realize this procedure is irregular and apologize for having to ask you to accept testimony contrary to that presented at the hearing and after the expiration of time allowed for receiving written testimony. This Department received word-of-mouth and second-hand notification of the hearing only a few days in advance. It was our impression that this was to be more of a public information meeting than formal hearing, and we had no indication testimony was involved. Consequently, at your subcommittee meeting on March 25, 1972, in Davenport, Iowa, this Department asked our Mr. Jerry Schaffer to attend as an observer. The testimony requested unexpectedly of Mr. Schaffer did not reflect the Department of Conservation's position on H.R. 10529. The Department of Conservation was an ex officio member of the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area Study Task Force which prepared the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area Study, April, 1971. This Department supports the concept of an Upper Mississippi River National Recre ation Area (UMRNRA) as contained in that Study. We feel, however, that 10529, in its present form would not adequately provide for the establishment of an UMRNRA in keeping with the concepts developed to the Task Force's Study Report. Specifically our objections to the Bill are as follows: 1. H.R. 10529 contains no language which specifically recognizes the scenic, natural and outdoor recreation values of the River as being of equal importance along with navigation and other commercial uses. For the UMRNRA concept to be fully developed, we feel it essential that legislation establishing it contain this explicit language. 2. H.R. 10529 does not adequately provide for new lands. The Task Force's Study Report identified an area encompassing 979,100 acres of land and water. The Task Force felt this was minimum acreage; the Department of Conservation shares this viewpoint. H.R. 10529 would provide for little more than an administrative organization of existing public lands. 3. H.R. 10529 gives the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area Council only limited decision-making powers. For the UMRNRA to be effectively administered, it is the Department of Conservation's position that the Council must have the authority to prepare the Master Plan, which in turn would be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of the Army (Chief of Engineers) and the governors of the five states for their approval prior to implementation. 4. H.R. 10529 does not provide for adequate participation by the various states. This Department would prefer a council composed of seven members, one from each State, and one each from the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Army. The State representatives should be appointed by the respective governors. This Department feels that a Council with duties and responsibilities as proposed in the Task Force's Study Report is needed for the UMRNRA concept to be realized. In summary, the Illinois Department of Conservation cannot support 10529. We feel it is too limited in scope to adequately carry out the UMRNRA concept. This Bill does not adequately assure that scenic, natural and outdoor recreation values will be given equal consideration along with commercial uses of the river. The Bill does not give the states adequate voice in the establishment and administration of the proposed Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area. Again, I apologize for asking you to take exception to your established procedures for receiving testimony and sincerely hope that you will be able to include this letter in the official transcript of the hearing. I would appreciate being notified of future hearings in Washington, D.C., so we can be represented and clarify our position. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, HENRY N. BARKHAUSEN, Director. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. William Brabham, assistant to director, Iowa Conservation Commission. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BRABHAM, ASSISTANT TO DIRECTOR, IOWA CONSERVATION COMMISSION Mr. BRABHAM. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Sebelius and Congressman Kyl, my name is William C. Brabham, I am the assistant to the director for the Iowa Conservation Commission. I might add that our commission appreciates the opportunity to testify at this hearing. I also want to add that we are exceedingly proud of the efforts that Congressman Kyl has made in the interests of conservation and recreation. I have a prepared statement available for the people and I will discuss this briefly. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, a copy of the entire statement will be placed in the record. You have plenty of time, though, so go ahead and give us any information that you think we should have. Mr. BRABHAM. Thank you. The State of Iowa has historically recognized the outstanding natural resources and the potential for outdoor recreation opportunity on and adjacent to the Mississippi River. The initial formal efforts in this regard were expressed in the upper Mississippi River compact legislation passed by the 62d general assembly on June 3, 1967. It is our feeling that these resources represent values not only of State significance, but of regional and national significance. The management of these natural resources must receive prime attention in any concept or program for the area. We actively participated in the original task force studies for the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area and the Iowa Conservation Commission strongly supported the first proposed legislation filed in the House of Representatives on March 3, 1971-H.R. 5468. The original bill encompassed the minimal area requirements essential for the development of the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area. The recent bill sponsored by Congressman Kyl—H.R. 10529, submitted September 30, 1971-greatly modified the original proposal and generally excludes the State's concern and involvement in the planning or management of this area. The following are specific points delineated by the Iowa Conservation Commission: 1. Proposed legislation-H.R. 10529-does not adequately provide for new lands. It merely reorganizes the administration of existing public lands. Without an adequate land base the concept for the development of the Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area becomes greatly altered. The original bill-H.R. 5468-and study delineated the minimum resources to meet the needs of the people. The area cannot be reduced in size due to the urgency for action and the potential and imminent danger of land use alteration. Land use controls and acquisition programs cannot afford to be delayed. This area is virtually on the threshold of a major influx and expansion of potentially incompatible recreation and commercial development. 2. Both H.R. 5468 and H.R. 10529 contain reference to a council that would be advisory to the Secretary of the Interior for planning and management of the recreation area. It is the commission's opinion. that the council should be composed of seven members rather than the nine proposed in both pieces of legislation. The seven-member cour would be more responsive to the immediate needs of the people. This seven-member council should include one member to represent the State, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Army. In each case, whether it be State, the Department of the Interior, or the Department of the Army, there are various entities within each organization which need representation. We feel that each State or Department should resolve its interior situations and present them as unified segments or departmental viewpoints in the overall acquisition, development, management of this national recreation area. In H.R. 10529-section 2.a.1-State membership in the council is made by the Secretary of the Interior, based upon recommendations by the Governor. This should be modified as indicated in the original legislation H.R. 5468, allowing the Governor to appoint the State members to the council. 4. Section 3 of H.R. 10529 indicates that the Secretary shall prepare. with advice and consultation with the council, an interim and a master plan for the recreation area. H.R. 5468 indicated that the council would prepare such a plan with submission to the Secretary. The commission favors preparation by the council. 5. In section 3, H.R. 10529, subsequent revisions to the master plan are to be submitted only to the Secretary of the Army for approval. H.R. 5468 required submission of the master plan to the Governors of the respective States for their review and approval. The resources lie within the States involved. Future development and management of these resources is of vital concern to these States. 6. In section 5-A-H.R.10529-reference is made that any lands or interests therein and owned by the States or their political subdivisions may be acquired by donation only. Without the possibility of other acceptable remuneration provisions, severe gaps in the program will occur and inconsistencies in the concept will develop. Thank you very much. Mr. TAYLOR. We thank you for your statement. (The following letter was received subsequent to hearing:) IOWA CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Hon. ROY A. TAYLOR, In addition to this prior statement, we feel it is necessary for any Upper Mississippi River National Recreation Area legislation to identify the minimum resource areas along the river as set out by the original Task Force Study. We feel this would offer the opportunity for protection of the remaining resource areas not specifically included for acquisition in the legislation. This protection should be in the direct form of specific land use controls to the administering agency. Sincerely, FRED A. PRIEWERT, Director. Mr. TAYLOR. I was interested in your comments that we were doing too little and acquiring an inadequate amount of land. You point out that we merely are reorganizing the administration of existing public lands and to a great extent that would be true. It would coordinate administration, I think, more effectively and it would place an emphasis on recreation. You go along with that emphasis? Mr. BRABHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. And we do acquire 58,000 acres of additional recreational lands. Much of it is located on bluffs similar to the Palisades and could be developed well for recreation. Our problem with the original proposal is where do we find the money to finance it? The cost tag was about $350 million. Now, we have a land and water conservation fund program which aids the Federal Government in acquiring recreational lands and it aids the States in acquiring outdoor recreational lands. We have been proud of that program. It, too, originated in our subcommittee and in many cases the States have made great use of it in acquiring outdoor recreation lands, but the Federal portion of that only amounts to about $100 million a year. In the last 2 years it has been less than that. That is for nationwide use in acquiring outdoor recreation lands to be used on the many, many projects that we have considered and to pay for the many, many areas that we have already authorized. So when we reach out on a project that ambitious-when you say a whole loaf or nothing-sometimes we do not get anything. Do you care to comment on that? Mr. BRABHAM. Mr. Chairman, I can certainly appreciate the remarks that you have to make, but there is only one Mississippi River and the resources that are there are not going to be duplicated. We are looking at resources that have only one potential or two potentials, say. One is to be preserved and used, not only by this generation but future generations. The second choice is that the resources can be degraded and that our heritage to future generations is going to be lessened. This is the way we look at it. People make things happen. Things just don't happen. And we would like to lend the support and to do everything that would get the people to thinking not only of today but looking at the broad picture, and I recognize that it takes money. I might also say that the State of Iowa certainly appreciates the land and water conservation fund that your committee so wisely set in motion. This has been a godsend in developing the recreational program in our State. I just wish there were some way we could manufacture the money to get the job done, and I would certainly urge every means humanly possible to do it. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I am impressed by your enthusiasm and I agree with you in regard to the importance of preserving scenic and historic places in America, not only for the present, but for future generations. I agree with you in regard to the importance of providing recreation opportunities for our people. We are really in the business of doing that kind of work, so we are very much sold on the program, too. And frankly, I think that as we provide recreation and give the people an opportunity to get out of the cities and get out next to nature and get out to where they have plenty of fresh air and room, we help solve some of our human problems which are brought about by people crowding on top of people and people being in people's way all the time. The gentleman from Iowa? Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill, first of all, I want to thank you for doing your usual thorough job on these matters. I have always appreciated your frankness and that of the other people in your office because it then gives us a realistic place to start. Since you mentioned the land and water conservation fund, I would like to say, too, that I don't believe there is any State that has used their land and water funds more wisely nor one which has reserved more for the money than you people have in Iowa under your direction. Mr. BRABHAM. Thank you. Mr. KYL. You say in the statement, "Generally excludes State concern and involvement in the planning and management of this area." I know these other members of the subcommittee and the 39 people who are on the full committee. I assure you there is no desire to minimize the State input. There is another point in your statement regarding the donation of State-park lands. There is nothing in this bill which says that these lands have to be donated. They would be donated if the State wanted those included in the national recreation area as such to be administered by the Federal Government. We were in an area in Minnesota yesterday where the State groups told us that they would not want their area included. This would preserve and coordinate with the system, and I do not think any of us has any disagreement with that at all. The purpose of putting the State members on the council was for the specific purpose of giving the States the most meaningful kind of participation. We would have no desire at all to take from the State of Illinois, or the State of Iowa, or one of the other States a park area that they have developed if the State desires to continue management of it. There are things that we can do to aid in the administration of the areas or in the usefulness of the areas, and I have not yet seen a State administration which has opposed very vehemently placing some kind of a Federal facility, at Federal expense, close to a State area which enhances the value of that State area. Mr. BRABHAM. We recognize that any program has to be a compatible program between governmental entities, all governmental entities. We recognize this. We did note some concern, and consequently we did list the point. We feel that the council is an important entity in the total management of the area. I also fully recognize the limitations that Congress has in setting appropriations to specific entities as such, but hopefully if there is a way that maybe we could change the rules of man and make it more applicable to the situation, we would appreciate that. Mr. KYL. Bill, have you had any problem which results from the fact that the Effigy Mounds National Monument is right next door to the Yellow River Forest? Mr. BRABHAM. No; no problem. Mr. KYL. We would hope that this kind of administration proposed here would provide exactly that same kind of situation. There is another matter here with regard to the administration. and whatever would be gained. Now, we speak of the addition of 58,000 acres in the five States and this is not a miserly thing actually. |