4 .2n 8j( 3:M 2! p /4

/ O

AUTHO RIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL C O S T S ' ^

OF LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE NATIONAL PARK S Y S T E M ^

GOVERNMENT

Storage

H E A R I N G

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS AND RECREATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INT ERIOR AND INSULA R AFFAIRS 

UNITED STAT ES SENATE

NINETY-SECON D CONG RESS

SEC OND SESSION

ON

S. 2806

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL 

COSTS OF LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE 

NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

MAY 9, 1972

Printed for th e use of the 

Committee on Interio r and Insula r Affairs

78-992

U.S. GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TI NG OF FICE 

WA SH INGT ON : 1972
CO MM ITTE E ON IN TE RI OR AND IN SU LA R AFFA IR S

H EN RY M. JA CK SO N , W as hi ng to n, C h air m a n

CLIN TO N P. AN DERSO N, New Mex ico

A L A N B IB L E , Ne va da

F R A N K CH U RCH , Idah o

F R A N K E. MOS S, Uta h

Q U EN TIN N. BU R D IC K , Nor th D ak ot a

G EO R G E M cG OVERN , So ut h D ak ot a

L E E M E T C A L F , M on tana

M IK E G R A V E L , Ala sk a

J er ry T. Ve r k l e r , S ta ff D ir e cto r

W'il lia m J. V an Ne s s , C h ie f C o u n sel

B ernard C. Ha r tc n g, P r o fe ssio n a l S ta ff M em ber

C h a r le s Co o k, M in o r it y C o u nse l

GO RD ON A L L O T T , Co lora do 

LE N B. JO RDAN , Id ah o 

P A U L J. FAN N IN , Ari zo na 

C L IF F O R D P. H AN SE N , W yo min g 

M AR K O. H A T FIE L D , Oregon 

H E N R Y BELL M O N , Ok laho ma 

JA M ES L. B U C K L E Y , New Y or k

Subcommittee on Par ks and Recreation

AL AN B IB L E, Nev ad a, C h air m a n

H EN R Y M. JA CKSO N , W as hing to n 

CLIN TO N P. AN DERS ON, Ne w Mex ico 

F R A N K CH U RCH , Idaho

F R A N K E. MOS S, Uta h

C L IF F O R D P. H AN SE N, W yo m in g 

P A U L J. FA N N IN , A ri zo na 

M AR K O. H A T F IE L D , Or egon 

H E N R Y BELL M O N , Oklah om a

(II)
C O N T E N T S

Pag e

S. 2806______________________________________________________ 1

Department of the Interior repo rt_______________________________ 1

STATEMENTS

Flynn, Thomas F., Jr., Deputy Director. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, accompanied by Philip O. Stewart, Chief, Division 

of Land Acquisition__________________________________________ 2

( I I I )

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL 

COSTS OF LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE NATIONAL 

PARK SYSTEM

TH U R SD A Y , M A Y 9, 19 72

U.S. Senate,

Subcommittee on P arks and Recreation of the

Committee on I nterior and I nsular Affa irs,

IFashing ton, D.C.

The subcommittee met, purs uant to other business, at 10:57 a.m. 

in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Alan M. Bible 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Prese nt: Sena tor Bible (presiding).

Staff members present: Jerry Verkler, staff director; Bernard H ar ­

tung, professional staff member; and Thomas Nelson, Jr., assistant 

minority counsel.

Senator Bible. Those of you who are interested in seeing the slides 

are welcome to stay. I don't anticipate that this hearing—I thin k we 

only have one witness, and it should not take very long. I t is S. 2806.

The text of S. 2806 and department repo rt will be incorporated in 

full at this point.

(The documents referred to follow:)

S. 2806, 92d Congress, 1st Session

A BILL To au thor ize ap pr op ria tio ns fo r ad ditio na l costs of lan d acqu isitio n fo r the 

Nationa l Par k Sys tem

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United,

States of America in Congress assembled, That, in all instances where authorizations of appropriations for the acquisition of lands for the National Park Sys­ tem enacted prior to January 9, 1971, do not include provisions therefor, there are authorized to be appropriated such additional sums as may be necessary to provide for moving costs, relocation benefits, and other expenses incurred pur­ suant to the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646; 84 Stat. 1894).

U.S. Department of the I nterior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D.C., October 20,1971.

Hon. Spiro T. Agnew,

President of the Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President : We enclose herewith a draft bill “To authorize appropriations for additional costs of land acquisition for the National Park System.” We recommend that the bill be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, and we recommend that it be enacted. The mandatory provisions of titles II and II I of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646;

(1)
2

84 Stat. 1894) impose substantia] additional costs and expenses on the National 

Park Service in connection with its land acquisition program. These additional 

amounts, for moving expenses and other relocation benefits, together with the 

increased administrative expenses incurred in connection with providing these 

benefits, are chargeable against the existing statutory ceilings on amounts 

authorized to be appropriated for land acquisition which were considered and 

imposed by the Congress prior to January 2, 1971, the effective date of the Act. 

Of course, land acquisition estimates presented to the Congress prior to that 

time did not include costs attributable to the benefits provided for in the later 

enactment.

It is anticipated that the increased costs, including administration costs, due 

to these benefits will be an amount approximately 12 percent to 15 percent above 

the present authorization ceilings. Clearly, then, unless appropriations are 

authorized to supply these additional amounts, the land acquisition program for 

the National Park System could not be completed within the ceilings imposed. 

In each instance, as funds would be exhausted or nearly exhausted, individual 

amendatory legislation would be required and serious delays in acquisition could 

be experienced pending congressional action. Of course, new legislation authorizing additional land acquisition which will be considered by the 92d Congress 

can have the authorizations reflect the increased costs.

Accordingly, the draft bill enclosed herewith authorizes additional appropriations for land acquisition for areas of the National Park System, in the amount 

of the actual costs and expenses payable or incurred by reason of the provisions 

of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies 

Act of 1970. The bill specifically makes these increases applicable only to those 

authorizations approved prior to January 9. 1971, in which a congressionally 

imposed land acquisition ceiling does not include estimated amounts, or other 

provisions, for moving costs and other relocation benefits, and the directly 

related administrative expenses arising from payment of such benefits. We 

recommend an increased ceiling for projects approved prior to January 9. as 

opposed to the earlier effective d ate of P.L. 91-646 (Jan uary 2). because three 

new proposals, submitted prior to enactment of P.L. 91-646 without provision 

for relocation costs, were not finally approved until Janu ary 8. These are Gulf 

Islands National Seashore (P.L. 91-660), Voyageurs National Park (P.L. 

91-661), and Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park (P.L. 

91-664).

Acquisition cost estimates submitted to the Congress have in the past included 

our administrative expenses as a par t of the total. However, the benefits now 

to be provided will increase these costs. For example, we may be required to 

render assistance to a displaced homeowner by helping him locate or construct a 

suitable replacement dwelling, obtain financing, and so on. It is apparent, therefore, tha t these added administrative expenses, if not recouped, could seriously 

deplete available funds. All future proposals will include an estimate of costs 

attributable to requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act.

We strongly urge the favorable consideration of this bill in order to permit 

the continuation of the land acquisition program for the National Park System. 

The Office of Management and Budget has advised t ha t there is no objection to 

the presentation of this dra ft bill from the standpoint of the Administration’s 

program.

Sincerely yours,

Nathanie l Reed, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Sen at or B ible. The w itn es s is To m F ly nn.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. FLYNN, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. PH IL IP 0. STEWART, CHIE F, DIVISION OF

LAND ACQUISITION

Mr. F ly n n. M r. Cha irm an , w ith yo ur pe rm ission , I wou ld like to 

ha ve P h il Ste w ar t, Chi ef of our Division of L an d Acq ui sitio n here.
3

Senator Bible. I am glad to see that you finally resolved Pisca taway, or did you finally ?

Mr. Stewart. We hope so.

Senator Bible. I share your hope.

Mr. Flynn, you are spokesman for the Department. Is the Piscataway solved once and for all ?

Mr. F lynn. I would not say it is solved once and for all. It seems 

to be popping up again, but as far as we are concerned i t is solved 

at this point.

Senator Bible. I am glad to hear that, and I want the staff to underscore that, because you said as far as the Pa rk Service is concerned, 

it is settled. Is tha t what you said ?

Mr. Flynn. This portion of it : yes, sir.

Senator Bible. No, no, no. You are quibbling now. You abandoned 

your answer. This last $900,000 payment maybe it settles it, and maybe 

it doesn’t.

Mr. Flynn. I have some doubts tha t it will completely settle it. 

But I will be glad to furnish a furthe r statement for the record.

Senator Bible. Furnish it for the record and check it out with the 

Department. I had hoped we had heard the last of Piscataway. I 

don't know whether we have or not. I want to know if we have heard 

the last of it or have not heard the last of it .

I would like to know, because somebody paid somebody $900,000, 

which is a f air am ount of money. Now, let’s get back to this bill.

It can be on the record, but we are not going to put it in the 

hearing on the present bill. That is S. 2806.

All right, Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Flynn. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your committee’s scheduling of this hearing on the legislation submitted by the Department 

on October 20, 1971, to authorize funds for additional land acquisition costs.

Basically, what S. 2806 does is to authorize the National Pa rk Service to exceed existing statutory ceilings on land acquisition funds 

where necessary because of increased acquisition costs due to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies 

Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646).

This act, which was approved Jan uar y 2, 1971, applies to all Federal and federally assisted land acquisition agencies. It is intended, 

through a series of payments for expenses and other provisions, to 

provide fai r and equitable treatment to a person whose land is acquired by the Federal Government.

We believe the Congress acted wisely in passing this act, because 

we believe no landowner should sustain a monetary loss while the 

public benefits from a projec t that requires his land.

In creating certain statutory benefits over and above just compensation, however, the act has increased the cost of land acquisition.

Fo r the National Pa rk Sendee, where authorizations are limited 

by individual area laws, this means th at the acquisition program cannot be completed within the statu tory ceilings set by this committee 

and the House committee in the authorizing acts.

Briefly, the benefits which we are required to pay under Public 

Law 91-646 are as follows: A landowner being displaced from a 

dwelling tha t he occupies is entitled to (1) actual moving and related
expenses, or a n in-lieu payment not to exceed $500; and (2) replacement housing cost (the amount required to pay the difference between 

the dwelling sold to the Government and the dwelling purchased, i ncluding increased interest payments and closing costs) not to exceed 

$15,000.

A tenant being displaced from a dwelling is entitled to the following benefits:

(1) Actual moving and related expenses, or an in-lieu payment not 

to exceed $500;

(2) Rental not to exceed $4,000 over a 4-year period or in lieu 

thereof, the amount necessary to enable such a person to make a down 

payment on the purchase of a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling, 

up to $2,000.

An additional payment up to $2,000 can be made on a matching 

basis with money provided by the tenant. Such total Federal contribution, however, in no event will exceed $4,000 or the maximum 

amount of the rental differential payments.

This is done in order to encourage homeownership. In other words, 

payment by the Government of any amount up to a second $2,000 of 

the $4,000 maximum payment must be matched by an equal amount 

provided by the tenant.

Displaced owners or tenants occupying and operating farms or commercial units are entitled to actual moving and related expenses, or 

an in-lieu payment not to exceed $10,000. They are also entitled to 

actual costs of moving personal property and to replacement housing 

not to exceed $4,000 for tenants or $15,000 for owners.

An occupant of a seasonal cottage is entitled to actual moving and 

related expenses, or an in-lieu payment not to exceed $500.

In addition to the above, the property owner is entitled to incidental 

expenses resulting from the tran sfer of title to the United States, 

including recording fees, transfer taxes, prepayment penalty costs, 

and pro rata portion of real property taxes which are allocable to the 

period subsequent to the date title was vested in the United States.

An owner of unimproved land which is acquired by the Federal 

Government is entitled to these same benefits.

As you see, this act is complex, and because of unknown factors with 

respect to the landowner's elections and options, it is necessary to rely 

on averages when estimating our requirements.

Moreover, it is also difficult to estimate when these funds will be 

required in many cases, because, if an owner of an improved dwelling 

elects to exercise his righ ts of use and occupancy for a specific period 

of years, his displacement benefits are not paid until the expiration of 

that period.

Currently there are some 54 areas where acquisition has been completed or is in progress where the statutory ceiling will not permit us 

to pay the landowners benefits to which they are entitled, under Pub ­

lic Law’ 91-646.

There are several areas where the entire acquisition program will 

be accomplished under the provisions of this legislation. Some examples will help the committee to further understand the total impact 

of this act.

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park was auth orized on January 8, 1971. The acquisition program for this area en-
o

compass es some 12,174 acres of pr ivately owned land at a cost no t 

exceeding $20,400,000.

Ap prox im ately 70 pe rcen t of these land s are impro ved, pr im ar ily 

with dwe llings. Th e bal anc e of the lan ds are unimproved. Th e estima ted relocation costs are $2,486,300, o r 12.2 perce nt of th e a cqu isition 

costs.

Sleeping Be ar Dunes Na tio na l Lakeshore was au thorized o n Oc tober 2, 1970. This are a will encompass some 52,117 acres of pr ivately 

owned lan ds at a cost no t exceeding $19,800,000. Th e ra tio of im pro ved 

lan ds to unimpro ved l ands w ith in th is are a is nea rly 50 to 50. Ma ny of 

the impro ved prop ert ies are businesses, with relocation costs bei ng 

hi gh er th an fo r residences. Th e relocation costs ar e est im ate d at 

$2,159,375, or 10.9 perce nt of the acqu isition costs.

Ap ostle Isl an ds Na tio nal Lakeshore was authorized on Septe mb er 

26, 1970, an d encompasses some 24,143 acres o f pr ivately owned lan ds 

at a cost no t exc eeding $4,250,000. A m ajor ity of these lan ds are unimpro ved , with the im proved prop ert ies now being predom inantly 

residences. Relocatio n costs are estimate d at $296,355, or 7 perce nt of 

the a cqu isition costs.

Vo yageurs Na tio nal Par k was autho riz ed on Ja nuar y 8, 1971. I t is 

representat ive of the othe r end of th e spectru m fo r there are some 

78,879 acre s of privately own ed lan d au tho riz ed fo r acq uisitio n at a 

cost not exceeding $26,014,000.

Th ere are impro ved land s wi thin this ar ea ; how ever, a majority of 

these land s are unim proved and the im pa ct of Pu blic Law 91-646 

will be rel ati vely sma ll. Th e reloca tion costs a re est im ate d at $755,030 

or 2.9 perc en t of the acq uis itio n costs.

So you see, M r. Ch airm an , th at th is le gis lat ion is n eeded to au th or ­

ize th e ap pr op riation of fu nd s, over and above th e st at ut or y ceil ings, 

fo r the paym ent of costs incu rred un de r Pu blic Law 91-646.

Of course, in the recom me ndations we hav e made fo r new’ leg islatio n sinc e th at act was pas sed we have inc lud ed estim ate s to cover 

thes e costs, with one exc eption. Th is exc eption is th e omnibus bill, 

which was rece ntly en acted as P ub lic Law’ 92-272.

Th e new au tho riz ation s in th e omnibu s b ill d o n ot con tai n sufficient 

fund s to cover the costs at trib ut ab le to th e Unifo rm Reloc ation As ­

sistance an d Rea l Pro pe rty Ac quisition Policies A ct o f 1970.

I t is ou r un de rst an ding , th at , ra th er th an amend th e omn ibus bill 

as it was ma kin g its wav th ro ug h th e leg islative process, yo ur commi ttee pr eferred to consider this p oint in con nection with the genera l 

leg islation, which is before th e comm ittee today.

Ac cordi ngly, we recommend th at lan gu ag e be added to S. 2806 

wh ich w ould enable us to request fund s needed to pa y reloca tion costs 

in connection with the rece nt omnibus bill. Th is am endm ent is as 

follows:

On lin e 11 af te r the perio d in se rt : “T here are also au tho riz ed to be 

ap pr op riated such sum s as ma y be necessa ry in ad ditio n to those 

autho riz ed in Pu blic Law 92-272, to pro vid e fo r such costs, benefits, 

and expense s in con nection with the acq uisitio n of land s au tho riz ed 

th er ein. ”

W ith th is amend ment, Mr. Ch air man, we s tro ng ly s up po rt S. 2806. 

Tha nk you very m uch.

Se na tor Bible. I don’t kno w th at I hav e any questions. As I und er-
6

stand the thru st of what you a re saving, it is that because of Public 

Law 91-646, additional costs of acquisition are imposed upon the Park 

Service, and if you have a fixed ceiling, you can’t come under those 

additional costs that are incurred under Public Law 91-646.

You say tha t a landowner being displaced from a dwelling th at he 

occupies is entitled to moving and related expenses or an in-lieu payment not to exceed $500. I thin k I can understand that.

I think the next part bothers me just a little. You say th at replacement housing costs, the amount required to pay the differences between the dwelling sold to the Government and the dwelling purchased, including increased interest payments and closing costs, not 

to exceed $15,000.

Would you develop tha t just a little, either yourself or Phil 

Stewart, as to how that works? If I have a home th at you are condemning for whatever park project you have in mind, in Sleeping 

Bear Dunes, or the C. & O. Canal Historic Park, or other examples 

you use, if I have a home I am using that is valued, let’s say, for 

$30,000, and you appraise tha t and I say I am willing to take $30,000, 

do I now understand you to say if I have to leave th at area and go to 

an area just outside the park, I can then buy a home up to $45,000 if 

that is all that I can find in that area ?

Mr. Stewart. Not exactly. F irs t of all, the provision is up to $15,000 

to provide you with a comparable home t hat is safe, sanitary and 

decent.

Now with a $30,000 house, we would assume th at it had the necessary interior plumbing and the like to meet the requirements of safe, 

sanitary, and decent. In t hat event, all you would be entitled to would 

be whatever differential was involved in acquiring a comparable house 

in the adjacent area.

Normally, this probably would be nominal, or perhaps equal. So 

you would not be entitled to any differential on that basis. What this 

was really designed to do was, in those areas where you had houses 

tha t were inferior in quality to have the Government guarantee the 

person a replacement house that is equal to what he has, plus meeting 

the test of being safe, sanitary, and decent.

Senator Bible. I f I have a ramshackled old house with plumbing 

defective and the pipe roaring and the roof caving in a bit and leaking, then if I understand you correctly, I can find a comparable old 

shanty just outside the national park and then in order to make it 

sanitary and safe, and so the roof does not leak, then the Pa rk Service 

will give me % dollars more to repair a comparable shanty outside the 

area where the roof does not leak, where the plumbing works and 

where it is sanitary ?

Mr. Stewart. Not exactly.

Senator Bible. All right. Explain it again. Take me over the course 

again.

Mr. Stewart. If you have a house worth $30,000 as in your original 

example, it is unlikely tha t i t will require anv upgrading to meet the 

test of being safe, sanitary, and decent, and in all likelihood-----

Senator Bible. Wha t was the last word, “decent” ?

Mr. Stewart. Yes. That is the wording of the act.

Senator Bible. I am not questioning it. I just want to get this 

through my head.
Mr. Stewart. In tha t case, it would be unlikely that the acquisition 

of a comparable dwelling would require a differential payment of 

more than a very nominal amount.

Senator Bible. All righ t. I have a $5,000 shanty, the home such as 

Jerry Verkler has. Take a $5,000 shanty which is an example, and the 

roof does leak and the plumbing squeaks and it does not work, and I 

am w ithin the Park Service and the Park Service says they want it, 

and you require me to put a value of $5,000 on it.

Now, you go outside the park area and you find another shanty 

where the roof leaks and the plumbing does not work and where it is 

unsanitary, and where it is not decent. Then what would you do?

Mr. Stewart. The point is in that case you don’t go out and look 

for this comparable shanty. You go out and look for a house th at 

meets the requirements of the particular family involved and it meets 

a standard of safe, sanitary, and decent.

In other words, the wiring is in good shape so that none of the 

children or individuals will be electrocuted, there are adequate sanitation provisions in the dwelling, such as sewer and water, and that 

it meets a standard of-----

Senator Bible. Safe, sanitary, and decent.

Mr. Stewart. A decent dwelling as accepted in the general community, and in tha t case, you would be entitled up to a $20,000 house, 

or a $15,000 differential.

Senator Bible. All right. I have a shanty here th at is outside of the 

park and it is safe, and it is sanitary, and it is decent. But unfortunately, you only gave me $5,000 for my leaky roofed house within the 

park area, and where it was unsanitary and where it did not meet the 

standards, of decency, and the only thin g I can find is something 

tha t costs $20,000 that is safe, is sanitary, and is decent.

Then will the Park Service say, “well, you go ahead and buy tha t, 

and we will pay the difference?”

Mr. Stewart. Yes. sir; and that is what is involved. That is not par t 

of the fai r market value that you are being paid for your property. 

Tha t is totally over and above the fair m arket value concept.

Senator Bible. I am going to ask our legal beavers, and there are 

a number of them on both sides, to check out the ramifications of this.

It looks to me th at people who have shanties that are unsanitary, 

that are unsafe and that are not decent have a great chance to upgrade 

their shanties at the Government expense.

Mr. Stewart. They do, and tha t is, I think, the intent of the law. 

The legislative history and reports on this indicate that t hat is exactly 

and precisely what the law intends.

Senator Bible. That is going to cost you much in total to acquire 

all of the shanties tha t do not meet these standards in all of the area 

to be acquired ?

Mr. Stewart. There is a good deal more involved than in this p articular section. We don’t have tha t broken down as to how much th at 

is going to cost to upgrade the houses.

Senator Bible. How much is it in round figures?

Mr. Stewart. In 54 areas, it is in excess of $15 million.

Senator Bible. Well, I am going to ask you to meet with Jerry 

Verkler and Tom Nelson and whatever other lawyers thev want to 

surro und themselves with to see where we are heading and what we
8

are doing. How does that work in Cape Cod? We tell people when 

we adopt the Cape Cod formula tha t you can live there for the 

balance of your life, and it has variations to it.

Then I get the use of the Cape Cod formula, home in Cape Cod. 

Then at the end of that time, the house runs down a bit, I don't repair 

it very much, because I know you are going to come in at the end of 

my life and pick it up.

Now, do 1 get the benefit of being able to stay there during all this 

period of time and getting an improved home at the end of the period ?

Mr. Stewart. If you have taken a life estate, the answer is no.

Senator Bible. If I take 25 years.

Mr. Stewart. I n the case where you take 25 years, this is correct. 

You are then entitled to these benefits at the end of that 25-year 

term.

Senator Bible. You are very honest and you are very frank. I don't 

know where it leads us, but I certainly can understand the moving 

expenses. I don’t quarrel on that. This idea of improving my condition after Uncle Sam condemns and takes over the house is something 

tha t I don't completely understand.

I am going to keep this item open, and I am going to ask the lawyers to meet with you, because you are obviously knowledgeable now 

on this, and whatever lawyers you might have, just so we see exactly 

where we are heading.

You say tha t you are handcuffed and strait jacketed because this 

public law is not your public law. I t is a public law that came out of 

what committee ?

Mr. Stewart. The Public Works Committee.

Senator Bible. You are bound by tha t law, and now you have ad ditional costs to impose on it. It is primarily, 1 think, because of the 

Interstate Highway System and the dislocations you had a t that time.

We will have Jerry Verkler work on it and see what we come up 

with. I think you need some relief here. I want to see how far this 

takes us down the road. You say you have 54 areas, and you are 

going to incur additional costs due to this public law that came out 

of public works and is not a law of land, for some $15 million.

Mr. Stewart. $15,343,595, but positive accuracy is not possible because, as you know, and it is obvious from reading the bill, there 

are c ertain landowner elections which he can make tha t tend to defeat 

an exact, precise formula.

But as nearly as we can tell, this is what it would amount to.

Senator Bible. As I un derstand it, the burden is on who locates this 

sanitary and safe shanty?

Mr. Stewart. The burden actually, is on the Federal Government. 

It is rath er precise in the act. The Federal Government has to provide in addition to the various benefits that, have been stated in the 

act certain relocation advisory services, and this has to provide the 

displaced person with current and continuing information on comparable decent, safe, and sanitary sales and rental housing of comparable quality. Also, a reasonable time prio r to the displacement, you 

have to make sure tha t there will be dwellings equal in number to 

the number of people displaced that, generally are not less desirable 

than the area where the prop erty is being acquired, so that they can 

move into them.
9

They have to be reasonably accessible to the displaced person’s 

place of employment, and must be available to him at prices and 

rentals within his ability to pay. You also have to assist a person displaced from a business or a farm in obtaining a suitable replacement.

You have to supply information to the displaced persons regarding the availability of Federal and State housing programs and other 

Federal or State programs offering assistance to displaced persons and 

provide such other advisory services to displaced persons as they may 

need in order to minimize hard ship to them.

Senator Bible. Well, you have done a g reat deal to either clear up 

my thinking or get it completely fuddled, and I am going to ask the 

staff to do a little more work on this bill. You are obviously knowledgeable. It seems to me th at this concept 

originated within the Government Operations Committee. I am not 

positive of th at. It does not make any difference where it originated.

Mr. Stewart. On the Senate side, I thin k it did, but it actually 

came out of Public Works.

Senator Btble. I t is the law of the land and we have to abide by it. 

Does Tom Flynn —and maybe he can respond to this himself—within 

his shop have a displaced person bureau tha t works under the Park 

Service to do this, to run around and see if he can find properties? 

Do you have a displaced person’s division ?

Mr. F lynn. Just within Phil Stew art’s shop.

Senator Bible. H ow many people does P hil Stew art employ to do 

this?

Mr. Stewart. We don’t employ anyone full time except for a group 

tha t handles our instructions to our field personnel and they consist 

of three full-time people who go around to our various land acquisition offices, and explain the policies and procedures that have been 

developed in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget 

and the Department of the Inte rior, which amount to regulations that 

are required for the processing of these claims and meeting the intent 

of th is legislation.

Senator Bible. Since this law has been in effect—what year did it 

go into effect?

Mr. Stewart. Jan uary 2, 1971, and the pa rt applicable to our programs was effective as of the date of signature.

Senator Bible. You have only had a little over a year on it. How 

many people have you added in total in the Park Service, whether 

in Washington or out in the field or wherever, because of this added 

responsibility?

Mr. Stewart. We have not added any. We are attem pting to try 

to handle this within the existing resources, but it is becoming more 

and more evident to us all the time that this is n ot really possible.

It has increased our workload in land acquisition to a very extreme 

degree.

Senator Bible. I suppose in hearing the appropriation s request, 

and Mr. Hartzog when he comes up to justify his National Park 

Service, he will pound the desk and say: “You have imposed another 

duty on us, and we have to have a displaced persons' bureau, and 

we have to have a chief, and an accountant and a lawyer and two secretaries, and it will cost a? dollars.”

I presume tha t is coming up in the foreseeable future. But that is 

not your cup of tea and it is not your responsibility. You have