very wise in presenting your case here today, and I am hopeful that perhaps with the oversight of this committee, and all of the interior committee members, and the government of Guam, and the Park Service, that something can be done that will meet the aspirations of your people and certainly at the same time protect the territorial and environmental integrity of Guam and the communities of Umatac and Merizo which are obviously delightful.

We want to thank you, Mr. Perez, for your statement and for your replies to the questions.

The next witness will be Senator Paul M. Calvo, the minority leader. Is Mr. Calvo here?