GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS An Administrative History

CHAPTER IV: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (continued)

The Congressional Hearings, 1965

Anticipating the scheduling of the Congressional committee hearings, supporters of the Texas park once again began preparing testimony and recruiting witnesses. They asked Hunter to prepare justifications for the price of his property and the profit he would make. They also asked him to explain the commission Biggs would receive. Hunter outlined the answers to those questions in a letter to Jim Bowmer, an attorney in Temple, Texas, who was a park supporter. He justified the $20.84 per acre offering price on the basis of the commercial, speculative, and recreational values of the ranch lands. He believed that the appraisers for the federal government and the appraisers he employed would have no problem agreeing on a fair market value for the ranch. As for justifying the profit he would receive, Hunter believed that the best route would be to calculate how much he might have received on the money if he had invested it in something other than the ranch. He agreed with those who were anticipating the questions of the committeemen regarding Biggs's commission: it was a matter to be dealt with head-on and matter-of-factly. Biggs would receive five percent of the sales price of the ranch for the services he had rendered to Hunter. [22]

By June 1965 the hearings still had not been scheduled. On June 9, a group of politically powerful Texans and New Mexicans met in El Paso to make plans to get the hearing process moving. After the meeting, Tom Diamond, chairman of the El Paso County Democratic Party, wrote letters to all of his connections in Washington, D.C. Apparently his promptings worked. The hearing before the House Subcommittee was set for July 20; the Senate Subcommittee hearing would be July 21. Biggs then began the feverish work of soliciting more witnesses, making travel and room arrangements for those who agreed to go, and briefing the witnesses on protocol and points of emphasis. [23]

Stanley Cain, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, prepared reports on the proposed park for each of the committees. The reports made some recommendations for changes to the bills, primarily in the area of mineral rights acquisition. Cain made it clear that the Department wanted "unconditional authority to acquire the mineral estate in order that it may prevent any mineral development that would conflict with the public enjoyment of the park." He also pointed out that the speculative nature of the existing oil and gas leases on the Hunter property might make it desirable to wait until speculation decreased to acquire the mineral rights. [24] Cain also suggested eliminating survey ambiguities by replacing the metes and bounds description of the bill with a map on which the boundaries had been drawn. The map he proposed added 240 acres to protect the area at Pine Springs, which contained the ruins of the Butterfield stagestop, and two sections on the western boundary of the park, which would be acquired by exchange. Finally, Cain's report deleted the section of the bill that called for the construction of an access road from Highway 62/180 to the park boundary. If such a road were needed, the Department believed it should be constructed by the State of Texas under the federal-aid highway system. [25]

More than fifteen persons from Texas went to Washington to support the Guadalupe Mountains National Park bill in the committee hearings. Among those attending were Ben Barnes, speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; Jim Bowmer, attorney and close friend of Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas; C.W. Brown, Texas Democratic committeeman; E.W. Cook, county judge of Winkler County; Mrs. L. E. Dudley, representative for the Texas Federation of Women's Clubs and a member of the State Historic Survey Committee; Beeman Fisher, president of Texas Electric Service Company and president of the Permian Basin Chamber of Commerce; Henry Hutson, mayor of Carlsbad; Dr. Rupert N. Richardson, president emeritus of Hardin-Simmons University; John Ben Shepperd, president of the State Historic Survey Committee; and Glenn Biggs. [26]

On July 20 the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs conducted the first of its hearings. Most of the discussion focused on the value of the mineral rights to the proposed park lands. Although Interior Secretary Udall spoke in strong support of the park proposal, he apparently was unaware of the report prepared by Assistant Secretary Cain. Udall admitted that he did not know about the State of Texas's mineral rights to more than 45,000 acres of Hunter's land until the day of the hearing. He suggested that park proponents and Interior officials should meet to resolve the issue. [27]

Wallace Pratt spoke to the House Subcommittee regarding the value of the minerals on Hunter's land. He argued logically that J. C. Hunter, a prominent oilman, would never have considered selling his ranch if he believed valuable oil reserves existed there. Pratt also cited the negative results of test wells drilled in the area. His professional opinion was that there was little chance finding oil or other valuable minerals on the property. [28] No record exists to show why Pratt altered the position he had taken two years earlier when he encouraged Hunter to retain part of his mineral rights. Perhaps, after recognizing the major stumbling block acquisition of mineral rights posed to establishment of the park, he decided the park should not be traded off for the slim chance that valuable oil or gas reserves existed beneath the park lands.

Other witnesses spoke in opposition to the relinquishment of mineral rights. H. H. Markley and Tom Sealy, representing Texaco, Inc., holder of the mineral rights to more than 25,000 acres of Hunter's land, presented the other side of the mineral question to the House subcommittee. They pointed to the incomplete exploration of oil resources in the proposed park area and the proximity of the area to major oil and gas reserves. They also brought up the highly charged issue of school children being denied their rightful share of the leases, royalties, and bonuses that might be derived from oil production on the sections designated as public school lands. Congressman Richard White, the sponsor of the park bill, showed his divided allegiance during the hearing. Although he favored the park, he did not support the State of Texas relinquishing its mineral rights. He brought up Padre Island, Mount McKinley, and the Florida Everglades as exceptions to the policy of no mineral development in national parks. Committee Chairman Wayne Aspinall argued that those exceptions were made under different conditions. White was optimistic, however, that a compromise could be reached that would satisfy the Interior Department as well as his Texas constituents. [29] The House hearing closed at the end of testimony on July 20, to be reopened in February 1966, after committee members inspected the park site.

The Senate Subcommittee hearing on July 21 was abbreviated. Conflicts on the committee's agenda made it impossible to do more than accept prepared statements from the Texas witnesses who had traveled to Washington that week. Although the postponement might merely have been accidental, in view of the questions raised during the hearing on the previous day, the postponement may also have been an indication of the unwillingness of the senators to listen to any more poorly prepared testimony.

The Kelly Report

After the close of the July hearings, Secretary Udall, no doubt embarrassed by his incomplete understanding of the Guadalupe park proposal, asked John Kelly, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior from Roswell, New Mexico, to compile a report on the mineral potential of the Guadalupe Mountains. Although Kelly apparently reported orally to Udall, [30] his written report did not appear until late in March 1966, after the House Subcommittee hearings were closed. Kelly based his report on other available reports, well logs, and on consultation with officials of the Geological Survey, the Park Service, the State of Texas, and other organizations concerned with the area. Some observers expected Kelly's report to neatly resolve the mineral rights issue. The report, however, contained little information that had not been stated in other area surveys. Kelly briefly described the geology of the area and considered the potentials for development of oil and gas, ground water, saline minerals, construction materials, lime, and copper. He concluded that, other than water and construction materials, there were no valuable mineral deposits in the proposed park lands. [31]

CONTINUE >>>