highest from the southern Appalachians to the Rockies. The other is Beauty Cave, with gypsum formations of outstanding size and variety, and containing one or more types not known to exist elsewhere. Numerous archeological sites also are found within the proposed national river boundaries. They tell a story of American Indian occupation over a span of some 9,000 years before the settlers arrived. The proposed national river bounds would include virtually the entire river-132 river miles, and land adjacent totaling 95,730 acres. The river traverses four counties, rising in Ozark National Forest lands in Newton County, and cutting through Searcy, Marion, and Baxter Counties before flowing into the larger White River. The land which would have to be acquired is identified as to ownership as follows: Federal Government-950 acres. State of Arkansas 2,960 acres, including Buffalo River State Park and Lost Valley State Park. The balance of the land, some 92,000 acres, is privately owned. The land is not densely populated-approximately one occupied dwelling per square mile. Many of the occupants are lifelong residents of the valley. Most have no wish to leave their homes, their small farms, whatever the reason. I am concerned that the people living along the river receive the best possible terms on their land. In my judgment, such assurances are contained in H.R. 8382 which provides for land acquisition at minimum hardship and inconvenience to residents. Land or rights would be acquired in three different "zones" of the river. In the private use zone, about 10 percent of the river acreage, land, and dwellings would be subject to scenic easements only. In the preservation zone most fee simple purchase procedures would assure up to life tenancy to the occupants, at their option. Only in the public development zones would the Park Service need full public ownership to provide room for development of public recreation facilities and administrative sites. Some owners would have to vacate their properties at an early date, but not all. To restate: the owners of "improved residential property" acquired for the national river, which can be continued in such use without undue interference with the administration of the national river, may retain a right of use and occupancy for a term, ending either upon the death of the owner or his spouse, whichever occurs later, or not more than 35 years from the date of acquisition, subject to terms and conditions the Secretary of Interior deems appropriate to assure use of the property in accordance with the purposes of the national river. My bill provides that January 1, 1971, be the date limiting the retained rights of owners as to property improvements for which they may be reimbursed. This seems logical since the House committee is formally considering the bill for the first time in this session of the 92d Congress. While earlier dates may be proposed, property improvements ought not to be held in suspense while the bills are pending. It would be unrealistic to expect no growth in this unique area. The mere introduction of a bill, in the absence of meaningful hearings by both bodies of the Congress, in my view would not constitute due notice to the landowners involved. The bill specifies that lands owned by the State of Arkansas or its political subdivisions may be acquired only by donation. The director of the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, William E. Henderson, has written me that the Arkansas State Parks, Recreation and Travel Commission has taken action to convey the lands in Buffalo River State Park and Lost Valley State Park to the National Park Service in the event the Congress approves and funds the Buffalo National River. It is my understanding that Mr. Henderson will be testifying and available to respond to any questions the committee might have on this point. The estimated cost for land acquisition is $16,115,000. Development cost, based on April 1971 indices, should be approximately $12,102,000. If the Park Service were to recommend an amendment of the bill to take into account rising costs to relate the development cost ceiling to construction cost indices-I would have no objections. The city of Marshall in Searcy County has particular interest in access to Buffalo River water. It has pending an approved EDA grant to develop a new water system with the Buffalo to be the source of supply. In my opinion it would not be fair to limit or endanger Marshall plans to use the Buffalo as this source. If there should be extra costs due to Federal requirements-camouflaging for esthetic purposes, for example-added costs above present norms should be borne by the Federal Government. H.R. 8382 also provides for some tax assistance to the four counties which would lose the land from the tax rolls. The economies of these countries are not strong. In terms of the per capita income in 1969, Newton County was $1,144; Searcy County, $1,562; Marion County, $1,312; and Baxter County, $2,123. The removal of land from State and local tax rolls due to Federal Government purchase would mean a revenue loss of $10,517 to Newton-43,610 acres; $6,628 to Searcy-24,530 acres; $4,163 to Marion26,000 acres; and $1,632 to Baxter-1,590 acres. Total: $21,570. Since these countries are in such dire need of funds, I seek 5 years Federal payments in lieu of taxes to ease the transition. During this time, the national river could begin to bring new economic strength to the region. Many organizations, public and private, and many institutions of government, have endorsed the proposal to establish the Buffalo National River. I would like to call attention to one which I consider especially meaningful-the report and recommendation of the White River Basin Coordinating Committee. This group is made up of skilled and experienced career public servants, representatives from six Federal departments and agencies-Agriculture, Army, Commerce, HEW, Interior, and Federal Power Commission-and the States of Arkansas and Missouri. The committee reported— Of the many tributary streams supplying the Upper White River, the Buffalo River is probably the most impressive and deserving of special recognition. The National Park Service has proposed a plan for the preservation and development of the Buffalo as a National River. This project should be carried out as part of the recreation plan for the White River Basin. The Commission carefully considered the multipurpose development alternatives, including flood control, irrigation, power production, protection of fish and wildlife, enhancement of recreation potential. It compared them with values to be realized by retaining the river in its free-flowing condition-and recommended the national river. I consider the benefits to the people of the Buffalo River country, to the State of Arkansas, and to the entire Nation, if this legislation is approved, to be in the best tradition of American conservation and resource development-the preservation of a unique and irreplaceable resource bringing perpetual economic and cultural benefits. It is my hope that as a result of this hearing the committee will report favorably on H.R. 8382. And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues in the House from Arkansas for supporting this. I think two plan to testify this morning, and of course, I thank Mr. Alexander, certainly, for the cosponsorship of the bill, after he had made the trip in my stead with the distinguished chairman, Mr. Taylor. And our distinguished colleague, Mr. Wilbur Mills, has specifically requested me to officially advise the committee that he fully supports this legislation and concurs in my statement and the legislative approach of H.R. 8382. He really wanted to be here to testify in person, but we all know the tremendous demands on Mr. Mills and his committee activities. He sends his regrets that he couldn't be here. I thank you, Chairman Taylor. Mr. TAYLOR. I commend the gentleman on a very constructive and well prepared statement. Let me say to my colleagues, we have 42 witnesses on the list. We will have very little chance for hearing this afternoon, and I hope we can move to dispatch and direct most of our factual questions to departmental witnesses who would be in a better position to answer them. We will also use the 5-minute rule on questions for any one member. I have one question for the gentleman. Ordinarily, the committee has not been approving payments in lieu of tax losses on the theory that growth in tourism will more than offset the tax loss. You have given figures, now, as to the tax loss. Do you have figures showing the tax base, so that we can determine the percent of loss? Now, you need not give them to us now. You may submit them for the record. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. I will supply them for the record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. Fine. (The information for the record follows:) TAX REVENUE AND ASSESSED VALUATION, 1970 1 The millage rate in Searcy County varies due to the difference in school district tax levys. Therefore, an estimated average rate was made after studying the school levys. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado? Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, of course, as far as I know, we usually ask the county officials to state their position concerning tax losses. How is the State land to be acquired? Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Henderson will be here to speak to that question. I know they have taken action to convey that land. Mr. ASPINALL. I wish to commend my colleague for the very effective manner in which he conducted himself in the last two Congresses relative to this legislation. We were asked not to have hearings until the people locally were in a position to state their views on this. Mr. SAYLOR. I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate you for the presentation you've made this morning. I would like to say that for the record that both you and Mr. Mills have talked to me innumerable times with regard to this piece of legislation. I commend you for your statement, and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Mills has asked you to appear on his behalf. I think that the backing of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee gives it a little impetus that might not otherwise come, so I am delighted to know that you're in a position to speak officially for him. Mr. TAYLOR, I'd like to state that Mr. Mills, Congressman Alexander, and Congressman Hammerschmidt have all contacted me and shown great interest in this legislation. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Might I also thank Mr. Saylor for his continuing interest and his unofficial trip. He's been down to look at the Buffalo country at my request; I appreciate that very much. Mr. TAYLOR. Anyone else? Mr. JOHNSON. I want to commend our colleague, Mr. Hammerschmidt, for a very fine statement on behalf of the project we have under consideration. I had the opportunity to spend 2 days in Arkansas, where you trusted the leadership of Mr. Alexander to show us the area. After visiting the area and talking with the various people who were along, we got a very good understanding of the project. I think that the area we looked at, as far as the river was concernedthe remoteness of the area is pretty well described in your statement. I think you point out just about everything that we had an opportunity to look at. And I want to thank all of the people of Arknasas who made our trip so pleasant because they kept us on the move, they fed us well, and we got back safely. I think this is a very good project here, and my colleague, Mr. Mills, has talked to me about this and I think the com mittee will work it out. Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I will reserve them for the Department representative, but I want to thank the chairman for scheduling this meeting because now, perhaps, I can get the gentleman from Arkansas off my back. I must say that he's certainly a gentleman. He has been insistent, but not obnoxious, and I want to say to the gentleman from Arkansas that my administrative assistant has been on the river many times I have not-and insists that it is indeed one of the most beautiful rivers in the country, and that steps to preserve that beauty should be taken. So I suppose I'll have to study this project very carefully. Perhaps I'll make a trip down the river. I'm sorry I couldn't join the committee recently. Mr. KYL. I just want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for getting me interested in this area and causing me to go there a couple of times recently, including this fall, and to say, too, for the record that there are so many values here, each of which would merit consideration for preservation. Mr. Hammerschmidt knows the two things that have intrigued me the most were the paleontology and geology of the area, but it is beautiful enough just for a casual visit, and I thank him for developing the interest. Mr. SKUBITZ. May I add, Mr. Hammerschmidt, that I asked my administrative assistant if the Buffalo compared in any way with the Current River. His judgment is that the Current River is not in the same league with this river. Mr. MCCLURE. I want to join with my colleagues in commending the gentleman for his interest and the great care that he's taken in this proposed legislation to try to balance the legitimate interest of the individuals who are involved in property ownership along there as well as the very real problems that are presented the local government. It's a very difficult task, but I know from many conversations with you, John, that you have been very conscious of the individual problems, both to persons and to local governments that are involved in any sort of resource decision such as this. I'm certain that my interest in this river has been affected by your concern and your conversations, and I thank you both for that, for the proposed legislation and your appearance here this morning. Mr. RUPPE. I would like to join my other colleagues in congratulating you on the success and fruition of your efforts to make this a scenic river. Your hard work made a deep impression on us, and I'm sure that you're very pleased that this legislative initiative is now before this committee. One of the clauses in this legislation calls for payment in lieu of taxes for a period of 5 years. Do you consider this a rather important feature of the legislation as you have presented it? Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. I think it's very important to the local communities, and I'm sure the committee in their wisdom will weigh this as we furnish the information on tax base and the statements from the county tax people. I would appreciate the committee's full consideration of its impact on the local area. Mr. RUPPE. I'm very happy that you have this in the legislation because I think the Federal Government has limited resources available for development facilities for natural rivers, lakeshores or seashores or other things of this nature. I would like to point out for the benefit of your constituents here, that a national lakeshore was established in my own district in 1966 with the promise, of course, that there would be wide development and an input of Federal dollars immediately. Five and a half years later, absolutely nothing has been done. |