the Koen Experimental Forest, which is part of the Ozark National Forest here.

Mr. Chairman, I might explain on this map that this area right here is an area which was referred to by Congressman Hammerschmidt as that area within which we could permit continued private ownership of the lands if we had scenic easements or other restrictions which would protect the esthetics in this area.

Those areas which have been shaded pink are the areas which would be development sites or public use areas within which we would have to acquire lands rather hurriedly, at least to keep ahead of our construction schedule, and this is the final map, Mr. Chairman, again showing the Boxley area where we would continue the land essentially in private ownership, and the Lost Valley State Park.

There's one other area, which is the Boy Scout Camp, and there our belief is that we should permit most or some of the acreage which the Boy Scouts have in that area, approximately 200 acres, to continue if they wish it, in their ownership with restrictions or with agreements, because we believe that their use is quite compatible with this

area.

Mr. BURLISON. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. McCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have a few questions that deal with this particular project, and also with the entire program generally.

I think you indicated or Mr. Griswold indicated that there are 17 additional residences in gross numbers, since the original cutoff date in 1967.

Do you have any indication of whether or not there have been modifications to or investments in the other 120 and some odd residences that would increase their costs during that 4-year period?

Mr. REED. I'm sure there have been some investments in those buildings which we would have to take into consideration. Absolutely.

Mr. McCLURE. Do you feel that it's fair of us as a government to expect that property owners simply stop all plans of developing or modernization of their residences during a period of time when the Congress may be considering some legislation?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. McClure, we don't expect the landowners to give up developing or exercising opportunity because there is pending legislation. What the cutoff date does is give a statutory right to retain a use and occupancy for a period of time. It has no effect on whether we will compensate the owner for any improvements. There will be just compensation for all property rights acquired by the Federal Government from private landowners, and if an individual landowner wishes to improve his home, he is free to do so.

But our planning, our general conceptual planning was based on the idea that we would only have to take into consideration the developments which were there four and a half years ago.

Mr. McCLURE. Does the change by modernization-or not a change in use but increased use or a change in the individual structure change the rights of the Federal Government with respect to acquisition?

Mr. GRISWOLD. No, sir. This retained occupancy and use deals with residential properties. So, if a person changes a property from residential to commercial

7

Mr. McCLURE. I'm not addressing myself to that but whether or not he improved his residential property. Does this affect the rights of the Federal Government to acquire?

Mr. GRISWOLD. No, sir; not so long as that property on the cutoff date was his primary residence. If it was his residence then, he could double the size and he would still be protected and have the statutory right as described in the bill for retained right of use and occupancy.

Mr. MCCLURE. Does the proposed legislation on your development plan include any right to control the kind of development that a resident may be permitted, the use of building materials, the location of buildings, things of that nature?

Mr. GRISWOLD. The only way we could control this, sir, would be to acquire the property, and if we acquire and a person retains the right to use, we could tell him what he could do so far as adding improvements.

Mr. MCCLURE. But you have no right to acquire if it was a residence property before the cutoff date.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Oh, yes, sir. We would acquire, but the person could reserve a life tenure or a 25-year occupancy, and the house would be Federal Government property.

Mr. McCLURE. Would the right to acquire, and, therefore, the right to control during the period of use occupancy also extend to the changes that might have been made from the cutoff date up to the time of acquisition?

Mr. GRISWOLD. No, sir. The only right we have to control is a proprietorship, and until we actually acquire we have no control, so any improvements which have been made since January 1, 1967, to the acquisition date would be conditions within which we would have to operate. We would have no control over those.

Mr. MCCLURE. Just a couple of other lines of questioning before my time expires here.

How much backlog does the National Park Service now have in authorized acquisition but not yet acquired properties?

Mr. REED. We have $301.2 million backlog as of fiscal 1972, and we are spending $78 million this year.

Mr. MCCLURE. Now the $301.2 million is based on the appraisals that were used at the time of acquisition or has that figure been updated?

Mr. REED. I believe, sir, it's been updated in many instances, but in some instance it is the old price. We have noted this gap in the last 3 years because of the full funding of the land and water conservation fund. We have the gap narrowed and we're in very good order in the acquisition program.

Mr. McCLURE. What is the backlog on development?

Mr. REED. The story there, sir, is not quite as good. We have $1.8 billion in backlog.

Mr. MCCLURE. And what's the spending rate in development?

Mr. REED. It depends on what Congress authorizes, and you all know what we're allowed to spend.

Mr. McCLURE. What has it been, for the record?

Mr. REED. I would have to furnish you those figures for the last 3 or 4 years at a later date. I can't come up with them off the top of my

head and we haven't anyone in the room who can, either, but we will furnish that.

Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection, the answer to that question will be inserted at this point.

(The information follows:)

Mr. MCCLURE. Do you believe that pending authorization for acquisition along with pending authorizations for spending and appropriations for spending will be of an order that all property acquisitions can be made within 2 or 3 years?

Mr. REED. I would hate to pin it at 2 or 3 years because you're going to have title questions, you're going to have differences of opinion which will have to be settled in court.

We've had an outstanding success in the last few years within the 5-year period, sir. I can name many that have been done in the 5-year period and done promptly. You have title searches, you have the legal complications, and the need to set up a land office. This takes time, but I think we could make the 5-year period.

Mr. MCCLURE. But so far as the rate of authorization is concerned and the rate of appropriations and expenditures, it could be done easily within the 5-year period.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. We are in very good order. We're putting together priority lists now for the Office of Management and Budget which we think clearly reflects the really fine position we are in now, compared to 3 years ago or 4 years ago when we had outdistanced the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Of course, it hadn't been fully funded as well, and this year it's fully funded, and the park service is getting $78 million out of the Department, departmental budget, and that's a very healthy increase over the last 5 years.

Mr. MCCLURE. I just wanted to make two points, Mr. Secretary, which you have made and I think should be well understood, and that is the dramatic increase that has been going into the acquisition program, and the very significant results that have flowed from that increase.

I commend you I have supported that, as you know, and I think the American people should be aware of that change in administration within the last 2 years.

Mr. REED. Yes, It's the first time it's ever been fully funded, for one thing. Of course, the administration passed an extra $100 million a year on top of that so that we're really in wonderful shape.

Mr. McCLURE. But I think while we look at that it must be admitted that we must also look at the problems in the development, fund that we don't over-promise to people what we can or cannot accomplish in terms of development.

Mr. REED. I think there are some bold opportunities here following the mission 1966 program of development in the parks.

The hundredth anniversary of the park service gives us another opportunity, I think, which we shouldn't miss.

Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you very much.

Mrs. MINK. Mr. Secretary, with regard to the use and occupancy by the owners of noncommercial residential property, is the provision in the bill a right of use occupancy for 35 years or the lives of the owner and spouse, whichever is longer, or what exactly is that provision?

Mr. GRISWOLD. At the time of acquisition, Mrs. Mink, the owner makes a determination whether he wishes to reserve a life occupancy or a fixed term, and under the terms of the bill introduced by Mr. Hammerschmidt, that fixed term could not exceed 35 years. Under the terms of S. 7 as passed by the Senate and recommended by the Department, the fixed term could not exceed 25 years. But the owner chooses at the time the Secretary acquires the property, and this is an assignable right.

Mrs. MINK. That provision is not spelled out in the bill. Is that spelled out in the rules and regulations of the Department with respect to acquisitions? The language of the bill seems to indicate that it is one or the other.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That is correct. It is one or the other, Mrs. Mink. It's the life tenure or the fixed term.

Mrs. MINK. It doesn't say that that selection must be made at the time of acquisition, so, supposing the owner, dies with 10 years? Then you would have the question of whether the language of the bill would permit an additional 25 years to be extended so that the heirs and assigns of that property might enjoy at least that additional 25 years of use and occupancy.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The provision of the bill, Mrs. Mink, I have before me, H.R. 9119, page 3, line 13 says as the owner may elect, and then it says (A) the term ending with the death of the owner or his spouse, or (B) 35 years.

Now, this right if a term is selected, let's say a term of 20 years by the owner, and the owner dies at the end of 10 years. There is still an outstanding 10 year right which is a part of the estate and would go to the heirs of the owner.

Mrs. MINK. Only if the owner at the time of the acquisition by the Federal Government made that selection.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That's correct.

If the owner had chosen a life estate, then the life estate would terminate at that time, and the right of use and occupancy would be concluded. A reasonable period of time, of course, would be given for persons to get personal property removed, this sort of thing, but the right would terminate on the owner's death.

Mrs. MINK. How would you establish the value of the property then of these noncommercial residential sites?

Would it be the value at the time this bill was enacted?

Mr. GRISWOLD. It would be the value at the time of acquisition. As of the time of acquisition, if the owner decided to select a 10 year term a value would at that time also be placed on the 10 year term and this would be deducted from the agreed upon purchase price of the property, and the balance would be paid at that time to the owner.

Mrs. MINK. At the time of acquisition and not at the time of termination?

Mr. GRISWOLD. At the time of acquisition, and if it were a life term, then actuarial tables would be used to determine the value of that discount.

Mrs. MINK. Payment would be made at the time of acquisition and not at the termination of use and occupancy.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That is correct.

Mrs. MINK. The section of the bill which-section 3 of the bill which addresses itself to permissive hunting and fishing-is this usual language of bills?

Mr. REED. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. MINK. Relative to this kind of acquisition, that hunting and fishing is permitted except where necessary for public safety, and administration, and management?

Mr. REED. That is a normal procedure.
Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much.

Mr. TAYLOR. Gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. RUPPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You indicate, Mr. Reed, that there's about a $1.8 billion backlog of development work that is called upon to be initiated.

Mr. REED. That is correct, sir.

Mr. RUPPE. Now, in your proposed National River Expenditures Board of Allotment, you have in the 2 year, if you will, a figure for development approaching $3 million and $3.6 million in the 2 year of ownership.

Can I gather these are somewhat fictitious figures? Or are they figures that would be implemented if indeed you had an open ended appropriation from this Congress?

Mr. REED. I can't say that they are fictitious. They are honest efforts to tell you what we want in the way of development in this system. It depends entirely upon what is appropriated and what is released as to how much we're going to spend the next year of the next 5 years.

Mr. RUPPE. I think this is very good but you've recognized that with a $1.8 billion backlog, there's no way of appropriating that money in the 2 or 3 years and it's not going to happen.

Mr. REED. Some of the $1.8 billion of backlog, I think, perhaps under very close scrutiny. you would not wish to spend. As a manager in this day and age we have learned some things from Yellowstone and Yosemite and elsewhere which I think we would like to avoid in future parks, such as intense campground use problems with sewage, problems with drinking water, and washing facilities. We have seen some mistakes made and I think we would correct them.

I don't know how much of that $1.8 billion backlog we would not construct.

Mr. RUPPE. Fifty million, a hundred million?

Mr. REED. It's hard to say, but I think a constructive program will be forthcoming in the hundredth anniversary year, which will catch us up on this backlog.

Mr. RUPPE. Now, how much money is annually appropriated or has been annually appropriated in the last couple of years for development?

Mr. REED. That's the figure I'm going to present to the committee.