Mr. BROACH. That is correct.

Mr. ASPINALL. Then we have an understanding.

Mr. KYL. Because of the comments these gentlemen have made, I just want to make this one statement. The folks in Arkansas are going to have to remember that preservation and economic gain from recreational development are not always consistent, and in every case where there is a choice between the two, the preservation is the one which wins.

We talked a little bit about this billion dollar backlog in funds, and I think also you should be aware of the actual situation so far as development is concerned. The Secretary has said that there is a billion dollar backlog in development.

The appropriation for this year, when we have a full funding, so to speak, is $39,307,000, which would indicate through simple arithmetic that if we add no new authorizations and if the prices do not escalate, it would take 25 years to catch up with the backlog which now exists, and I think that we all have to be realistic about some of these things. Perhaps that period can be shortened, but certainly there is no basis for optimism at this point that there would be an immediate and complete development of all of these facilities in this particular area.

There is one other thing I would like to point out. All of the legislation which this committee has authorized recently for parks and recreation area, and so forth, includes a clause which says that the department must review the area to see if there are any sections which should be set aside as wilderness, and, of course, if any areas are set aside as wilderness, that designation would change the use pattern a great deal.

I don't know that any such areas will be found, but we do include that item within bills rather automatically, and I will stop at that point.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

On page 4 of the Governor's statement there was reference made to the $3.5 million in bonds. Will any portion of the money raised by those bonds be expended within these State lands, State parks, or within the Buffalo River area?

Mr. SURLES. The bond program is part of the $22.5 million program. Now this is State and Federal dollars.

The bond funds specifically may not be earmarked for Buffalo River State Park. Out of the first year with State appropriations and with the revenue bonds, we have $7.8 million of State moneys to develop State parks. With this, we've got $750,000 allocated for Buffalo River State Park development.

Mr. McCLURE. How about Lost Valley State Park?

Mr. SURLES. We just have 172 acres at the cost of $6,800.

Mr. McCLURE. On page 2 of the Governor's statement, it indicates that Arkansas is willing to convey the land to the National Park Service without cost if the Buffalo National River project is approved and funded with the understanding that the State would be compensated for improvement.

Would you be in favor of this proposal and willing to convey the lands to the Federal Government if there is no provision for compensation to the State for the improvements?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. McClure, the reason for this has significance. to us in that we feel an obligation. We have sold some bonds based on

revenues for our parks. We feel that we have a responsibility to the bondholders on this, as far as compensation is concerned.

Also, another reason that the commission put this requirement in there is the thing that we were just discussing, that is, the possible delay in the development of a Buffalo National River, and perhaps the agreement between the National Park Service and the State of Arkansas so that we can go forward with making these improvements which are presently planned.

However, in our total program, if in the event we do expend this money therein to make our total program fit together, it is important to the State in the funding of its program to be reimbursed for the money we may spend in the future.

Mr. McCLURE. You are referring primarily to the prospective improvements rather than those that are there at the present time? Mr. HENDERSON. Both are included.

Mr. MCCLURE. You want to get repaid for them, but what happens if we say you won't? Are you then opposed to the project?

Mr. HENDERSON. I don't think we would oppose the project, sir. Of course, that would be a matter for the commission to consider, and perhaps Mr. Driftwood, as chairman, might comment on that.

Mr. DRIFTWOOD. I believe I said in my statement, I said hopefully we would be repaid.

Mr. TAYLOR. I understood that you would offer to donate the State parks? Donate them as they are, buildings and all.

Isn't that your offer?

Mr. HENDERSON. No, sir; the action of the commission was to be reimbursed for the improvements made on the property.

Mr. TAYLOR. And that means past improvements as well as future? Mr. HENDERSON. I believe that was the intent of the commission's action.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the other legislation we've passed, and we've had the situation come up often, and we've permitted the State option of keeping its State park. Such parks are operated as a separate unit, at its own expense until the lands are donated for the benefit of the people of Arkansas and the rest of the Nation.

Now I think you have to make the choice to either keep it or donate it as is.

Now, as to the future improvements, that raises a new problem. Of course, half of that will be Federal money when you make it.

Mr. HENDERSON. We never anticipated being reimbursed for that. Mr. DRIFTWOOD. Only for tax money from the State.

Mr. SURLES. These are very important improvements. They do not include adding any additional revenue-producing facilities. What they do is provide us with adequate sewer and water treatment facilities as well as overhead wiring, improvements that will be compatible with the national park.

These improvements, in light of the time when the National Park Service could actually make these improvements themselves, we feel like it would be very important with the impact that the park is getting right now, that these improvements be done immediately.

Mr. McCLURE. I understand the problem with which we're presented and as the chairman has indicated, improvements in the future present us with a rather unique problem, but I am a little bit concerned about

the past improvements because this departs from the usual formula that has been applied by this committee.

It also points up one other of the very real problems, the dichotomy which was illustrated by the very testimony, the various representatives and bureaus of the State. One in which the reference is made to the fact that the impact of people coming there is a very real problem that must be dealt with and it implies even some limitation-another in which you point to the economic benefits of the creation of this natural river to bring 15 million annual visitors to the area.

These two things are in utter, complete and total conflict and I think you have to recognize that if we do this, we have created the problems that may destroy the values we're trying to protect.

I know we do wish to protect it, and we recognize that when we make that designation it brings in problems, and we just have to solve them.

I do have one further comment with respect to the fish and wildlife management because I had hoped we might avoid that argument here today because I am involved in the midst of one which affects my own State, and this precise question has been presented to us.

The fish and wildlife management in a national park is properly the province of the Federal Government, acting through the National Park Service.

The fish and wildlife management on public lands generally has been the prerogative of the States, and I think the States jealously and properly safeguard and protect that right to manage those resources within their State.

The language that's contained in this bill is typical language pertaining to a national park. It is not language which is typical or appropriate for the management of public lands generally, in which the primary responsibility is transferred to the Federal Government.

Now, when we get into such areas as a national recreation area, which I'm concerned about in Idaho, I feel that this language is not appropriate. When we get to a national river, I'm not sure that we have yet decided what is the appropriate management pattern, and I think it's appropriate that we do discuss at this time whether or not the Federal Government shall be the primary manager or whether the State government shall have management responsibility of fish and wildlife. I don't think any of us question the right, the responsibility, and the necessity of giving the Federal Government the authority to prohibit hunting in areas where or periods when it may impose some public safety problem. And this is typical of the public lands generally.

But I think the State has a very real stand on whether or not fish and wildlife management is to be transferred to the Federal Government. And I would say to the gentleman who mentioned the Government report, that that could change tomorrow with a change of philosophy of the administrators and game management might be entirely taken away from the State of Arkansas under the provisions of this bill.

I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but I think you should understand it, and if you have any objection to that kind of possibility, it ought to be stated now.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I want to comment on this one remark that you made in reference to economic development, that we are concerned, of

course, about haphazard economic development which will destroy the primitive quality and the beauty of the area, and, of course, the people come to this area because of these qualities that now exist.

What we're asking for is control of this intrusion into

Mr. McCLURE. I would say that the State has adequate authority to control that kind of economic development.

Now, if that's the only problem that's involved, if we look into the expenditures that come along with economic development, that it requires money, and the Federal Government seems to have an unlimited bank account.

So we can spend money where States can't. At least we print the money, so I guess we have an unlimited amount.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I'm not certain of all the laws surrounding this possibility, but this does seem, from the standpoint of commiting this on a long-term basis for the general use of the public and protecting its natural beauty and scenic quality, the best opportunity we have. We would have to delve into the other possibilities a lot further, and I don't know that they even exist, but thank you.

Mr. DRIFTWOOD. My philosophy would be such on the national park— that it's for all the people of the United States and the Secretary would certainly have the last word.

Mr. MCCLURE. I have no objection if that's what you wish for your territory. I have a very great objection if they try that for all the public lands that exist in my State.

Mr. TAYLOR. One more question. Can you give us information as to the value of the present improvements on the State lands which would be included?

Mr. HENDERSON. We would estimate that to be $300,000 to $400,000. Mr. TAYLOR. For the record, now, would you give us a breakdown as to what the improvements are and the value of each and submit that for the record?

Mr. HENDERSON. I did want to come back to this point before leaving the witness stand to make it clear that I am reporting action previously taken by the commission, and I believe it was the commission's understanding that there was a precedent for this type of understanding-perhaps in legislation or in past practices.

I don't believe that our commission would let the ownership of this past property become a factor in approving this. There was enthusiastic support for this project, and I know that I, as the Director of the Department, would not hesitate to recommend to the commission that if this is the wish of the Congress, that we donate the present properties, that we do so.

Mr. TAYLOR. I've been on this committee for 11 years and I don't recall our passing any bill wherein we were paying the States for the improvements on the State property.

I think you have to make a decision-do you desire to continue operating these as State parks at the State expense for the benefit of State people, or you desire for it to become part of this complex to be operated by the Federal Government? And generally, I like to see the State lands brought in, but we have had several situations where the State preferred to keep their State parks and operate them in conjunction with the Federal facilities, and there's no reason they can't supplement one another and together accomplish the same objective.

Well, thank you very much.

Now, we're going to have to adjourn in a few minutes. The bell is going to ring and we're going to have to go to the House floor. We have got more than 40 witnesses on our list. We might be able to meet a little while this afternoon; it depends on the House schedule. We will try it.

Right now, any witnesses on this list who would like to turn in their entire statement for the record and have 1 minute to make an oral statement, backing up the written statement, may do so.

STATEMENT OF H. CHARLES JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING THE GALLINULE SOCIETY

Mr. JOHNSTON. I'm H. Charles Johnston, representing the Gallinule Society, and I'm interested in the conservation of time as well as real estate.

Mr. TAYLOR. OK. You've got 1 minute. Your statement will be placed in the record, and you have 1 minute.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF H. CHARLES JOHNSTON, JR., OF LITTLE ROCK, ARK., REPRESENTING THE GALLINULE SOCIETY FOR THE BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: First, let me anticipate an inevitable question. The Gallinule Society is an informal group of persons interested in attacking today's ecological problems with a realistic approach. While we admit the necessity of proper planning, we advocate "action" as opposed to "studies and surveys."

It would be tiresome, boring and unnecessary to repeat to the asthetic and economic advantages of a National River in North Arkansas. Regardless of what action the Congress and the President may take, the Buffalo River will never again be the primitive playground for a fortunate few. It is already evident that more and more people will be using this river as the years go by. Nor is there any way that this river can maintain its original ecological stature.

The alternative to National River status for the Buffalo would be private development which, uncontrolled as it would have to be, represents a death sentence for one of the nation's most beautiful streams. Given status within the National Parks System, the Buffalo River could be properly policed and the destructive impact of Man could be kept at a minimum.

The Gallinule Society has carefully studied the pros and cons of this issue and has concluded that both the asthetic and economic values of the project far outweigh any negative considerations. It is our opinion that the proposed Buffalo National River fits admirably within the boundaries of the late Gifford Pinchot's definition of conservation-the wise use of our natural resources for the greatest good for the greatest number.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSTON. We simply endorse the Buffalo National River wholeheartedly and feel that it will contribute to the benefit of the people of the United States as well as the people of Arkansas. STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCES C. JAMES, ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS

Dr. JAMES. I just want to add the voice of the Arkansas Academy of Science to the others here from Arkansas supporting this bill. The Arkansas Academy of Science favors the establishment of the Buffalo National River in the State of Arkansas as proposed in H.R. 8382.