Mr. TAYLOR. Are there any other questions? The gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Were you here yesterday when Mr. Yarborough's presentation was made?

Mr. JONES. I sure was.

Mr. SEBELIUS. The thing that worries me is the fact he proposes something on his map that provides for cottages and a motel and highrise apartments along the Buffalo River.

Mr. JONES. I believe he owns land on the map that he proposes to do that on. I think that will be a ways from the river. He built an inroad up there.

Mr. SEBELIUS. His map shows the Buffalo River winding down through the golf course and with apartments.

Mr. JONES. He could do that very well. He has land on both sides. But he has built a new road overlooking the Buffalo River. He didn't tell me, but someone said that he did plan to develop that way.

Mr. SEBELIUS. This is the sort of thing I feel so many of the people who are interested in the river don't want to happen.

Mr. JONES. There are very few places in our country where that could happen. He has one of the few places. I have one at Pruitt and there are three other people at Pruitt that have land that could be developed. There is a crossing at Irving that people could move in. But other than that, those bluffs and the country are pretty rugged. The cost of landscaping or developing that, I feel, would still prohibit anyone, unless it was a millionaire, from coming in there and doing those things.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Is there any bulldozing of trees along the Buffalo River in your area to make pastureland?

Mr. JONES. Not at this time.

Mr. SEBELIUS. I am very much concerned about the rights of property owners, but by the same token the general public, of course, is concerned about things like this developing which would ruin the true nature of this river.

Mr. JONES. Let me put it this way: All the practicable, usable land in the Pruitt area has already been developed. It's already in use at this time. The rest of the land that is there would cost so much per acre to put in any improvement pasture that it wouldn't be practical at all. Of the people who live there, most of them don't want to destroy the trees or anything else. I have virgin timber on this little no'nt ! have that I could have sold several times to commercial timber dealers. It's pine. But even the National Forest Service say they wouldn't sell it at any price, which I haven't done and I don't intend to. And I don't intend to remove it.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Jones, do you have an estimate of how many landowners in the proposed park area feel as you do about the proposed bill?

Mr. JONES. All of them. Every one of them. There isn't one landowner in the whole area who doesn't feel that way. I visited with all our county. I can't say for sure for Searcy County. We have a greater population in Searcy or even Baxter County.

Mr. BURLISON. You are just speaking for Newton County?
Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. BURLISON. What is your estimate of how many landowners you have in Newton County?

Mr. JONES. I don't know for sure. We did have the figure in the Senate hearing bill. At that time we gave the exact number of the landowners. But we are just a small village at Pruitt. We have 75 people who live at Pruitt, who will all be affected by this park development.

Then I would say that I believe it was 100 and some in our county who would be affected landowners. It is something over 100.

Mr. BURLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. You say in your statement that you visited Mr. Aspinall's home State: "I see that the beauty of that State is being preserved without Government controls and I wonder why the same cannot be done on the Buffalo River." I might point out that, of course, Colorado is one of our beautiful States. There we have the Rocky Mountain National Park and, in fact, we have around a half dozen areas operated by the National Park Service. We have several national forests. Members of this committee were out in that State about a month ago. In fact we got caught in a big snowstorm on September 18 when we were out there studying the creation of another national park in Colorado.

Mr. JONES. What I spoke of and made mention of more was that when you leave your national parks out there and you enter into the private land, that is private ownership, their land is well taken care of in the new city of Vale. I was in snow there about 2 weeks ago and I was also there this summer. I noticed that overall private ownership land looks very well and those people are developing it. I guess it's of tremendous value to the State. It doesn't cost the Federal Government anything for their development. I would feel that we can do the same thing, because we already have the Richland River, the Piney River. The Piney River is every bit as much as the Buffalo River. There are probably less than half a dozen landowners left on it. They are in the national park there 15 miles from our home.

That is one reason we feel so strongly about this bill. There is just a little section of the north part of the county that has this good farmland and I would say the land was worth more dollarwise than the land further back and further south. I feel that we can develop it to the point where it would be satisfactory to the county and to the visitor. I think the people who come in there come by their own admission.

We have kept the water clear. The Corps of Engineers tested the water and the park people have tested it. We haven't polluted it. I can't see why we can't be allowed to remain there. We would work in peace and harmony with any group that wanted to keep the beauty of the land.

Mr. TAYLOR. I agree with you. The river is unpolluted. It's very beautiful. The people are to be commended for keeping it in its natural state, as they have.

I might add, in regard to comparing it with Colorado, that the Federal Government owns about half the land in that State.

Mr. JONES. They own about half in Newton County, too.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much.
Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Robert Burdine.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BURDINE FROM JASPER, NEWTON COUNTY, ARK.

Mr. BURDINE. Honorable Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Robert Burdine, from Jasper, Newton County, Ark. I am here today not only on my own behalf but as a representative of the Newton County Chamber of Commerce and the Newton County Farm Bureau. I am a member of the two organizations and both organizations have in the past, and do now, oppose the passage of a bill creating a Buffalo River National Park. I might add also that our county vote, which was put in the record yesterday, was 90 percent opposed to this bill. I appreciate this opportunity to express the reasons behind the stand of these two organizations.

Since the park proposal was first introduced some years ago, we have been convinced that the passage of a national park bill would create problems for the Buffalo River area that neither the Federal Government nor the local residents are prepared to cope with and that it would finally destroy the beauty that both conservationist groups and Newton countians would like to see preserved.

I would like to call your attention to an article in the September 3 issue of Life magazine written by former park ranger, Edward Abbey, in which Mr. Abbey points out that Yosemite Valley, a very small area 7 miles in length by 1 mile in width, had a record of 765 arrests in 1970 with 2,170 persons charged with various offenses ranging from manslaughter to begging and hitchhiking. More than two-thirds of the arrests involved juveniles. Yosemite employs seven permanent rangers plus 30 to 35 seasonals. We are concerned because a similar crime rise in Newton County would be almost impossible to handle. As has been pointed out, we are a small county, low in per capita income, and we have only the local sheriff for law enforcement of this county. We do not now have a large enough law-enforcement staff in the county and we do not have the money to employ additional deputies. We fail to see where our county revenues might supply this money, either, so we feel totally at sea at the idea that there might be an even greater problem just around the corner.

The chamber of commerce has been actively fighting our relatively small pollution problems for some time. As has been pointed out, our river is pollution free. The chamber of commerce antipollution committee has sparked educational programs in the schools, pickup drivers by youth groups and establishment of community dump areas and sanitary landfills. We are in hopes that action now will curb our problems before they become too serious, but here again, the extreme problem the Nation's parks are facing scares us and we just don't see where we will get the facilities to handle solid waste and water pollution in the areas around the national park.

Of course, as a chamber of commerce, we are deeply concerned over any action that we see as a threat to private enterprise and this is definitely what the park proposal appears to be. We cannot sit back and say nothing when a proposal threatens to strangle our tourist-oriented

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 vou, 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.