Evening star., 1952-09-07

would deprive the citizens of
Maryland of maximum use of
these resources
"Now, therefore, be it resolved.
that the Maryland Board of
Natural Resources opposes the
purchase of land by the State
of Maryland for the purpose Of
transferring such land to the
National Park Service.
BE it further resolved, that
| it is the sense of this board that
the interests Of the citizens of
Maryland would best be served by
return to State ownership Of the
c.. & o. Canal lands from Great
Falls to Cumberland"
The plan referred to in the
first whereas" of the resolution
has not yet been published. For
this reason its details are not
known. '
An outline of it provided by Mr..
Kaylor shapes up like this: ..
!. Development of the Seneca
Greek Valley and the area where
1t flows. into the Potomac. This
area now has a considerable pri-
vately -owned boating and week
end cabin development.
2. A riverside park upstream o1
the mouth of the MonocaCy.
3. Development of the Harper's
Ferry area in cooperation with
West Virginia as a national monu.
ment to preserve historic forts and
other points of interest.
4. A recreation area at Antietam
Greek using the canal aqueduct
over the creek.
S. Another recreation area near
WilliamSport at Failing Waters
6. Expansion of Fort Frederick
State Park to include the river
and canal for recreation on fish
ing and hunting.
Z. Development of the Fort
Tonoloway area just West of Han
cock.
8. Extension of Green Ridge
State Forest opposite Paw Paw,
w. Va, to include the canal, the
lriver bank and some private prep
erty.
Actually the Maryland plan pro-
vides much the same treatment for
these areas as the park service
plan. The chief difference is
that Maryland's plan calls for spot
development of historic and
recreational areas whereas the
the park service plan goes step
further and links them together
with a continuous parkway.
The areas mentioned in the
Maryland plan remain largely
Maryland projects in either case,
except for the parkway rlght-of-
way in the case of the Federal
proposal.
Seek to Defeat u. S. Plan.
Whether or not the natural re-
sources board resolution will set
the tone of the report to the
Legislature remains to be seen.
One thing is certain. There is
active and articulate opposition
at work to defeat the proposal.
On the surface, at least, it
comes principally from the
Hagerstown area where western
Maryland businessmen. sportsmen
and conservationists fear Federal
interference. They read a threat
to possible industrial and CONNER
cial expansion into the parkway
plan
This is understandable. The
project would be right in their
own back yard. They feel 1t might
clash with their own plans in an
area they naturally regard as their
territory.
Pro and Con Of The Dispute.
Here in question and answer
form are the principal objections
raised against the project and
the answers the park service is
giving to try to reach agreement:
/ @. What about right-of way
across the parkway, industrial and
otherwise?
| A. The Interior Department is
backing legislation introduced by
Representative Beall. Republican
Of Maryland, to authorize perma-
nent right-of-way for utilities.
tunnels and water conduits. At
present, the park service can issue
3O-day revocable permits only.
| @. What restrictions would be
placed on the use Of the Potomac
water?
A. The water in the river is
under the jurisdiction, Of Mary
land. Any water withdrawn from
the river for industrial purposes
would be with the authority OF
the State.
@. What restrictions would be
lnlaced m retting on and on the