Page images
PDF
EPUB

county. Tourism is our major industry. Most of us, in some way, make a part of our living from serving those who come to see the dogwood in the spring; the flaming colors in the fall, or the serenity of summer days. We feel that the park would be detrimental to the wise development of the river which is one of our greatest assets. We feel that the loss of the good farmland in the river area would be detrimental to the agricultural production of the county, and we feel that the loss of an additional 43,000 lush acres in a county that is now 41 percent Government lands would destroy our county government.

Both our State and National Farm Bureau organizations have joined in resolutions opposing the use of the power of eminent domain for nonessentials such as public recreation. We feel that this use of power is a misuse, working hardship on the farmers of the Nation, and, at least in our case, on the small businessmen.

We support conservation of the Buffalo River. As I have pointed out, we consider it a major asset. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be strangled by Government control. We are all interested in accomplishing the protection of the environment, but at the same time we think we should be allowed the wise development of the resources of our county. We feel that the people in our county should have some say in what the future of Newton County would be, rather than from groups from Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Shreveport, and outside of our State.

Gentlemen, I would like to close by extending a personal invitation to you to visit our county and let some of us who live there show you around. That is from the head to the mouth of the Buffalo River. It is unfair to us for you to form your opinions on the basis of reports. prepared by those who are not well enough acquainted with the area to provide a true picture.

Thank you for your attention. We hope you will earnestly consider the opposition of the Newton County Chamber of Commerce and the Newton County Farm Bureau and recommend that the burden of a national park should not be placed on our county.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Burdine.

You stated that this proposal is a threat to private enterprise. Do you favor creating national parks as a policy?

Mr. BURDINE. Not if it goes in opposition to the people who are affected.

Mr. TAYLOR. In almost all cases it does. In most cases, at least a portion of the people who are closest to the area whose property is affected would vote "No." If we let them, by referendum, determine the action the Federal Government takes, we would create no more national parks.

The question comes up, Do we need them? Is the need sufficiently great that we should continue in the business of creating additional national parks and recreation areas so as to get people out of the cities into open areas preserved for them.

You say there would be a loss of 43,000 acres. What do you mean by a loss? The land would still be there.

Mr. BURDINE. It would take some off the county tax books.

Mr. TAYLOR. I don't agree with you on that--not a sudden change. because the property owners in most cases, those who own farmland and those who own homes, would be permitted to retain them during

their lifetime or during the period of 35 years. Therefore, their interest in the home would still be taxable.

Mr. BURDINE. However, if I understand the bill correctly, they would not have the initiative to go forward to develop their farmlands, to build better homes and to improve their property as a whole.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think you are right there. I think that there would be a tendency not to spend additional money for improvements on the property, considering that it's eventually going into the hands of the Federal Government.

Mr. BURDINE. This is our feeling; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. On the other hand, if the park area does bring tourists, it's going to create motels and restaurants. I live in the Smoky Mountain section of western North Carolina. The people there are very park minded. That is one reason I am proud to be chairman of this subcommittee. I share that enthusiasm. The people there purchased the land which went into the Smoky Mountain National Park in the 1920's and during the depression days of the early 1930's and, aided by the Rockefeller Foundation, they conveyed it to the States of North Carolina and Tennessee. The States, in turn, donated it without charge to the Federal Government. When I go down there now there are just hundreds and hundreds of motels, fine first-class motels and restaurants and service stations and all other types of businesses which have grown up as a result of the fact that 16 million people come into that area each summer in order to visit the Smoky Mountain National Park.

A park area that is properly established-and we hope each one will be-should bring in tourists. Tourists bring in business. Therefore, that should offset the economic blow to the county from the loss of the land, I would think.

Mr. BURDINE. Sir, we feel that tourists definitely are our greatest industry. But we fail to see where we would be able to handle or be able to cope with the other aspects that you are speaking to. We feel that our county and our river in itself is there today for anyone to use. I don't know of a case where anyone has been turned back at the banks of the Buffalo River when they wanted to float it. Many people, as has been pointed out, have turned back because it is dry. Of course, this we cannot help.

As we see it in Newton County, we feel that we, the people who are affected, should have some say as to what will happen to our homes. We didn't move there to buy property to live on a few years and then let the Government come in and move us out and make a profit on it. Nothing like that. We came there to live and to raise our families. We don't feel that we would be capable of coming to Washington, D.C., for instance, and trying to tell the people here where they are making mistakes in their improvements, and so forth.

Mr. TAYLOR. We appreciate your coming. We are anxious to hear from the local people. That is one reason we set up these hearings. I agree with your statement that in all probability-and you know better than I do-tourism offers the best opportunity for economic development of that area.

Mr. BURDINE. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. Because it is somewhat remote. It gives you a handicap on getting industry. But it's beautiful. That brings the tourist. opportunities.

I might point out that the motels and restaurants, and so forth, that I mentioned a minute ago in connection with the Smoky Mountains National Park are located on private land. They are privately owned. They are all on the tax books.

In our area I feel no tax loss. As a matter of fact, the Smoky Mountains National Park has been the No. 1 economic developer of the section that I represent in Congress.

You mentioned crime in Yosemite and crime in national parks as being a problem, just as crime everywhere in our Nation is a problem. Some of the same people who cause the trouble on the streets, go into national parks.

You mentioned that 1970 situation in Yosemite. We did have a problem there. A bunch of toughies on motorcycles went in there on the Fourth of July and caused a great amount of trouble. Many of them were arrested. The situation there has improved greatly during the last year. That situation is not typical of national parks. I don't know of any other one that has had the problem that Yosemite had in 1970. Nevertheless, we do need to spend more money for more rangers and more policemen in order to protect the public in these national parks. When a person goes there, he goes for a restful recreational experience and certainly shouldn't be molested.

Are there any questions?

Mr. SEBELIUS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURLISON. No questions.

Mr. TAYLOR. Counsel has a question.

Mr. McELVAIN. On that same point, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I just checked briefly with Mr. Bernie Campbell of the National Park Service who administers other areas in the State of Arkansas, to inquire what the crime rate, if any, is at other national park facilities in that vicinity. The only one where there have been any reportable crimes committed is at Hot Springs, and there were only 14 there last

year.

I think your comparison of the Buffalo River with Yosemite was not too appropriate. It is sort of like comparing apples and oranges. Your comparison should have been probably with other units in the same region. There I think you would find the crime rate would be much less extensive.

Of course, in the State of Arkansas you don't have large metropolitan complexes like you do in the State of California where you normally have a higher rate of crime generally than you would in your home State.

I just make that point really more as a point than as a question. You might wish to investigate that a little further to see if you can revise your thinking on that aspect of your testimony.

Mr. BURDINE. We will be glad to investigate that.

Mr. TAYLOR. Let me add this though. We do not establish parks to promote the economic condition of an area. We do not establish them in order to promote tax bases. We establish them in order to provide recreation for the people of America. As a by-product, quite often they do result in promoting the economic development of the

area.

Thank you for your testimony.

Mr. BURDINE. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Duane Kelly.

STATEMENT OF DUANE KELLY, TEACHER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO.

Mr. KELLY. Thank you for the opportunity to come up here and speak today. I want to speak for several people and organizations.

I am Duane Kelly. I teach at college and public school in Kansas City, Mo. First, I have a letter to transmit from Joe Thompson, a student of mine, who is vitally concerned with the environment and its future. He is young enough and sees far enough down the road that this is a very important item.

I have a letter of support from the Buroughs Nature Club for Birds, a Kansas City section of the Audubon Society. The Buroughs nature club has supported the idea of the Buffalo River project.

Mr. TAYLOR. These letters that you have will be turned over to counsel and will be placed in the record or the files as determined appropriate.

Mr. KELLY. All right. I would like to represent Ed Stegner, who is executive secretary of the Conservation Federation of Missouri. He is unable to be here. He is absolutely snowed under with an initiative petition effort to put a constitutional amendment before the people to expand the department of conservation's program.

The federation is composed of nearly 200 conservation clubs which comes up to about 24,000 members. I am on the board of directors of the federation and, as far back as I can remember, there has never been a single dissenting vote on the question of the Buffalo River National Park status. They have been solidly behind this as far back as the question has existed.

Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection, Mr. Stegner's statement will appear in the record at this point. Hearing none, so ordered.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ED STEGNER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE CONSERVATION FEDERATION OF MISSOURI, SUBMITTED BY DUANE KELLY

My name is Ed Stegner of Jefferson City, Missouri. I am Executive Secretary of the Conservation Federation of Missouri, a private association of nearly 200 conservation clubs and 24,000 individual members. Our Federation is the largest and most representative private conservation group in my state, being interested in all phases of natural resource conservation. We appreciate the opportunity to present this statement in support of HR 8382 to establish the Buffalo National River.

For many years, my organization has recognized that this nation's beautiful, free flowing rivers and streams represent one of our most valuable and unique natural resources, a resource which cannot be evaluated in dollars and cents.

We are, of course, most concerned with streams in the Midwest and particularly those in the Ozark mountains of Missouri and Arkansas where some of this nation's streams of highest quality are located and where many Missourians seek wilderness-type outdoor recreation. We believe that at least some of these high quality streams should be preserved in their present free flowing condition.

We would not want to leave the impression with this committee that we are opposed to all dams and reservoirs or other forms of river development. We do believe, however, that those remaining undeveloped streams of highest quality should be classified by law for preservation in their present free flowing, scenic condition for this and future generations to enjoy. As Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman told your full committee two years ago, "Scenic rivers are a part of rural America-its economy and its environment."

Some of the Ozark's rivers, such as the White, North Fork and Little Red, have already been destroyed as free flowing streams by dams. Others are fast deteriorating from pollution, uncontrolled development and overuse. Still others like the Current and Jacks Fork in Missouri have been assured preservation by the Ozark

National Scenic Riverways, and the Eleven Point in Missouri has been included in the recently enacted Wild and Scenic Rivers System and thereby preserved. The Congress is to be commended for its wisdom and forethought in preserving these and other high quality streams. Many states, such as my own, have committees and commissions developing state scenic rivers systems.

The Buffalo River in northwest Arkansas is perhaps the most scenic of all of the streams in the Missouri-Arkansas Ozark area. It flows through a relatively undeveloped, and one of the most beautiful parts of the Ozarks. Its beautiful high bluffs and waterfalls are believed to be the most spectacular in the entire Midwest. The area contains numerous unique geological and archeological features and the river's gravel bars are unexcelled for camping. Most of the area today is relatively unspoiled by human development. Although the stability of flow is not quite as consistent as that of the Current River, with the exception of the headwaters it can be floated the year round. This area is perhaps the nearest to a true wilderness of any in the Ozarks. We would hope that the National Park Service would develop the area with the objective of keeping it as near a wilderness as possible and still accommodate the visitors who wish to visit it.

If this most beautiful of the Ozark rivers is not protected by law, its unique wilderness qualities will gradually deteriorate because of uncontrolled commercial development and pollution or will be completely destroyed by dams which are already proposed and planned by the Corps of Engineers.

Although the Buffalo River is in the State of Arkansas, it represents a recreational resource enjoyed by people from all the surrounding states and actually belongs to all the people of our nation just as surely as does Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park.

Although the establishment of the National River will be a badly needed boost to the economy of the area, our primary concern is the resource and its importance to the welfare of all the people. Simply stated, it is a resource too unique and valuable to be lost for this and future generations.

While we recognize the Senate bill on Scenic Rivers offers more protection for the river's resources, we feel HR 8382 would provide for an adequate National River.

It is against this background that we support and endorse the Buffalo National River as proposed by Representative Hammerschmidt in HR 8382.

Mr. KELLY. I would like to represent the Ozark Wilderness Waterways Club, who has been not only in support but are in the leading edge of the wave you might say of the fight to save the Buffalo. We created situations to support it. It has taken us 10 years to get here, and we are mighty happy to be here.

The Ozark Wilderness Waterways Club is a family-based membership of roughly 350 families, primarily in the Kansas City metropolitan area, but with members in 19 States. The total individuals is well over a thousand.

We feel that there are small differences from our point of view between S. 7 and House bills 8382 and 9119. We are confident that they can be reconciled easily and quickly once the subcommittee favorably reports to the full committee and they come to the floor.

We most sincerely feel that the only current opposition to the national river proposal is from a few landowners along the river. We really believe that once they live with this plan for a while, they won't feel nearly as badly about it as they may at the present time.

OWWC wants it clearly understood that we wish no hardship to any present genuine landowner. We insist that all affected landowners be treated fairly. This has to be. We concur with Mr. Hammerschmidt that the five counties within the five park boundaries be compensated for all tax revenues lost through change of ownership. We concur further with Congressman Hammerschmidt that the Relocation Uniform Assistance Act be applied to affected landowners.

« PreviousContinue »