Page images
PDF
EPUB

It is as a canoeist I speak today.

Many times in the past decade, canoeists have been unjustly accused of something called selfishness when they have worked to preserve wild and scenic rivers. Stated or implied is the idea that canoeists seek only to perpetuate their own exclusive favorite pastime. Nothing could be much farther from the truth. Shortly after the Buffalo and I had had our formal introduction, the river was threatened by not one but two Army Engineers dams. Naturally, I and many others took exception to dams that would have ruined the Buffalo as a river. Before the dam proposals were thrashed out and ultimately defeated, the Buffalo became well known to thousands and perhaps millions of people who never had heard of it before. Ergo, the river simply cannot be left alone as it was before.

Defeating dams is a great victory, but then what? National river status under the administration of the National Park Service would keep the river wild and free, yet accessible to the whole nation.

I am not an innate alarmist, nor does it require any great brain to perceive that if strong and determined measures aren't taken soon, natural rivers in Arkansas will be classified with the Dodo. Like all gone. An encyclopediac definition rather than a physical fact.

Within just a very few years, the Buffalo National River/ Park can become a fine outdoor laboratory for educational and research projects because there won't be anything like it in the whole state. I am willing to share a unique waterbourne experience with the whole country, provided that others adhere to at least the same standards I observe in litter-free, no-damage, zero-impact travel on the Buffalo and all other Ozark streams.

If this is "selfishness," I stand guilty as charged.

As Kenneth L. Smith noted in his book "The Buffalo River Country," the Buffalo is a "people river." Quite so. People can wreck it-or they can save it. The latter is your great opportunity.

National Park status would halt several accelerating and environmentally destructive practices before they could damage the river and its watershed beyond recovery, but such action must come soon.

So enamoured am I of the Buffalo River Country that I own 40 acres of "nothing" beyond the proposed park boundaries where even God can't find it without a county map. It is my do-it-yourself Nature Conservancy. If I am able to retire to Newton county, I will do so with minimal environmental impact. While I hold title to this small tract, there will be few "improvements" made upon it.

Everyone must come to the realization that as a natural river, the Buffalo is dependent upon spring and autumn rainfall, and that the entire river is not navigable the year around. SOME Part of it always is, however. When the water is over the low-water bridge at Ponce, it is too high for novice canoeists. Inversely, when the first riffle below that bridge is too shallow for a canoe, a downstream part of the river is runnable. People thus must adjust to Nature without too much complaint. The fact that some part of the river is canoeable nearly the year around is a plus factor in National Park status.

The Buffalo river is from 6 to 7 hours driving time from home for me, but just a few hours on the river are worth the long trip there. I wouldn't drive 10 minutes to put my canoe on a lake.

National Park Service administration precludes dams, which is one measure of perpetuity of the river itself. National Park Service philosophy and practices have come around in recent years to the concept of quality as well as quantity. Thus a river can be "saved" and "used" without beating it to death. This is what I desire as a "selfish" canoeist. The price of not losing a river to dams is alternatives that might not meet with everyone's approval. But as long as the river continues to flow and genuine landowners along it are treated fairly in National Park acquisition, I ask nothing more. Sincerely,

Miss NANCY C. JACK.

CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL,
Kansas City, Mo., October 22, 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. TAYLOR: The Citizens Environmental Council of Greater Kansas City is on record as favoring a Buffalo National River in Arkansas.

Some of our members are acquainted with the Buffalo River first-hand, but the entire organization is dedicated to the principle of halting environmental degradation both at home and afield.

The Citizens Environmental Council is convinced that the best-and only— way to retain the Buffalo as a free-flowing "wild and scenic" river is that called for in S. 7 and HR 8382 which would establish the Buffalo as a National River under the administration of the National Park Service.

Therefore, we urge that this subcommittee take all steps necessary toward the adoption of HR 8382 and see it through until it becomes law-hopefully in the very near future.

It is uncertain at this time whether the Citizens Environmental Council will be represented at the October 28-29 hearings on HR 8382. Please consider this a request to be heard if we have someone present, and/or admit this statement to the hearing record. Thank you.

Sincerely,

MERLE W. ZIRKLE, President.

Mr. TAYLOR. Let me make one more comment with regard to the problem of crime.

I think part of our social problems, including the problem of crime, are caused by crowding people on top of people in the urban centers and in the cities. They are caused by what has sometimes been called social pollution.

I think that as we create parks, and as we create open spaces, and as we create more opportunity for people to get out of cities and appreciate the beauties of nature, that we are helping solve these social problems. Perhaps we are helping solve the crime problem even though I realize that sometimes having great crowds of people in close proximity can be dangerous.

The next witness Col. Jack F. Diggs, U.S. Army retired.

STATEMENT OF COL. JACK F. DIGGS, SIERRA CLUB, STATE OF

ARKANSAS

Colonel DIGGS. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, my name is Jack Diggs, I am a native and resident of Fayetteville, Ark. I represent the Arkansas members of the Sierra Club, an organization dedicated to the conservation of the natural environment. We support legislation such as is embodied in Senate bill 7 (Senators Fulbright and McClellan) and House of Representatives bill 8382 (Congressman Hammerschmidt) which would provide for the establishment of the Buffalo National River in the State of Arkansas.

Arkansas is a State still well supplied with the basic natural resources of flora and fauna, soil and water. Most of the population dwell in rural areas and in small cities and towns. Because of this fact, Arkansas has not yet encountered the problems of environmental pollution and urban congestion to the severe degree that is being experienced by some sections of the Nation. However, the terrain of the State is being substantially altered by the economic endeavors of mankind. Most of the major streams have been dammed. The leveling of over 2 million acres of land for agricultural production is proceeding rapidly. Hardwood forests are being cut faster than the natural rate of growth. Small watershed projects, the dredging of streams, and similar activities are affecting the topography of the State.

Most Arkansans are in favor of economic progress, but it has become apparent to many that stronger action must be taken to protect the environment. The Buffalo River, because of its unspoiled beauty and the high quality of its natural values, deserves protection. The benefits of national river status for the Buffalo will extend beyond the

boundaries of the State to the citizens of adjacent States, and we believe that the project will also be of great assistance to the economic well-being of residents of the area.

A number of studies have been made of the existing economic and sociologic status of the five counties in which land or easements would be acquired for the proposed national river. Of the 95,000 acres to be included within the protected zone over two-thirds of the river frontage lie in only two counties-Newton and Searcy Counties, and a brief consideration of a few statistics about these two counties will give a reasonably accurate impression of conditions existing all along the river.

Preliminary 1970 population estimates showed Newton County to have about 5,800 inhabitants, a decline of 2 percent since 1960, when the county had only seven inhabitants per square mile. Searcy County in 1970 had about 7,700 people, a decline of 4.8 percent from 1960, when it had only 12 inhabitants per square mile. It is clear that no great number of persons would be displaced by the establishment of a national river.

As might be expected. the income of residents in the area is relatively low. In 1969 the average annual per capita income for the State of Arkansas was estimated at $2,642, considerably below the national average. The Newton County per capita income was estimated at only $1,294, while the Searcy County figure was only $1,550-each far below the State average. This disparity is also reflected in the figures for public welfare assistance. In 1971 the public welfare rolls list about 6.6 percent of the Arkansas population. In Newton County 12.2 percent are on welfare rolls while in Searcy County 9.2 percent draw welfare.

It is obvious that the economy has not been highly developed in the rugged terrain continguous ot the Buffalo River because tangible resources are not there. The value of agricultural production is relatively low, and much of the timberland area is seconr-growth hardwood which is not producing enough timber to sustain a long-range industry. Light manufacturing activity has made some progress elsewhere in the counties concerned but it seems insufficient to generate sustained economic growth.

The region does, however, have an excellent natural resource: the Ozark Mountains with their handsome rural scenery; fine climate, and natural attractions for tourists. The wise conservation and development of this scenic resource-including such features as the Buffalo River-will provide a more prosperous economy for the Ozarks

area.

There are no national parks of large size in the central part of the Nation. The Ozark-Ouachita mountainous uplift will be needed by the growing populations of the cities and towns of the Midwest and upper South for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment and study of semiwild areas. The preservation of the few remaining free-flowing streams in the region-among which the Buffalo River is exceptionalappears to be a feasible means of providing these areas for the needs of our people before it is too late.

The Buffalo River, endowed with clear, free-flowing water, many miles of handsome bluffs, and a forested and secluded atmosphere, is unusual. A visit to the river is distinctly different from a visit to the artificial environment of a man-made reservoir. The Buffalo River

72-466-72-8

deserves protection so that future generations may enjoy and appreciate what a beautiful thing a natural river is.

To summarize: the establishment of the Buffalo National River will provide a national park of high quality at relatively modest cost; serve an area of the Nation where more national parks will be needed in the future; displace relatively few persons, or significant economic interests; provide a substantial addition to the economy of an area where additional support is needed; most importantly, preserve for future generations a handsome and unique natural scenic resource of a type which has almost been obliterated from this Nation.

The Sierra Club members of Arkansas urge your early favorable action on legislation to protect the Buffalo River. We thank you for the privilege of appearing here today.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much.

Very well written statement.

Gentlemen from California.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask one or two questions.

The county seat of Newton County will not be affected, right? That is within the boundaries of the Buffalo National River?

Mr. DIGGS. We have not made a study of the particular impact upon Newton County, either from the standpoint of economics in the sense of terrain, or anything of that sort

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, do you know the boundaries that are proposed to be taken? I am trying to find out if the county seat will be affected by the bill as far as property is concerned?

Mr. DIGGS. Sir, as I understand the bill or the intent as expressed by Mr. Hartzog, the National Park Service will wherever possible use scenic easements, and I would think-I am speaking now without particular knowledge, I would think that the extent to which any of the urban areas in Newton County would be affected would be dependent upon what the National Park Service does about it.

Mr. JOHNSON. It was our observation while we were there that there was very little development along the river and I was just trying to establish whether there was any community as such, that would be disturbed, or was there any large industrial complex. I did not see any myself, and we can ask that of another person who is familiar with the area.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you Mr. Diggs.

Mr. James Gaston, Arkansas Travel Council.

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. GASTON, ARKANSAS TRAVEL COUNCIL

Mr. GASTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have my written statement submitted in the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. It will be placed in the record at this point. (The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. GASTON, LAKEVIEW, ARK., REPRESENTING THE VIEWS OF: OZARK PLAYGROUNDS ASSOCIATION, ARKANSAS TRAVEL COUNCIL, AND MOUNTAIN HOME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank you and the other members of the committee for allowing me this time to appear in behalf of H.R. 8382. I am Jim Gaston, a resident of Baxter County, which the Buffalo River flows through. I am here today representing the Arkansas Travel Council, Ozark Playgrounds Association, and the Mountain Home Chamber of Commerce, Mountain Home, Arkansas. The total membership of these three groups is over 1,500.

I feel that we are here today to discuss how the Buffalo River will be developed. We have reached a point in time where the Buffalo River will be developed in some manner. If we do not set aside this land for the use of future generations now, then all will be lost. If the land developers do not cut Buffalo River valleys into lots, then it's only a matter of time before a dam will be built. Thus, either way, the Buffalo River will be lost forever.

We of the travel industry are aware of all sides and views of how the different groups plan to develop the Buffalo River. But. we are very concerned that proper development will not take place. We are equally concerned for the people of Arkansas, and what is the best for their future. We are concerned as to what will produce the best jobs, most taxes for both the State of Arkansas and for the federal government, and what development will leave the Buffalo River and it's area in a natural state.

For these reasons, the three groups that I represent, all feel that the National Park System has the best plan. We feel that this plan will produce the most taxes for the least development cost to the United States government. We also feel that if the land developers, or a dam project fails to produce their promises, we of the Buffalo River area would be left with a vast economic waste land. We feel that one can always build and develop a land development or dam site, but it is rare to have the opportunity to save a wilderness area such as the Buffalo River.

We must look many years into the future, and must have the foresight to preserve the greatest natural asset of the Ozark region. The same foresight that you and the members of the Senate had years ago. At that time, you gave the Ozarks the large lakes and dam sites to build a travel industry around, which is now our states third largest industry.

Today we need another tool to help continue to bring visitors into the Ozarks. Today we need diversification from what now is commonplace lakes and dam sites. These are no longer the drawing cards that they once were. In the past few years, the lakes and dam sites have gained only 40% in visitation, and some sites in the past 10 years have lost 20% of their visitation ... however, in the same period of time, the Buffalo River State Park has gained over 300% in visitation. This should only prove what we can expect from the Buffalo National River.

We must select a plan that will develop, stimulate, and promote an economic growth and proper development for the Buffalo River and it's area today.

During the early sixty's the per capita income of the nation was $2,300 while the per capita income of the Ozarks was only $1,400, which was a loss of over $2.2 billion dollars per year to the nation. In 1969, this income gap has grown to $3.1 billion dollars per year, which is a loss of over $850,000,000 dollars per year in federal taxes. I am not stating that the Buffalo National River will itself correct the complete problem, however, it will make a significant change.

With over 61⁄2 million people visiting the Ozark region near the Buffalo River, one easily foresees the potential in the National River plan. The average visitor to the State of Arkansas will spend approximately $17.00 per person, per day, thus, the income brought into the Buffalo River area would be great.

Twenty-four visitors per day per year, is equal to the economic impact of a $100,000.00 annual payroll. Thus, for each 8,500 visitors to the proposed park, would give this area the equal to a $1000,000.00 payroll. The attendance at Buffalo River State Park in 1966 was over 700,000 persons, while at the Bull Shoals State Park adjacent to Bull Shoals, Dam, it was only 426,000 persons. Thus, the National River would have a much greater impact on the area than say another dam such as Bull Shoals.

The Buffalo River is within an easy day's drive of over 25,000,000 people. Tie this in with the tremendous increase in the demand for outdoor recreation, the shorter work weeks, and the increase in the per capita income of the major cities, one can easily see that the demand for this project is now present.

If the National River is established and developed as planned, we of the travel industry estimated that private investors would spend over $5,000,000 within the first five years in development of areas adjacent to the National River lands. Add this to the monies spent by visitors, the park should bring in 35,000,000, to 40,000,000 dollars per year. The over all effect of this should include the addition of $16,800,000 dollars in personal income, and create 3,500 new jobs. Plus, the taxes brought in because of the National River, would be over 23% more than without such an attraction, within the first few years.

Not only would the proposed National River bring in new money and jobs to the area, but since it would be in the very heart of the entire Ozark mountain

« PreviousContinue »