Mr. SKUBITZ. How does this compare in price to any other land purchase? This is $156 million. Do you know of any other project for which we have paid that amount of money?

Mr. REED. Mr. Stewart perhaps has some figures with him of other land purchases.

Mr. STEWART. This would be about three times the most expensive authorization this committee has made to date. It is also considerably more acreage than anything to date.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, we are up in Redwoods in three figures. We will probably have to come back, we will be coming back to the committee on Redwoods, because by the time we have to pay for some relocation costs, we will have exceeded the authorization by a considerable amount if the courts do what I think they are going to do for us.

Mr. TAYLOR. The Redwoods will probably run over $100 million. Mr. REED. I would think that is a conservative estimate, Mr. Chairman, by what I anticipate the courts to do.

Mr. TAYLOR. And the Golden Gate cost will probably have a high acquisition cost.

Mr. SKUBITZ. In my experience, nearly every land purchase price has been underestimated. Here it is $156 million. Gateway coming up today is $100 million. We have Golden Gate at $150 million. What is the development cost on this project.

Mr. REED. It is low.

Mr. Griswold, do you have the development costs? Of course, the great costs at Gateways West and East are development costs.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I mean on the bill we have before us. How much will the development cost be?

Mr. REED. $895.000, sir.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Hence, on these three projects we are talking about $156, $150 million-that is $300 million. And Gateway is another hundred million, a total of $400 million. And if you double the costs, we are talking about three projects that are going to cost us a billion dollars.

Mr. REED. Of course, you have moved land acquisition and development costs together on those. And, of course, they are funded differently. On development, it comes out of the general fund, where land acquisition comes out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is healthy at this moment, Mr. Skubitz, at $95 million in the fiscal budget this year and projected into the next budget; we are in a very good position with the account book. We recognize that you have hearings on Big Thicket as well, but looking over the land acquisition ledger books, this committee is in very good shape.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Do you feel that this project is worth the amount of money you are asking us to invest?

Mr. REED. I think the Everglades are so unique in an international and national concept and content that I do, sir. It is my opinion that it is worth it.

Mr. SKUBITZ. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. I might state that as to Gateway. the administration recommendation was an obligation of over $39 million for acquisition. Mr. REED. That is right, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. The committee bill carries an estimated cost of a little over $11 million for acquisition. So we greatly reduced the obligation for acquisition. But there is a $92 million estimated cost for development.

Mr. SKUBITZ. That is right; that is $100 million for the cost of the project. The second project is Golden Gate, $56 million, with a $80 million development-that is a total of about $140 millionand this one at $156 million. So if you add the three together, the parks will cost us in the neighborhood of $400 million, and if these projects go as they have gone in the past, because of inflation, by the time we get through with it, we are up to around $800 million to $1

billion.

Mr. REED. I think that is probably true, Mr. Skubitz. Your historical record has been sound on that.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Reed, did you answer the gentleman's question as to the development costs of this project?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; $895,000 is the total development cost. It will be very thin on development.

Mr. TAYLOR. Less than a million dollars?

Mr. REED. Less than $1 million, $895,000.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I am not opposed to this project; I am one of the sponsors of it. But I think we ought to start taking a look at what we are doing.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; I have tried to keep a ledger book of where we are and what bills this committee is interested in and the apparent projected costs of those. For instance, I have figures on Big Thicket and other areas which you have either held hearings on or outsiders know that you have an interest in, and we try to keep up with what the funding picture looks like. Big Thicket could be expensive also.

At the moment, from the standpoint of acquisition funding, you are in very good shape. We know that we are nationally behind on development. There is no question about it; seriously behind. Mr. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SKUBITZ. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. If we are going to leave the land alone, how will the $895.000 be spent?

Mr. REED. Four parking lots for 100 cars each for $100,000, for a construction period of 4 years; access roads and walks at ranger stations, $20,000; paving at storage buildings, $2,000; provide or upgrade drainage on and around the manmade facilities for $100,000for a total of $222,000.

Buildings: $120,000 to build three ranger stations; residence and reserve manager's office, $45,000; comfort stations, four at $20,000, for a total of $80,000; two storage buildings at $30,000 each, $60,000; and four entrance signs for $8,000.

Utilities: $80,000 for water; $40,000 for sewer, chemical toilets; $40,000 for electric and telephone; enlarge sewage facilities at Everglade City or elsewhere, for $200,000. Total roads and trails, $222,000, and total buildings and utilities, $673,000, for a total of $895,000. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much.

How much are we spending this year for development funds for the National Park system? Do not include the figure included for the bicentennial work.

Mr. REED. Thank you, sir, that is good to take that up. $20 million to complete the pollution abatement-this is off the top of my head, but I can send you the exact figures by hand this afternoon. It would be another $40 million for development costs and an add-on on top of that which we had to put up.

Mr. RUPPE. It is really about $40 million.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; the pollution control activities in the last 4 years have literally swallowed up the entire development account. Mr. RUPPE. We are running into a very serious problem where we are acquiring more and more land, spreading the Department's acquisition program and extending it, but doing nothing to fulfill the agreements we make at the time of acquisition of these properties.

Mr. REED. This is one of two problems with the expansion of the Park system that has worried me most; first, the promises we have broken to the local people when we have said we were going to open a park and didn't open it with adequate facilities. The second, of course, is stretching of the uniformed manpower of the National Park Service personnel.

Mr. RUPPE. Can the Park System really acquire more land with the feeling that they are going to preserve it when in effect, they don't really have the capacity to either preserve or develop? Is the land really better in Federal hands, since the Federal Government can really do little more than acquire it?

Mr. REED. I think they can do more than acquire it. The philosophy of the administration has been that hopefully, the problems will relax following the conclusion of the war, and the immediate priority was to acquire and preserve the land, that development can take place later when more funds are available. I recognize the problems inherent with that philosophy, but at the same time, I cannot fault the concept of acquiring these lands that are all too rapidly disappearing at this time. Actually, you run out of national interest areas. There is a time when you actually run out of them. I would suggest to this committee that we are getting closer to that and that we will more and more as a Nation begin turning inwardly

Mr. RUPPE. I have confidence that our chairman will not run out. Mr. REED. There are great opportunities left, but as to the major areas, significantly, we are running-Golden Gate was one of the most incredible pieces of land I have ever seen still around, so to speak. Big Thicket is a unique opportunity; Big Cypress a colossal opportunity. Much of the legislation you have passed in the last 4 years has been perfectly extraordinary in concept and in scope. We are running out of that kind of project.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much. One last question.

Most of the witnesses-in fact, all of the witnesses today would be, in my opinion, proponents of the legislation. Has there been any strong opposition to the legislation in Florida or elsewhere?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; although the chambers of commerce, the Governor's office, the cabinet officers of the State of Florida have unanimously supported the project. The leading citizens' conservation organizations also with unanimity have backed the proposition. Cer

tainly, some landowners within the area who traditionally like their hunting camps in their own hands and have been very, very free and easy with what they have done on their land, and those real estate operators who wish to make money out of the Big Cypress would be in opposition to this project.

Mr. RUPPE. So the public and the State of Florida would generally be supportive of the legislation and presumably, the landowners would be somewhat divided?

Mr. REED. I would agree with that 100 percent.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much for your comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, the statement of the Secretary concerning the itemized costs will be made a part of the record at the point he referred to it.

(The statement referred to follows:)

BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL FRESH WATER RESERVE, FLORIDA, DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

1 Enlarge sewerage treatment facility at nearby community or Everglades National Park to handle sewerage from comfort stations and residences proposed for this reserve.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, we are all familiar with the jet port threat. What other recent developments constitute a threat to the Big Cypress area?

Mr. REED. Two years ago, when I was serving with the State of Florida, we were confronted with a private land development company which wished to install deep drainage canals within the Big Cypress watershed to drain the land, subdivide it, and sell it for lots. Intervention by the National Audubon Society in the State of Florida successfully halted that operation with a very favorable decision by a Florida judge in the Key West court, Monroe County court. However, we have seen an acceleration of proposals to put in taxing districts to build more roads, open more lands up for subdividing, which gives us tremendous concern.

Mr. TAYLOR. What is the attitude of the Indians in regard to the project?

Mr. REED. They have voted unanimously for the project, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for your testimony. Before you leave, though, I would like to make one other

comment.

Last week, President Nixon sent to the Congress 16 new wilderness proposals. He said that he hoped that Congress would act on them during this centennial year. Now, considering the fact that Congress is planning to adjourn within 2 or 3 weeks, considering that the Rules Committee has already announced that no more rules will be granted except in emergency cases, do you really expect us to act on them this year?

Mr. REED. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. I heard Secretary Morton state on TV that he hoped that Congress would not delay action on these bills for political

reasons.

Mr. REED. The wilderness bill, sir?

Mr. TAYLOR. He stated that the wilderness proposals had been submitted to Congress and he hoped that we would not delay action on them for political reasons. Now, have you seen any signs of this committee delaying action on any bills for political reasons?

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, my joy in being able to testify before this committee is well known to you and the members of it. I can say from my standpoint that I have never known this committee to do anything in the political sense that was not in the national interest and in the interest of all the American people. It has been the greatest pleasure I could possibly have in the 18 months service I have had here, my relationship with the chairman, with the membership of the subcommittee, and with the chairman and members of the main committee.

Mr. TAYLOR. The Secretary has been a member of the committee, he has been one of my greatest friends and I have been one of his admirers, but I could not help but think, as I listened to that statement. on TV, that it was a little unfair.

Mr. REED. I will not comment, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. No; I will not expect you to.
Mr. SKUBITZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I happen to be on this side of the aisle, and I cannot help but agree with Mr. Taylor. I think this committee has done an outstanding job.

Mr. REED. I recognize that. Mr. Skubitz, you know how much we have enjoyed working with you and with the rest of the members of the committee. I think I will just end it there; that is as far as I would want to go. But I think you know that comes from my heart. Mr. SKUBITZ. Thank you.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, it has been my observation that in the fall of even-numbered years, intemperate and unkind remarks are often made on the part of a number of people.

Mr. SKUBITZ. If the gentleman will yield, I have always noticed that from that side of the aisle, not from this side. This is why I am shocked.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am glad you are now seeing that that comes both ways.