Don't think you will forsake your neighbors and fellow citizens who live and own land on or near the Buffalo River, Can't think you would favor the Sporting Clubs and folks that live out of your and our District. In the November Election of 1968 Newton County citizens voted 97% against the Buffalo River National Park. The U.S. Government now owns more than 52% of Newton County, it will be the death of Newton County if they take the Buffalo, forcing our pioneers off their homeland. Most of the best farming land is along the Buffalo, National Parks usually consist of land not fit for farming nor where folks live. Should the Buffalo River become a National River we will be "swamped” with Hippies, Drug addicts, outlaws, negroes and every kind of people, litter and pollution. Can't we have one little portion of this wide wide world left like God intended? Everyone needs some place to rest, relax, and enjoy nature, LEAVE BUFFALO AS IT IS. You should visit awhile in some of the National Parks OUT WEST and see the results. We are expecting you to represent us, Don't let your constituants down for out of County and State pleasure-seekers, we are glad and welcome tourists to our beautiful Ozarks and want to keep our country clean and beautiful. Received your recent NEWS RELEASE on the hearing, must say the average person will not have much of a chance to even voice his complaints according to the new requirements. Is that a fair deal? We will loose a number of our citizens if this bill goes through, we know of several who are waiting for the results, to build homes in the Buffalo area. We ask that this letter be made a part of the permanent hearing records, Hon. ROY A. TAYLOR, JASPER, ARK. Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Longworth House, Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I spent half of my life in service trying to help keep this country free of all sorts of "isms", and just keeping it free for all the so called wheels to play and make their money. Now that I am no longer useful, being 60% disabled they plan to dispossess me of my small farm, where I can raise enough to eat to supplement my meager retirement of $180.00 a month. Where else could I live and do this? I'll bear arms again to keep my land right here in Arkansas-if the need arises. FRED H. BRUNSON, SSgt. U.S.A.F. (Retired). WAYTON, ARK., October 16, 1971. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I respectfully request that this letter be read at the hearings on the Buffalo National River Project. Nationalizing the Buffalo River would, in my opinion, be a mistake of colossal proportions, and one which would be embarrassing to the Federal Government and sponsors of the project far into the indefinite future, meaning at whatever time this mistake might be corrected. This costly project would ruin the river for local residents, who have used it for generations for sport and recreation-and have conducted their private stewardship with pride and respect and the care due a local landmark of such importance. There has never been any feeling on the part of citizens of the Buffalo River area against peaceful and law-abiding citizens from other districts and states coming in and camping along the Buffalo, or otherwise using it for wholesome recreation. It is understandable that the Federal Government has leaned over backwards to avoid recognizing that there is now a small percentage but sizable numbers of people in this country who are out to wreak havoc against the people and revolution against the government. This was apparently government policy because of the democratic nature of our governmental institutions. Now, however, it should be recognized that this group exists and that they are threat to peaceful use of such projects as a Buffalo National River. A National River would draw thousands of dissidents, drug users, and generally lawless elements to this peaceful district. The recent record of crime in the National Parks speaks for itself and is a portent of what would come in the Nationalized Buffalo River. The only possible advantage to the community that promoters of this project could offer to the citizens would be a belief that business would benefit in towns and cities along the nationalized portion of the river. A great surprise awaits anyone who believes thusly, I am sure. The introduction of lawless elements into a community destroys business rather than influencing a wholesome business increase. Besides the objections mentioned above, the ecological damage to the river area would be great, there would be a loss of property values to the citizens not only close to but at a distance from the river, and higher taxes to local residents due to loss of revenues from the dispossessed along the nationalized area. I think it would make a good though small start toward realizing government economies to simply abandon the Buffalo River Project and save the many millions involved. Government stewardship of national park areas is not always all that is to be desired. I have in mind Yellowstone Park where in 1969 I found Old Faithful Inn and the rental cottages surrounding it to be in very poor condition. I understand the government leases this facility to an operator, and I presume concessions might be leased in a Buffalo National River area which, if similarly neglected, would likely result in an unsavory situation, annoying to visitors and nearby residents alike. I might add that Old Faithful was a bedlam of odd-ball characters who looked as if they could have enjoyed their outing in some city dump just as well. Having visited Old Faithful Lodge as a teen-ager myself, when all the people enjoying the Lodge and the Park were considerate of one another and contributed to each other's enjoyment, I could not help but notice the unbelievably strong contrast between the present habitues and the past devotees. Park Rangers and personnel in several national parks have already been in pitched combat with lawless elements in the parks who are, if they are arrested, treated with a permissiveness that if allowed to continue will only aggravate a very bad situation. It is horrible to contemplate that a government that governs for the good of all could permit the possibility of lawless undesirables repeating their abominable conduct in the naturally beautiful Buffalo River country. To do so would constitute, I believe, a breach of faith with responsible American Citizens, not only in the Buffalo River community, but with Americans everywhere who, I am sure, would prefer to enjoy the idyllic Buffalo just as it is today and has been for centuries. Yours very truly, Hon. ROY A. TAYLOR, MILTON EMERSON STOLBERG. KANSAS CITY, Mo., October 27, 1971. Chairman, National Parks and Recreation Subcommittee Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As a student and a citizen, I am writing to give my full support for the proposed Buffalo National Park. Now is the time to preserve our country's natural resources for the future generations. Tomorrow may be too late. The Buffalo River area is beautiful and should be saved now. Please encourage the United States Congress to appropriate funds to go for the preservation of this great river. Sincerely, Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, JOSEPH P. THOMPSON. PRUITT, ARK., October 7, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TAYLOR: I have been asked to write and express the views of myself and some of my neighbors on the Buffalo National River Bill. This is fitting as we, who live in the river, are the ones most affected by the bill. Proponents of the bill will say that our interest is selfish. This is most certainly true for this is our home and our livelihood depends on the cattle on these hills. So, our interest is the proud selfishness of the land owner who loves the land and who has devoted his time, his labor and his money to the development of that land. Sponsors of this bill will tell you that we are misusing the land. Unfortunately, in some instances, this has been true in the past and there may be instances of misuse in the future though the damage is slight and self healing. Damage to land is not confined to private ownership however. It is prevalent in corporate and despite arguments to the contrary, government ownership. To those who cite government ownership as a cure all for abuse I would like to cite the damage to the Washita Wild Life Refuge by the artillery at Fort Sill; the poisoning of the air and land by the Dugway Proving Ground; the Radioactive tailing from the atomic power plant at Grand Junction, Colorado; and the damage to our existing National Parks caused by litter, tourists and traffic. We have neither the money nor the research facilities to catalog the abuses to the National Park system. However some of them have been cataloged for us by Life Magazine in the 3 Sept. issue. Page nine of the magazine tells of the Park Service having to remove litter from Mt. Whitney by helicopter. Pictures on page eleven and fifteen show some of the problems of unlimited access to an area by the pleasure seeking public. The article on page forty, "The Park That Caught the Urban Blight" is an example of what would probably happen to the Buffalo if it were a National Park for we are very near heavy Urban centers. The tourists are already here. They descend on us every Summer like locusts in their campers with their Hondas strapped to the bumpers and boats on top. You find their litter along the roads and at every place where there is room to park their vehicles. Their only restraint is the private ownership of the land. If the purpose of the bill is to save the Buffalo, we are in full agreement with the idea but disagree that the answer is a National Park. Motorcycles and off the road vehicles would be up and down the hills causing more erosion and damage than the farmers have ever caused. A visitor to my farm last Summer, who is a sports car enthusiast, has already laid out a sport car rally. From Pruitt to Erbia, to Comption, to Ponca, then Jasper and back to Dogpatch. This would come were this a National Park. If the purpose of the bill is to provide a playground for the bored, disaffected urban population, let us state this in the bill and not try to disguise it as an effort to save the river. But, if the purpose is to save the river from neon signs, curio shops, camp grounds, motels and trailer parks let us try to find some other method such as zoning or land use laws. We too would like to see the Buffalo saved for we also have children but let us check the alternatives before create another park "That has Caught the Urban Blight." JAMES W. LANE, PONCA, ARK., October 25, 1971. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, DEAR HON. ROY A. TAYLOR: Please enter this letter as a part of the official Record of the Public Hearing of the U.S. House Interior & Insular Affairs Committee reguarding the Buffalo River. I oppose Senator J. W. Fulbright and Senator John McClellan S. 7 the Bill to make a National Park on the Buffalo River, and Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt, 3rd District, Arkansas. RE: His Introduction of Bill To Establish "Buffalo Nation River." I think if you Senators and Congressman would go along with the people instead of letting The Ozark Society, and different Clubs, The Hippies, and all other Outsiders, tell you all what to do, I think you should give the Landowners a voice in this matter in making The Buffalo River a National River, the people of Newton County put the proposal on the General Election Ballot and 97% of the voters voted against the Bill. Now you see what the Landowners think of the Bill. My land is not for sale, if it was I could sell my land and Home ten times as much the Government would appraised it for, just where could I find anything of equal value in everyway? What will Me and My Family Do? I have 990 Acres of land on and near Buffalo, I'm a Farmer I have a large Herd of cattle, I have a nice Grocery Store, Gas Station, and a Sawmill, I Employ 12 to 15 men most of time, for the last 25 years have paid in Taxes on all of this operations. The Government own 41% of the land in Newton County plus State Land. This Land in National Forest is very senic in every way, there is lots of beautiful streams in the Forest, why not use what you have instead of going debt for more land? If you want the Buffalo destroyed just make a Nation River of the Buffalo and all of trash of the cities and the whole country will be down to have their wild Parties, drinking their Beer and every thing else that the hudlum, Hippies, Criminals and outlaws, they will destroy the Buffalo, the Land Owners are the ones that has saved the Buffalo and made it what it is today. Now it is up to you all to let the Landowners to keep it as it is of today or let the outsiders destroy The Buffalo River. (Enclosed 3 Copies.) Sincerely yours, ARVEL L. CASEY. Hon. ROY A. TAYLOR, TULSA, OKLA., October 29, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As a member of the Tulsa Audubon Society I am desirous of placing on record my hope that the Buffalo River in Arkansas be made a National River and that further subdivisions and land speculation will be halted. Two amendments have been suggested and I am attaching a copy to this letter. Please see that my letter becomes a part of the Buffalo River hearing record. This area in Arkansas should be preserved as a wilderness area for future generations to enjoy and also to preserve the wildlife abounding there. Sincerely, AMENDMENTS MRS. FREDERICK L. EDWARDS. 1. Provision for study of areas within the National River boundaries for wilderness designation.-Encompassed by the National River are two rugged, isolated areas which the National Park Service would reserve as primitive environments for hiking, horseback riding, camping and nature study. The 1964 Wilderness Act required wilderness studies and proposals only for then existing parks. Therefore special legislative provision is needed for wilderness consideration of the Buffalo River area. The amendment being sought by Arkansas conservationists would require a wilderness recommendation to Congress within four years after the bill's enactment. 2. Provision for a citizens' advisory commission.-The legislation authorizing Cape Cod National Seashore, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Ozark National Scenic Riverways and other park system units has provided for citizens' commissions to advise the National Park Service during the periodof development. This commission would be composed of members appointed by the local county courts, the governor of Arkansas and the Secretary of the Interior. FAYETTEVILLE, ARK., October 23, 1971. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to urge immediate approval and passage of H.R. 8283 and H.R. 9119. I feel that the establishment of the Buffalo National River in the State of Arkansas is of vital national importance. The Buffalo River is part of a once great American heritage, that of a pristine mountain stream. Its clean, flowing waters, spectacular scenery, abundant plant and animal life combine to give the Buffalo many unique scenic and scientific features worthy of national attention and preservation. The greatest threat to this unique national heritage is time and man. Time for man to forget the great need for beauty and diversity in our environment. Time for man to develop the Buffalo for power and wealth. For each day that passes a little more of the Buffalo is lost in the name of progress. The great trees that line the banks of the Buffalo are being cut down, gravel is being taken from its beds, and slowly but surely the Buffalo is being lost to man. The Buffalo must be preserved while it still remains in its pristine state. It is of the utmost importance that H.R. 8283 and H.R. 9119 be passed in 1971 while there is still time. H.R. 8283 and H.R. 9119 through the establishment of a National River will preserve the Buffalo for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. H.R. 8283 and H.R. 9119 will help reverse the trend of environmental destruction. H.R. 8283 and H.R. 9119 will help to insure a quality environment for all Americans to enjoy and especially to the 15 million people who live around the Buffalo. The $28,000,000.00 allocated by H.R. 8283 for the establishment of the National River is a small price to pay for the preservation of the inestimable and irreplaceable qualities of the Buffalo. Please include this statement as part of the public record on the hearings of H.R. $283 and H.R. 9119. Respectfully submitted. JOE D. CARVER. STATEMENT OF PROF. GEORGE P. SMITH II, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Professor George P. Smith, II, a current member of the Georgetown University Law Center faculty and formerly a member of the University of Arkansas Law faculty at Fayetteville. The past two years while teaching courses in Natural Resource Law at Arkansas, I additionally served as Special Counsel to Governor Winthrop Rockefeller for Environmental Legislation, Chairman of the State Committee on Environmental Control, a Member of the Arkansas Waterway Study Commission and as a Consultant to the State Planning Commission. I served as Amicus curiae to Federal District Judge John Eisele in the case of Environmental Defense Fund, Ozark Society, Audubon Society et al v. Corps of Engineers et al (2 Envt. Report Cases 1260, (1970) which will, when ultimately decided in the appeal process, largely determine whether Arkansas will remain a state rich in the beauties of natural stream conservation as seen through the preservation of the Cossatot River. The preservation of the Buffalo is a vital complement to the preservation of the Cossatot. With both, Arkansas can truly remain a "Land of Opportunity." Today the Buffalo is a clear, free-flowing stream because neither industry nor great numbers of people have settled along its course. This natural state is threatened, however, by the growth of the surrounding urban areas and the attempts by the United States Corps of Engineers to dam the river. Legislation, consequently, has been introduced into both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives to place the Buffalo in the National River Systemthereby protecting it from further threats of destruction. The Buffalo River rises on a lonely summit named Buffalo Know-at some 2,578 feet-in the Ozark National Forest. Unpolluted and undeveloped, it looks today much as it did in the time of the Indians. It wanders down a wild, uninhabited valley crossing the national forest boundary. It is at this point that the 132 mile Buffalo National River would, as proposed, begin. For the last 50 miles of its course, the Buffalo is largely isolated from civilization and finally flows into the White River and has its waters pushed out of the Ozarks into the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers. Under the National River Plan, the Buffalo and its shoreland-together with a number of scenic and scientific features far back from the river, would be included in parkland totaling 95,730 acres. Presently, some 3,700 acres of this land are owned by the government. The remaining 92,000 acres in private ownership would be acquired by the National Park Service by gift or purchase. The National Park Service proposed a division of the Buffalo, assuming it is nationalized, into three zones: a Conservation Zone of 78,133 acres, a Private Use Zone of 9,407 acres and a Public Development Zone of 8,190 acres. The Conservation Zone would contain the significant national resources which make the Buffalo such a prize, with the development being primarily limited to trails and campsites. To preserve the natural scene, the government would acquire the title to the lands, yet allow most of the residents within this zone to live out their lives there. Almost all of the better farm land would be included in the Private Use Zone. The preservation of the pastoral beauty would be the primary object of this Zone. The Park Service would endeavor to prevent inappropriate development |