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,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washing-
ton, D.C.

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 every way? 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,

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

ARVEL L. CASEY.

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. 8283 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

by acquiring all necessary rights of way. Single family crop and livestock farming as well as timber harvesting would be regarded as compatible land uses. All visitor and administrative facilities would be contained in the Public Development Zone. Here again, the government would acquire title to these lands but the owners would be allowed to remain in residence for quite some time until the land is needed for public access or development. The aim of the National Park System-to conserve the natural, historical and recreational heritage of the United States both for the benefit and enjoyment of this and future generations-would, then, be realized by incorporating the Buffalo River into its system.

George B. Hartzog, Jr., Director of the National Park Service, stated that the Buffalo National River was recommended as a separate unit of the National Park System rather than a part of the Wild and Scenic River System. His recommendation was based chiefly on the fact that the Buffalo should include not only the river itself, but significant natural areas and areas for recreation development which are necessary to preserve and interpret this invaluable outdoor recreation resource. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, only 100 acres per mile could be acquired in fee, whereas the Protection of the Buffalo River and provisions for public enjoyment of its resources requires authority to acquire an average of 725 acres per mile. Quite simply, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provisions would not permit the degree of protection and public use that is believed necessary to preserve the Buffalo.

Prior to 1948, there was no comprehensive national program for water resource control. However, in 1950, the President's Water Resources Policy Commission was created in Washington, D.C., and it subsequently developed a comprehensive plan for the use and conservation of water in the United States. The Commission's report-coupled with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act-is the basic tool for the enactment of the social goals of water conservation. The Commission recognized the inevitable conflicts between recreation and other competiting resource uses. Therefore, certain basic principles of water resource development were posited:

1. Water and related land resources development should not be permitted to adversely affect any area which has been established by an appropriate public authority as having unique or irreplaceable scenic or historic values, unless the benefits to the Nation outweigh the loss of recreational values. 2. Developments in conflict with scenic or historic areas should be deferred as long as equally feasible alternative projects are at hand for the same use. 3. Determination of ultimate use should be on a basis of the highest beneficial use to the people of the United States as a whole. Also reflected in the Commission's establishment of national goals of water conservation is the need for careful co-ordination with local, state and regional recreation programs. It was in one of these co-operative efforts that the first comprehensive study of and recommendation for the Buffalo National River was made. The White River Basin Co-ordinating Committee determined the foreseeable short and long term water and related resource needs in the basin and formulated a development plan to provide the best use of these resources to meet these needs of the basin.

Induction of the Buffalo River into the National River System would fulfill every stated goal of water resource conservation. The areas has been classified as having unique or irreplaceable scenic and historic value the first step under the Water Resources Policy Commission's goals. This scenic value and significance of the River is not, however, due to any single attribute, but stems from the combination of favorable qualities found in the area.

On the historic side, the Buffalo River cannot boast of any single event of national significance happening on its waters. Yet, a large number of archeological sites do exist within the proposed national river. A study of these sites could provide the story of nine thousand years of Indian occupation from Archaic to late prehistoric times.

The proposed Buffalo National River would serve another social policy-that of a poetic interpretation of the environment. The headwaters of the Buffalo lie within the Ozark National Forest; the remaining river miles could be preserved and administered as an entity. Studied as a complete ecological unit, the Buffalo would serve as a source of knowledge needed to understand the delicate interactions between water, land and man..

Finally, the Buffalo River as a national river would benefit the great spoiler himself—man. The economy of the area would be stimulated by the development

of a new outdoor preserve and recreational playground. In recent years, the people living along the Buffalo have depended mainly upon decreasing returns from agriculture and forestry. There has been a 21% drop in the population of the five counties nearest the river. It has been estimated that, during the first five years as a national river, over thirty million dollars would be spent by the Park Service and private businessmen. Tourist spending would amount to an annual thirty-four million dollars (an estimated 1.7 million persons would visit the river) creating a spending and respending cycle that would add nearly seventeen million dollars to personal incomes in the area and generate three thousand, five hundred new employment opportunities. On a somewhat higher level, the state and the nation would be benefited. The society at large achieves and reaps benefits from the "preservation of a national ecological equilibrium." The Report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1962 provided the foundation for a comprehensive national outdoor recreation policy. In it was stated the guiding principle that the Federal Government should be responsible for the preservation of scenic areas, natural wonders, primitive areas, and historic sites of national significance. This 1962 Report was accepted and underscored by the Public Land Law Review Commission's Report of June 20, 1970, entitled ONE THIRD OF THE NATION'S LAND. Indeed, this Commission found that recreational use should be regulated to minimize conflicts with the natural conditions and with other uses of public land. Congress-the Commission held-should provide guidelines for developing and managing the public land resources for outdoor recreation.

The preservation of the Buffalo River as a National River would be in line with all the stated goals of these two Commission Reports.

The four national pieces of legislation thus far introduced to "save the Buffalo" (S. 885, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. 1969; S. 7, 92nd Cong. 1st Sess. 1971; H.R. 10246, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. 1969; H.R. 8382, 92nd Cong. 1st Sess. 1971), would satisfy all of the goals set by the Water Resource Conservation Commission as well as those of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and the Public Land Law Review Commission.

Generally, these bills call for the acquisition of-as previously noted-one hundred and thirty two miles of rivers and 95,730 acres of land. The needed acquisition period of twenty-five years, is extended by 10 years in H.R. 8382 giving an ultimate 35 year time period. Few people would, consequently, be displaced. Section Four in the Senate Bill (S. 7) and a corresponding Section Five in the House Bill (H.R. 8382)-specifically provides that "the Federal Power Commission shall not license the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or project works . . . on or directly affecting the Buffalo." Any water resources project having a direct and adverse effect on the values for which the river was established and determined as such by the Secretary of the Interior will not be allowed. The licensing of or assistance to developments below or above the Buffalo or any of its streams or tributaries will be allowed only if they do not invade the area of "unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values present in the area."

The House Bill (H.R. 8382) sponsored and introduced by Congressman John Hammerschmidt-a tireless advocate of the conservation of natural resources, has a strong provision for tax relief which conspicuously is absent in the present Senate Bill (S. 7). Section Fourth of the Hammerschmidt Bill states that the Secretary of the Interior, consistent with the intent of the Bill to alleviate the immediate real estate tax losses imposed on the counties as a result of any acquisition of property within the Buffalo National River by the Federal government-shall move as quickly as possible to make payments to the county where the property lies. These payments are to be made for five years and are to be an amount equal to the taxes last assessed and levied on the property prior to acquisition by the United States. This provision is an equitable approach to resolving a situation that could well affect, in an adverse manner, the fiscal policies of county governmental units who are notoriously rated as poor managers.

The Hammerschmidt Bill authorizes $16,115,000.00 for the acquisition of land and an amount not to exceed $12,102,000.00 for the development of the area, while the Senate Bill authorizes $9,200,000.00 for land acquisition and sets a limit of $8,224,400.00 for area development needs. Again, the House Bill appears to be based on a more equitable principle of just compensation than is the Senate Bill.