Mr. TAYLOR. Unfortunately today, as in the Cumberland Island hearings, we have a complicated situation due to the fact that the House last night decided to convene this morning at 10 o'clock rather than at 12. We will just do the best we can to continue these hearings as long as we can. Several of us would like to be there on the House floor to participate in all votes on amendments and to participate in and hear the debate.

Our first witness this morning is Honorable Phillip Burton. We are glad to welcome our colleague before us this morning. Mr. Burton is a member of the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILLIP BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In view of the fact that a number of witnesses have traveled a great distance, I would suggest the committee postpone any questions they may have for me until later.

I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to have my prepared statement included in the record in full at this point.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Mr. Burton be printed in full in the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, so ordered.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, for the members of the subcommittee who visited the dramatically beautiful Golden Gate headlands last year, I do not have to explain why the people of the San Francisco Bay area are so dedicated to preserving this area for all Americans to enjoy. Fortunate circumstances have saved this area from the encroachment of urban metropolis beside it. However, this good fortune cannot be depended upon to continue. Revised military needs and urban population pressures threaten these acres of open lands. If we in the Congress do not act, the majestic area where sea and bay and land meet in a glorious symphony of nature will be doomed. The proposal for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area of which I am the author, H.R. 9498, as well as companion bills, began with the objective of taking the open space of the surplus military installations at the Golden Gate and combining it with adjacent and city and State parks into a recreation area for the 4.7 million people of the metropolitan region. Subsequently it became clear that this concept should be expanded to include certain privately owned lands so that the coastline and valleys between the Point Reyes National Seashore and the recreation area could be preserved from subdivison.

What we are seeking to preserve is the dramatic coastal seashore of Marin County with its grassy valleys and steep cliffs where the ocean thunders in its first meeting with the land after a 10,000-mile journey from the continent of Asia.

Closer to the city, in San Francisco, a belt of parks would be much more intensively used for recreation. Included are a maritime museum, playing fields, golf courses, beaches, a yacht harbor, a historic fort, and dramatic viewpoints of the Golden Gate Bridge. To

gether they form an integral whole, a necklace of parks beside the sea and the bay.

And in all, our recreation area is composed of approximately 33,000 acres of which 4,000 acres is submerged lands and 8,000 acres is State parks. As my statement notes, we include the areas noted both in Marin County and in San Francisco. Among other points I would like to highlight in the proposal that I have introduced part of the headlands in Marin County called Marincello. The citizens of that county have fought plans of Gulf Oil Co. to subdivide that land and build homes and apartment houses there. H.R. 9498 takes that land in its entirety rather than as proposed in other bills, which leave some portions of it in the hands of developers.

Also H.R. 9498 takes all rather than merely half of Fort Baker. In addition, H.R. 9498 provides for the acquisition of Olema Valley, a very critical agricultural area that lies between Point Reyes National Seashore and the State and county owned space. Olema Valley is still available at reasonable prices. With the purchase of this land, the rural nature of both the recreation area and the seashore will be guaranteed against future encroachment.

If we do not act now, we will be faced in future years either with subdivisions beside our parks, or with an inordinately high cost of purchasing what can now be obtained relatively inexpensive.

I would note further that my legislation permits the selling or leasing back to its former owners with restrictions what would insure continued agricultural use. This could considerably reduce the cost of stabilizing land use.

May I conclude with the prepared portion of the statement, Mr. Chairman, with this observation. The concern shown by this subcommittee in recognizing the need for prompt action if the area is to be preserved is deeply appreciated by all the citizens of the San Francisco Bay area. As one who has been associated with this great project from its inception, I can say it is a dream which is close to the hearts of all of us. In approving this bill you will be giving the citizens of the San Francisco Bay area the greatest urban park in America. It will be a recreation area close to the people which can be enjoyed by rich and poor, young and old, by suburbanite and ghetto dweller alike. It will truly be a people's park.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Just one request. Would you, using the map, just point out the areas that you recommend be included which are not included in the administration's bill.

Mr. BURTON. If I may, I will have Mr. Thomas help with the pointer.

First, there is a quarter of Marincello. Our proposal envisions all of Marincello being included in the park. The administration's bill recommends leaving a quarter of this area out.

Similarly, our legislation includes all of Fort Baker. The administration's bill incorporates only half of Fort Baker. In additon, Fort Baker and Fort Barry and Fort Cronkhite are still primarily subject to almost unrestricted use by the Department of Defense. Under our proposal, it is the Department of the Interior that has primary authority.

Most vitally, the 7,500 acres in Olema Valley, and I made refer

ence to this in my statement, are proposed in my legislation and are absent in the legislation before the committee as proposed by the administration.

In our legislation there is authority for the Department of the Interior to enter into agreements with our local municipal authorities to turn over local park areas deemed suitable for inclusion in the recreation area.

We also would include the Fort Point National Historic Site which many of you have visited. The administration legislation explicitly excludes the fort.

There are some peripheral ocean areas and other State park areas that similarly would provide a vital unity and linkage in our legislation that are not adequately dealt with in the administration's proposal.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Burton will be here for additional questions as we proceed.

Any other member of the committee have any questions they want to direct to Congressman Burton? The gentleman from Wyoming.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr Burton, on page 4 of your prepared statement you indicated that land might be available for $750 an acre. That was omitted from the oral reference. Is that still your testimony?

Mr. BURTON. Yes. I stand behind the whole statement. It was my interest, Congressman Roncalio, to have my statement appear in the record in full but just try to touch on some of the highlights, particularly as the House is now in session and we have so many witnesses who came such a distance.

Mr. TAYLOR. Are there any other questions to be directed to this witness? Thank you, Congressman Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much.

(The complete statement of Congressman Burton follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILLIP BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

For the members of the subcommittee who visited the dramatically beautiful Golden Gate headlands last year, I do not have to explain why the people of the San Francisco Bay Area are so dedicated to preserving this area for all Americans to enjoy. Fortunate circumstances have saved this area from the encroachment of the urban metropolis beside it. However, this good fortune cannot be depended upon to continue; revised military needs and urban population pressures threaten these acres of open lands. If we in the Congress do not act, the majestic area where sea and bay and land meet in a glorious symphony of nature will be doomed.

The proposal for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area of which I am the author (H.R. 9498) began with the objective of taking the open space of the surplus military installations at the Golden Gate and combining it with adjacent and city and state parks into a recreation area for the 4.7 million people of the metropolitan region. Subsequently it became clear that this concept should be expanded to include certain privately-owned lands so that the coastline and valleys between the Point Reyes National Seashore and the recreation area could be preserved from subdivision.

What we are seeking to preserve are the dramatic coastal seashore of Marin County with its grassy valleys and steep cliffs where the ocean thunders in its first meeting with the land after a ten thousand mile journey from Asia. Here the sky is clear, the wind clean, and the fog comes in the evening in grey clouds reflecting the orange sun setting across the Pacific ocean. Here a man can walk and be lost in peace, hearing the sea, feeling the wind, and touching the land.

Closer to the city, in San Francisco, a belt of parks would be much more intensively used for recreation. Included are a maritime museum, playing fields, golf courses, beaches, yacht harbor, a historic fort, and dramatic view points of the Golden Gate bridge. Together they form an integral whole, a necklace of parks beside the sea and the bay.

In all, our recreation area is composed of approximately 33,000 acres of which 4,000 acres is submerged lands and 8,000 acres is state parks.

In Marin County our park includes all of the privately-owned property of Marincello, the obsolescent military posts called Barry, Baker and Cronkhite, the privately-owned coastal lands, the agricultural Olema Valley, the former Tiburon Net Depot, the Marin Headlands State Parks, and the Angel Island State Park. In San Francisco the park would include Fort Funston, Fort Miley, 3.4 acres adjacent to the Veterans Administration Hospital. Fort Mason, Fort Point National Historic Site, 700 acres or approximately half of the land area of the Presidio of San Francisco, Baker State Beach, James D. Phelan State Beach, the Marina Green, Marina Yacht Harbor, Aquatic Park, the Maritime State Historical Park, Ocean Beach, and Lincoln Park except for the museum at the Palace of the Legion of Honor.

This bill which I have introduced, H.R. 9498, has the support of the Legislature of the State of California, the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors of Marin County, and every major ecological and conservation group.

I would like to address myself to the features of this bill, which cannot be found in other legislation, that have brought to it the support I have mentioned.

Part of the highlands of the park in Marin County are called Marincello. The citizens of that county have fought the plans of Gulf Oil Company to subdivide that land and build homes and apartment houses there. H.R. 9498 takes that land in its entirety. It does not leave one-quarter of Marincello in the hands of the oil company developers, assuring both a profit to them and promising that the park will be overlooked by a subdivision. My bill acquires all of Fort Baker, not just half of it.

My bill provides for the acquisition of Olema Valley, that critical agriculture area that lies between the Point Reyes National Seashore and the state and county-owned open space. This land is still available at reasonable prices -recent sales indicate that the land can still be purchased for an average of $750 an acre. With this purchase of land, the rural nature of both the recreation area and the seashore will be guaranteed against encroachment. If we do not act now, we will be faced in future years either with subdivisions beside our parks or with the high cost of purchasing what we can now obtain relatively inexpensively. I would note that my legislation permits selling or leasing the land back to its former owners with restrictions that would assure continued agricultural use. This would be a less expensive way of preserving the Olema Valley in its present state.

Our bill provides for accepting donation of the San Francisco city-owned parks. If the city does not wish to donate them, then the Secretary of the Interior is empowered to enter into joint operating agreements. A similar provision is made for state parks. I think we should do everything to encourage a unified administration under the Federal government of the entire park area. I must concede that city operation of certain of the parks has been subject to some criticism. Federal experts informed the committee on its field trip that Ocean Beach was poorly maintained and suffering from erosion. The city is being sued for repossession of its yacht harbor for failure to meet the terms of a development loan from the state. And the State Maritime Park suffers seriously from administrative disinterest.

Donation of these areas to the Federal government would permit their proper operation. Furthermore, all Americans would benefit by better administration of the parks.

My legislation provides for bringing most open-space areas of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior but leaving to the Army those areas needed for continued military operation. Regulations to prevent over-development of the Presidio are also provided in the legislation. There is no intent to drive the military from the Presidio, I hope they will remain as long as they want.

A this point, I would like to note a serious philosophical problem that I have with the administration's proposal for the National Recreation Area. In many parts of the area, the administration proposes either to leave jurisdiction with the Army or makes provisions whereby the military may do just about what they will with the property. In effect, this bill puts the United States Army into the park business. My legislation gives the Secretary of the Interior clear control over the recreation area but makes reasonable accomodation for military needs.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the administration map for the recreation area is misleading. For example, the map shows all of the Presidio within the recreation area. Yet, if one reads the bill, one finds that all the Secretary of Interior is assured for this park is a use permit for 100 acres of beach out of some 1,400 acres in the Presidio. All of Fort Baker is shown within the recreation area but only half of it is really going to be turned over. Fort Cronkhite and Fort Barry are turned over for the area, but with a clause that permits the military to build pretty much what it wants wherever it wants. Fort Miley is shown in the recreation area but the administration guarantees .7 acre of the property to the Navy in perpetuity.

To return to the legislation that we propose, the bill contains provisions for consultation with the local planning agencies of the two counties in preparing the plan for the area, and also requires the Secretary of Interior to hold public hearings prior to putting the recreation area plan into effect. I think it is essential that the principle of citizen participation be implemented in the final planning for the Gold Gate National Recreation Area.

I would note that my bill names the recreation area for Juan de Ayala, Captain of the Spanish vessel which first sailed through the Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay.

The concern shown by this subcommittee in recognizing the need for prompt action if the area is to be preserved is deeply appreciated by all the citizens of San Francisco. As one who has been associated with this great project from its inception. I can say it is a dream which is close to the hearts of all of us. In passing this bill you will be giving the citizens of the San Francisco Bay Area the greatest urban park in America. It will be a recreation area close to the people which can be enjoyed by rich and poor, young and old, by suburbanite and ghetto dweller. It will truly be a people's park.

Mr. TAYLOR. The next witness, Hon. William S. Mailliard, who was a very congenial host to us when we were in the San Francisco

area.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 6TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MAILLIARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I make this prepared statement which I have may I comment very briefly, because you are going to hear a great many witnesses who are going to go into a lot of detail which I am not going to attempt to do. I know that members of this committee have visited this area and taken testimony in San Francisco at which time I testified and accompanied you, so I am not going to go into the superlatives as to what a minor miracle it is that we have this open space in the metropolitan area, nor am I going to tell you of its beauties because I know you have seen it yoursleves.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection a copy of your entire statement will be placed in the record at this point. You can summarize it as you see fit. Our main concern is the variations between these bills. In other words we want to know which areas you recommend putting in and which areas you think should be left out.