Mr. BEGICH (now presiding). The gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SKUBITZ. You are here as a representative of the Governor? Mr. TANNER. I represent the Governor and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, yes, sir.

Mr. BEGICH. Are you willing to state that the State of Georgia will donate the land, the State land, to the Federal Government?

Mr. TANNER. We would be-I think the State of Georgia is amenable to the donation of the wetlands, the marshlands, that we claim title to, associated with Cumberland Island, to the National Park Service. This will require some checks with the Attorney General of our State and it may well require-in fact I think it will require-legislation. As I stated earlier, we are perfectly willing to cooperate fully with the Federal Government in this case. I would, however, and I don't mean to overemphasize this point, we do not think that marshlands should be developed or filled or dredged and we feel very strongly about that in our State and we would like some assurances, and I am certain that that would be no problem since I am certain that the Interior Department feels the same way.

Mr. SKUBITZ. You have no objection, in behalf of the State of Georgia, that a proviso be inserted in this bill that the law would not become effective unless the State made such a donation?

Mr. TANNER. I don't think we would have any objection to it. I frankly don't see why it is necessary. I don't know what you can do with wetlands anyway. These are lands that are covered by the tides twice daily.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Some States follow a practice of changing Governors and legislators. Sometimes legislators change their minds. That is the reason I think it may be essential to have title to it.

Mr. TANNER. Yes, sir. Well, as I said, I can assure you that the State of Georgia would be amenable to that proposal.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I would think so when one looks at the figures you present on page 4. It estimates expenditures of $81 million by 111% million visitors in the first 5 years. The seashore park area would create 915 jobs and generate $5.300,000 revenue in Camden County alone.

So I think that the project would be favorably regarded. Incidentally are these estimates optimistic: isn't your Governor a little optimistic? Even the Park Service, which usually overestimate visitations and underestimates costs, came up this morning with a figure of 650.000 visitors, and if I read your figures correctly, you average 750,000 to 760,000 per year for the first 5 years.

Mr. TANNER. Yes, sir. This is as a result of the study done by the University of Georgia considering no causeway would be built and that would be our projection.

Mr. SKUBITZ. It must have been one of the Park Service people, now on the faculty of the University of Georgia, who gave you this figure. Mr. TANNER. We also found the University of Georgia's studies to be done very professionally. We would stand with these figures. We believe they are accurate.

Mr. SKUBITZ. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TANNER. If there are no other questions let me thank the committee.

Mr. BEGICH. We have just one question remaining. Can we obtain a copy of the study made by the University of Georgia for our files?

Mr. TANNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BEGICH. Will you get a copy for us?

Mr. TANNER. Yes. Who would you like that sent to?

Mr. McELVAIN. To the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. TANNER. Fine. Thank you very much. I will be glad to.

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. Godley, would you approach the witness table? We are working at the time element because we are on the second roll call bell.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we take a 5-minute recess and both of us go over and answer the roll because we are on the second round and Mr. Taylor will probably be back within 5 minutes.

Mr. BEGICH. That is a good suggestion. Mr. Taylor went ahead and answered the first bell and will be back in 5 minutes and the Members here will go make the second roll call bell.

Mr. GODLEY. At your pleasure.

Mr. BEGICHI. The committee will stand in recess for about 5 minutes. (Recess.)

Mr. TAYLOR (now presiding). The Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation will reconvene.

The next witness is Mr. J. E. Godley, clerk, board of county commissioners, Camden County, Ga.

STATEMENT OF J. E. GODLEY, CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CAMDEN COUNTY, GA.; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BRUCE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mr. GODLEY. Chairman Taylor, sitting with me is Mr. James Bruce, chairman of our board, whom I asked to sit with me.

My name, of course, is Edwin Godley and I am clerk of the board of county commissioners of Camden County, Ga. The county in which Cumberland Island is located.

If you will, please indulge me a few minutes of your time to express to you some of the feelings of the board of county commissioners regarding Cumberland Island.

First, please allow me to inject a few personal remarks about my own connection and the history of my association with Camden County. I was first elected clerk of the Superior Court of Camden County in 1934 and since that time have been elected to eight 4-year terms of office without opposition. I wear two hats. I was appointed clerk of the board of county commissioners in December 1941, and with the exception of a tour of duty with the Army Air Corps during World War II, I have continuously served the people of my county. I mention this being reelected for eight terms without opposition with a great deal of humbleness, and also that it makes me feel that I have a close contact with the people of my county who have bestowed upon me the responsibility and trust of the offices. I have had the good fortune of not missing a single meeting of the board of county commissioners since my return from service late in the year 1945.

Now, our main object here today is to represent Camden County and its citizens at this hearing, and to convey to you some of the thoughts as to the feelings of the Camden County board of commissioners the board in charge of the fiscal affairs of the county.

We feel, and have felt for a long time that Cumberland Island holds a great potential for Camden County, if this potential could be fully developed. How this development should be done is a matter of mixed feelings in our community. A number of our citizens feel that a national seashore would be the best development, or rather, undevelop. by maintaining it in its natural state. The other portion of our people feel that it would be better for our county to allow private development. Not with great factories and a honky-tonk atmosphere, but with some type of residential development, with limited facilities for spending a night, or even a week or longer, accommodations that would allow anyone an opportunity to "linger a little longer," not to just visit the island and have to catch the next ferry back to the mainland, probably driving to the next State to spend their leisure time. We have been told by representatives of the National Park Service that the National Parks Foundation now holds deeds to approximately 72 percent of the island. This would amount to somewhere in the approximate amount of 18,000 acres. It is the feeling of the board of county commissioners that this acreage should be sufficient to provide an adequate seashore, at least for a beginning so that the landowners that do not desire to give up their holdings on the island may have an opportunity to enjoy the same beauty and tranquillity that is so desirable to the National Park Service. It should be remembered that the opportunity to purchase any part of the island has only become possible within the past few years.

The board of commissioners feels very strongly that the right of condemnation of property on Cumberland Island for the establishment of a National Seashore would not be in the best interest. That condemnation of the property of those who do not want to have their property converted into a park or recreational facility would only create a feeling of distrust of our Government since the acquisition would in no way be for the necessity of defense to our country.

In October 1967, the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, issued a brochure "Parkscape U.S.A." giving a description of Cumberland Island. A portion of the description is quoted. "Rich in history and legend, remote, unspoiled, and endowed with unsurpassed scenic and recreational values," and so forth, and so forth. Another portion of the description reads, "At Cumberland Island, miles of broad Atlantic beach sweep gently upward from the surf, culminating in dunes as high as 50 feet." The brochure gave about four pages of description just about as exciting as the eye-catching beginning.

We realize the word "island" is a magic and fascinating word to almost everyone. It is to us also. We that own a portion of the island, whether it be a large or small portion, love the island and are just as reluctant to give up that portion as the Park Service is anxious to obtain it. We do not believe any landowner that desires to maintain their lands on Cumberland would object to cooperating with the Park Service in establishing some type of zoning or code to protect the island beauty if some regulation would be worked out between the parties.

Camden County Commissioners have a very strong feeling that for the development of the island's potential, whether it be for a National Seashore or otherwise, and with the projected estimate of visitors to

the island, that a ferry service would not be adequate. We feel that a bridge would be required to accommodate the influx of people that are estimated to visit the seashore and that provisions should be included in the bill to provide funds for a bridge. We further feel that any access to the island, by whatever means, should be from Camden County mainland only.

The board of county commissioners believe there are many citizens that would like to testify at a hearing on this subject but because of the distance to Washington, lack of funds, time, and travel facilities, could not attend this hearing. Many of our citizens are interested in the outcome of the hearing and have strong feelings about it that are not in position to attend. We request this committee to hold a hearing in our county at some date in the future so that those that are no here could have an opportunity to express their feelings before this committee makes its final report.

Another provision of the bill No. H.R. 9859, page 5, line 1, designating February 1, 1970, as the last date for any construction of the dwellings should be stricken or amended to allow any property owner the right to construct, own, occupy and enjoy a dwelling house on the island up until such time as it is absolutely necessary for its acquisition to complete the national seashore and its full development as a seashore park.

Another thing our county government is concerned with is the fact that in our effort to maintain a balanced budget for the operation of county government and keep up with the services required of it, is that such a great amount of our taxable property will be removed from our tax digest. You may or may not know that several years ago the Department of the Army acquired a large amount of our choice waterfront property; we were told at the time for the protection of our country, and we were promised that it would create a large number of job opportunities for our people, that it would bring great economic development to our county. Those promises never materialized, but on the contrary, the facility was built at a great expense to our country and has remained unused and dormant for the past 15 years with no benefit to our economy whatever.

Now it appears another large portion of our taxable property will be removed from the tax digest of our county by the acquisition of Cumberland Island. We do not feel that the promise of such a great influx of visitors to Cumberland Island National Seashore only for the purpose of seeing an island in its natural state will compensate for the loss of taxable revenue from Cumberland should it be developed along the residential type of development that would allow people to live on the island. We cannot be but a bit skeptical of the estimate projected about the economic advantages of Cumberland Island being made into a national seashore, the skepticism being stemmed from our experience with the Kings Bay Ammunition Terminal and those promises given at that time.

One last thing before closing. On November 2, 1971, our board unanimously passed a resolution expressing nearly the feelings I have stated in this, more or less, rambling statement, and is attached for your information.

(The resolution referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION

Whereas, The National Parks Foundation having acquired several thousand acres of land on Cumberland Island, in Camden County, Georgia, and

Whereas, it is understood that the National Parks Foundation intends to donate the acreage to the National Parks Service for the establishment of a National Seashore, and

Whereas, a bill, No. H.R. 9859, has been introduced in the Congress of the United States for the purpose of establishing the Cumberland Island National Seashore with certain provisions the Board of County Commissioners of Camden County feels should be amended or changed and brought to the attention of the members of Congress.

Now therefore, be it resolved, and it hereby is resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Camden County, Georgia, in regular session assembled this 2nd day of November, 1971, unanimously that:

1. The roads on the mainland are the responsibility of, and under the jurisdic tion of the Board of County Commissioners and any plans for parkways, or other type of roads should be planned with the consultation and agreement of the County Commissioners.

2. The provision in the bill, page five (5) line one (1) designating February 1, 1970 as the last date for any construction of dwellings should be stricken and amended to allow any property owner to construct and own, occupy and enjoy a dwelling house up until such time as the Seashore is fully developed to the extent it is necessary for the property to be acquired to complete the seashore plan.

3. We strongly object to the condemnation of any owner's property on Cumberland Island, whether such property is improved or unimproved, before such time as it is absolutely necessary for the complete fulfillment of the plans for the seashore, and further, we strongly feel the present acreage acquired is adequate for the Parks Service to develop and establish a Seashore Park before any property is required to be condemned.

4. And we strongly endorse the proposal of a bridge from the mainland in Camden County to Cumberland Island in lieu of a ferry service. We feel appropriation of funds for a bridge should be included in the bill.

Mr. GODLEY. It has been a privilege to have you allow us to express some of our feelings about Cumberland Island, and if there are any questions you may like to ask of us, please give us an opportunity to try to answer them.

We respectfully submit the above statement this April 20, 1972. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Godley, for your statement.

Does Camden County itself own any land on Cumberland Island? Mr. GODLEY. Not to my knowledge, no, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. How would you like to see Cumberland Island developed? Which other island would you compare it to, St. Simons? Mr. GODLEY. I am sorry. I didn't

Mr. TAYLOR. How would you like to see Cumberland Island developed.

Mr. GODLEY. We would like to see it developed with not necessarily a Daytona Beach or Jekyll Island atmosphere but something that would allow the people to develop it residentially. We thought Mr. Fraser's development would have been a good development for Camden County. Some of us did.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you like to see a causeway built and you would like to see paved streets on it as you have on the other islands?

Mr. GODLEY. Not necessarily, no, sir. The causeway would only be built if it had to generate as much-if the visitors generated as much as they claim.

Mr. TAYLOR. There wouldn't be any reason to build a causeway if you didn't have streets to drive on after you got there.

Mr. GODLEY. They have roads over there. We could use the roads over there.