The simple solution would be on governmental recreational areas to require all persons using the area to post bond for any damages resulting, the damages could then be deducted from their guaranteed annual income! Pardon my cynicism. I truly love America, I respect the land and I want to earn my own way. Nothing is ever truly free-it's expensive to someone. Let mature minds find a way of getting our Nation's present debts paid instead of acquiring more and more and leaving more and more for our kids to pay taxes on. Respectfully yours, B. L. Clostermery and wife Mary. UPPER MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: The Upper Mississippi Flood Control Association represents twenty-four Levee and Drainage Districts bordering the Mississippi River extending from Guttenberg, Iowa to Hamburg Bay, Illinois, and lying on both sides of the River. Representatives of our Association have attended one or more of the Public Hearings conducted for the purpose of presenting the Field Task Force Study Group with the ideas and thoughts of those of us interested in the Upper Mississippi River development, and consequently, interested in the proposal pertaining to the development of the Upper Mississippi River National Recreational Area. We regret that we were not able to appear at the Hearing in the Longworth Building, Washington, D.C., as scheduled June 19, 1972. We appreciate the opportunity of filing this statement through the assistance of the Honorable Fred Schwengel, Congressman of Iowa. Generally, our Association does not object to the establishment of the recreational area as proposed in the Study Report, however, there are aspects of the proposal which are causing our member districts much concern. It is our understanding that the original proposal as presented at the Hearings has been watered down somewhat and that it is now proposed not to acquire any new lands landward from the River Levees. We do not have a copy of the revised proposal but have been informed through Congressman Kyle of Iowa, that the interests of the Drainage Districts will not be overlooked in any proposal for the development of the Upper Mississippi River National Recreational Area. Recent news releases seem to indicate that the Interior Department of the Government and the Corps of Engineers have suggested that the Recreational Bill be deferred until Congress completes its study on "Land Use Policy." This probably means that interested parties up and down the River will have further opportunity to aequaint themselves with the provisions of the proposed Bill. For fear that the ultimate development might conflict with the Drainage Districts and the interests of our Association, we would like to reiterate statements previously made in writing and orally at the various Hearings. We confine our statements to the original Study Report since as above stated we do not have the watered down version. 1. The Report indicates that a substantial amount of land is to be acquired by public authority, local, state or federal, and that no provision is to be made to replace the property tax loss. The report on Page 19 states, "Much or all of this loss is expected to be made up by increased land values and increases in wholesale and retail sales in the area." And again on Page 27, "The Study Report does not, however, recommend that provisions be made for any 'in lieu of taxes' payment for land acquired with National Recreation Area funds." Each of the 24 levee and/or drainage districts which comprise the membership of this Association are separate political subdivisions for the purpose of assessing funds necessary for their maintenance, operation and improvement. Each district encompasses a defined geographical area, and (except for Iowa River-Flint Creek Levee District No. 16 in Louisa and Des Moines Counties, Iowa, which assesses on the basis of valuation) each tract of land within the district is classified on the basis of the benefit it receives from the facility and is assessed accord ingly. The total classification of all the land equals 100%. Thus, if the assessment on any land is not paid the total revenue is less than 100% of the amount sought, and the deficiency must be made up from the remaining land. This is the reason, that in Iowa, at least, there is no land within a levee or drainage district which is exempt from the assessments of such district, and all land, including highways and other public land, is subject to assessment. (See Sec. 455.50, Code of Iowa, 1971) It is of little comfort to levee and drainage districts that there will be an increase in land values and in wholesale and retail sales for none of the benefit of such increases would pass to them. Therefore, if any land in a levee or drainage district is to be acquired definite provisions should be made for the payment of district assessments on such land. An alternative would be the acquisition of all the lands of such district and its existence terminated, as was done in certain instances in connection with the Mississippi River 9 ft. channel project. With reference to general property taxes, it is possible that in some places the loss might be made up by increased land values, but it is submitted that this would not be true everywhere, especially in those predominantly rural areas where development would occur over a long period of time. Thus, it could well be many years before county governments, school districts, and other political subdivisions whose revenues depend largely upon property taxation could recoup their losses, if at all. Increases in wholesale and retail sales would be of little benefit to the affected area in the absence of a local sales tax (which does not exist in Iowa). Furthermore, it should be remembered that an influx of people usually brings with it an increase in governmental cost, and added revenue as a result of the project would do well to meet this need. 2. Another matter of concern is public crossings over levees, and the reason for this is that many such crossings already exist and our experiences have not been good. Public crossings expose levees to trespass which is especially damaging to sand levees. Such trespass is in violation of state law, but to police and enforce the same effectively is almost impossible. It is acknowledged that crossings will be necessary for the use and enjoyment of the area, but it is our earnest request that definite standards be employed. For this purpose the Association has submitted to the task force chairman, the following: "1. The Government will construct and maintain all vehicular crossings of the levee to all recreational areas; the crossings to be located at or near each point along the levee where public roads approach the levee. The Government shall construct and maintain permanent fences across the levee rights-of-way immediately adjacent to both sides of the crossing so as to prevent the public from having pedestrian, equestrian or vehicular access to the levee rights-of-way on either side of the crossing. Each fence shall have a vehicular gate (with locking mechanism) for access to the levee for maintenance and operation of the levee. "2. The Government shall allow a buffer area 250 feet in width along each side of the levee which shall be reserved for future development of the levee system and for the planting and growth of trees and brush to protect the levee system from wave wash, current scour and the public in the recreational areas and at the same time serve the purpose of a wildlife refuge." We believe that the foregoing problems can be adequately solved without jeopardizing the project, and to this end we stand ready to cooperate and offer our services in every possible way. 3. A great many of the individuals of our Association have expressed themselves as being concerned over the upkeep of such a large recreational area. Many have stated they feel that it will become a dumping ground for the general public. Fear has been expressed that the project is so great in scope that it will require expensive upkeep, and in fact, may be a beer can disposal area. All of us are concerned with the general public's attitude in the failure to perform good housekeeping in public parks and recreational areas. Others have expressed a fear that such a system might be of such scope that it will remove from the public the possibility that an individual can buy, develop, and enjoy private ownership of property overlooking the scenic Mississippi River. We realize that the proposed project is in a tentative stage and that in its final draft form, the Bill may erase many of the concerns of our Association. Fundamentally, our Association is interested in the agricultural and industrial development of the Upper Mississippi River Valley. At the same time we are not an enemy of those interested in recreation, wild life, or the environmental problems. On the contrary, many believe that in many cases the environment is enhanced by private ownership. We appreciate the opportunity of filing this late statement but are somewhat handicapped by not having the final draft of the proposed legislation upon which to comment, either favorably or adversely. We stand ready to cooperate in all ways possible, but like to reserve the privilege of speaking out as our interests are affected. Respectfully submitted. NOAH SCHROCK, President, Upper Mississippi Flood Control Association, (Attached-Association's Brochure, to be found in Committee files.) Hon. ROY A. TAYLOR, STATE OF WISCONSIN, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Madison, Wis., June 19, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: The following views are offered for incorporation in the committee hearing concerning the House Bill HR-10529, the hearing for which was scheduled on June 19, 1972. HR-10529 has a much reduced land acreage component than its predecessor bill HR-5468. However, HR-10529 does appear to have a substantial land base and proposes to provide studies of areas which were within the boundaries defined by HR-5468, as well as acquiring certain additional land. In principle, we support the concept of a national recreation area and feel that even a much reduced version of a national recreation area ought to receive public support. We do, however, feel somewhat at a handicap by not having more specific facts as to what areas would be included within the national recreation area as presently proposed under HR-10529. We wish to emphasize that the Mississippi has much open space in association with it and that it has a population of 7,000,000 people within 50 miles who are actively in search of optimum recreational opportunities. Certainly this would seem to be strong justification for delineation of a national recreation area. Over the years we have had an excellent working relationship with the primary bureaus working on the river; namely, the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. I am sure this relationship could continue with delineation of a national recreation area. The complexion of the river valley is gradually changing as the population builds. This is a mighty river that deserves the respect of ample open space plus the recreational opportunities. To have a national recreation area furnishes the means of preservation of these qualities. Our advice at this time would be encourage provision of more specific information for public digestion and to hold a specific hearing in the region to review the pros and cons of the area. The only hearing that we are aware of has been held down in Iowa and probably did not adequately sample Wisconsin public opinion. Also, it should be pointed out that recreational amenities in the Upper Mississippi River Valley can be greatly enhanced by a number of actions, such as providing recreational lock chambers and perhaps opening up channels into some of the backwaters. Perhaps these specific purposes would wisely be incorporated in the intent of the specific bill. I should like to point out, however, that as Section 8 applies to regulation of fishing and hunting. Wisconsin does not recognize any attempt to regulate such fishing and hunting by any level of government other than the state itself. Hence. it would be necessary that any special regulations pertaining to these activities within the area be processed through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The opportunity to comment on this bill is much appreciated and if you wish further background or consultation from our Department and our staff, we would be pleased to supply it. Very truly yours, L. P. VOIGT, Secretary. Hon. ROY TAYLOR, JUNE 20, 1972. Chairman, House Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAYLOR: The Mississippi River Research Consortium consists of a group of approximately 350 persons, primarily faculty members from institutions located in the midwest. In addition to this, the membership includes representatives of various state and federal agencies as well as interested citizens. The organization has been in existence for five years, and has helped to disseminate information to the public as well as initiate information flow between those who are actively carrying out research on the Upper Mississippi River. As Executive Secretary of that organization, I wish to make special reference to H.R. 10529 “A Bill to Establish the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area". The Mississippi River Research Consortium is interested in the recreational master plan and endorses this concept as proposed by the above mentioned bill. We feel, indeed, that if the Upper Mississippi River is to serve in the future as a recreational and wildlife resource, that these uses will have to be considered in the early stages of plan development. It would appear that the passage of this bill will constitute a meaningful step in the direction of equal representation by recreational, fish, and wildlife concerns as well as navigational interests. Sincerely yours, THOMAS O. CLAFLIN, Executive Secretary, Mississippi River Research Consortium. MISSISSIPPI RIVER STUDIES GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, Hon. ROY TAYLOR, Chairman, House Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAYLOR: As director of the Mississippi River Research Group, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, I make special reference to H.R. 10529 "A Bill to Establish the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area". The group endorses the concept of the establishment of a plan for comprehensive use of the river and its related resources. The history of the development of this river system has not included recreational use planning. During these times of great change with population increases and with greater usage of the river for navigation and recreation, we feel it imperative that recreational uses of the river be given equal recognition. Paradoxically, the Secretary of the Army appears to be the reviewing agency for the plans that develop under the auspices of the bill. Since the Mississippi River Basin Commission has been established to develop a comprehensive use plan for the river basin, it would seem appropriate that approval process as described in Sec. 3 line 1 be transferred to the Chairman of that commission. We urge that this action be taken. Sincerely yours, THOMAS O. CLAFLIN, Ph. D., Chairman. HAMBURG, ILL., June 26, 1972. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We urge you not to recommend the passage of HB5468 and HB10529 which would authorize an Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area because it would remove 7,500 acres from the tax list in our small county, Calhoun. In Calhoun County there are public recreation areas along the river which are used for beer parties and pot parties followed by destruction of property, rape, and sex orgies. The destroyed property is promptly restored at taxpayers' expense. It is only safe for law-abiding citizens to use these areas when they go in large groups. There are abundant places, public and private, for launching boats on both sides of the Mississippi. This proposed park would take all our farm and our home. Our forefathers carved this farm out of the wilderness, put it into production and paid taxes to support the government. How can you, in the name of Justice, deprive us of our rightful inheritance? Surely the time has come to give some consideration to taxpayers and stop being so permissive to the destructive leeches in the nation. If you really want to preserve the beauty of this area, leave it in the possession of taxpayers who care. Take a look at Pruitt-Igoe Housing in St. Louis! If you want to destroy it forever turn it over to the public. Yours truly, Mr. and Mrs. HOWARD W. POORE. NORMANDY, TENN., March 28, 1972. Congressman ROY TAYLOR, DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAYLOR: We are writing concerning the Bill HR 10529, Establishment of the Upper Mississippi National Recreation Area. We have personal knowledge of several farms involved in this proposed project, especially the farm owned by Mr. and Mrs. Elmer H. Felderman of Jackson County, Iowa. Over the years, much more has been put into this land than has been taken out with the result that it is now land of top productivity. We wish to express our strong opposition to diverting land of this quality from food production to recreational facilities. As anyone who has traveled this country knows, there are many areas of the country of less value which could be used for recreational facilities. Most of the farms involved are "family farms" and represent a lifetime of work and investment. It seems ironic that the Department of Agriculture should be working to preserve the "family farm" while another branch of the government is seeking to take these farms out of production. We live near the recently completed Tims Ford Dam and the proposed Normandy Dam in Middle Tennessee. The Tims Ford Dam does generate some electrical power but only a token amount compared with our nation's needs. Hence, these projects have only recreational value. The most obvious local effect has been to afford land speculators an opportunity to sell adjacent property at inflated prices. We do not feel that this serves the interests of the American people. Perhaps the main function of projects such as these is to "make work" for government agencies that have outlived their usefulness, such as TVA. We feel that the wise use of our national resources is not compatible with the passage of Bill HR 10529. We urge you to work for the defeat of this Bill. Sincerely, Dr. E. JOHN FELDERMAN. |