GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS An Administrative History

CHAPTER IV: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (continued)

The House Hearings, 1966

The House Subcommittee hearings reconvened on March 10, 1966, without Kelly's report. Again, the questions focused on the mineral rights issue. The dilemma of Congressmen Pool and White, created by their support of a park that required the State of Texas to make what appeared to some to be a considerable financial sacrifice, increased when Jerry Sadler, commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, stated during the hearing that Texas did not want the park if it meant giving up the State's mineral rights to the park lands. Sadler proposed the Guadalupe Mountains be designated a recreation area rather than a national park. Pool, unwilling to make any real commitment, supported Sadler's recommendation, but said if Texas would donate the mineral rights, he would also be agreeable to national park status for the area. [32]

Tom Sealy again represented the interests of Texaco at the hearing. Texaco offered to relinquish its mineral exploration rights to six sections at the mouth of McKittrick Canyon and on Guadalupe Peak until such time as policy changed to allow mineral development within national park boundaries. [33]

As a result of the lengthy hearing and consultation process, the park bill that finally reached the floor of the House late in May 1966 carried several important amendments: (1) A scenic easement would be sought for the sections belonging to Ed Hammack on the west side of the park. (2) The park could be established only after the State of Texas donated its mineral rights and all other mineral rights had been acquired through purchase or donation. Purchase options or contracts for surface rights would be contingent upon appropriations until resolution of the mineral rights question. (3) Former holders of mineral rights would be permitted to regain those rights at cost plus five percent interest per year if the federal government abandoned the park within 20 years. (4) In the first five years, park acquisition and development costs would be limited to $12,162,000. (5) The clause calling for construction of an access road outside the park boundaries would be deleted. [34]

On June 20, 1966, after brief discussion regarding the reversionary mineral rights of the State of Texas and the size of the appropriation requested, H.R. 698 passed the House floor. [35] The following day the bill was read in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

The Senate Hearings, 1966

In April 1966, anticipating the resumption of the Senate Subcommittee hearings, Alan Bible, who was Chairman of the Subcommittee, and Frank Moss and Len B. Jordan, members of the committee, visited the proposed park site, accompanied by Carlsbad Caverns Superintendent Paul Webb, Hunter, Biggs, and several other interested persons. During the tour, the party observed well-drilling taking place at the mouth of McKittrick Canyon, exploration that was permissible under the terms of the agreement of the Pratt land donation. [36] All of the senators were favorably impressed with the proposed park. Senator Bible spoke optimistically to reporters about the park bill's passage, but he also recognized the problem of acquiring the mineral rights. [37]

After a year's delay, the Senate Subcommittee hearings reopened on August 9, 1966. In spite of having had plenty of time to prepare testimony and with knowledge of the questions posed by the House Subcommittee, the expert witnesses of the day became a source of irritation to Chairman Bible. While Bible had been impressed with the proposed park lands, he still expected sound answers to the questions posed by the committee members. Stanley Cain, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, who one year earlier had signed off on the report on the proposed park, represented the Interior Department. When he was unable to respond satisfactorily to Bible's queries, Cain reported that his appearance at the hearing was a last-minute decision, because of the death of Carlsbad Caverns Superintendent Paul Webb, who had been scheduled to testify. Bible's concern, which Cain could not address, was the $1,500,000 that the Interior Department had earmarked for land acquisition for the park. Cain said that $165,000 of the amount was for improvements. He divided that amount into two parts: $24,000 for six buildings and $141,000 for "improved farm units." Under continued questioning by Bible, Cain admitted he did not know what constituted the improved units, nor had he ever been closer to the proposed park than Carlsbad and Big Bend. At that point Bible's patience ended:

We are not qualifying you as a witness on Carlsbad or Big Bend but we would like to have a qualified witness on Guadalupe, a man who has been over the grounds and knows it. We are not expert on the committee but I think each of us has seen it. [38]

Max Edwards, assistant to Udall, stepped into the fray and attempted to clarify the points Cain stumbled over. Somewhat pacified, Bible's focus then shifted to the cost of acquiring Texaco's mineral rights. He expressed concern that the $1,500,000 did not include any amount for acquisition of mineral rights. Edwards guessed that the cost for Texaco's rights would not exceed $75,000 for 25,000 acres, but he admitted that the Interior Department had made no formal estimate of the amount. Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico, another committee member, reminded Cain and Edwards of the Department's gross underestimation of land acquisition costs at Point Reyes, Cape Cod, and Padre Island. He expressed the hope that such errors would not be repeated at Guadalupe. [39]

Anderson returned to questioning Cain about farm units. Questioned directly about Hunter's land, Cain could not answer questions about wells, whether the land was under cultivation, what type of livestock was run on the property (he incorrectly assumed it was cattle), the reasoning behind the rangeland appraisals, how long Hunter had owned the land, or his cost for acquisition. [40]

The senators excused Cain from further questioning. However, they expressed again their desire to talk with someone who could explain why mineral rights could be bought for $3 per acre (Edwards's estimate) when Hunter's rangeland had been appraised at an average of $20 per acre. [41]

Texaco representatives James Pipkin and Joseph Markley were resigned to the fact that Texaco would be forced to relinquish mineral rights to the Hunter lands, either through donation or sale. They argued, however, to retain reversionary rights to the minerals in the event that government policy or park status changed. They felt the 20-year time limit imposed on reversionary rights by the House bill was unrealistic in view of the slow development of West Texas. The Texaco men also addressed the question of the value of the company's mineral rights. Markley explained the geology of the region, previous testing, and untested potential for oil and gas development. Although he suggested Edwards's estimate of $3 per acre for mineral rights was far too low, neither Pipkin nor Markley were able to suggest a more reasonable figure. [42]

After questioning the Texaco representatives, the senators agreed that there was little harm in adding Texaco's request for reversionary interests in the mineral rights to the bill. Senator Bible said, "It is so unusual to find anything governmental once created that is ever put out of business, and I would think that would probably be true of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, that once created, it is going to be there forever and a day. So I don't know that your condition would be too burdensome on the Government . . . ." [43]

On October 7, 1966, the Senate approved H. R. 698. Several amendments were added to resolve the problems confronted during the hearings: (1) All mineral rights, not just those belonging to the State of Texas, were required to be donated. (2) Reversionary rights of those donors would be respected for an unlimited period of time. (3) Land acquisition costs would be limited to $1,800,000. [44]

The House approved the Senate's changes on October 10 and on October 15, 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill to authorize Guadalupe Mountains National Park (see Appendix A). In summary, the bill provided that: (1) Land would be acquired as described on the map drawn by the Department of the Interior. The sections belonging to Ed and Ona Hammack would be omitted upon receipt of a scenic easement from them. (2) Acquisition of the land could be accomplished by purchase, donation, or exchange, with 4,667 acres specifically designated for exchange. (3) Contracts for purchase would be contingent upon availability of appropriated funds. Establishment of the park would occur after notification by publication in the Federal Register that title to all land had been vested in the United States and all mineral rights had been donated. (4) Mineral rights would be reconveyed to donors if the land were abandoned by the Park Service, if a national emergency required development of the mineral resources, or if mineral development outside the park boundaries drained the reserves beneath the park. (5) Funds designated for the administration of McKittrick Canyon would be transferred to Guadalupe Mountains National Park after the park was established. (6) Cost limitations would be $1,800,000 for land acquisition and $10,400,000 for development of the park.

CONTINUE >>>