1 Combines State expenditure total from Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Report No. 25, table B. p. 6, and local expenditure total from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1967, table No. 585, p. 421, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Combines State expenditure total from State Outdoor Recreation Statistics, 1962, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and local expenditure total from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1967, table No. 585, p. 421, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Combines State expenditure total from Outdoor Recreation Supply Inventory (forms BOR 8-73 and BOR 8-79), Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and local expenditure total from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1967, table No. 585, p. 421, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Combines State expenditure total from Outdoor Recreation Supply Inventory (forms BOR 8-73 and BOR 8-79), Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and local expenditure total from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1967, table No. 585, p. 421, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

5 Combines State expenditure total (estimated) from State and Local Public Facility Needs and Financing, table 3, p. 531, a study prepared for the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, December 1966, and local expenditure total from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1967, table No. 585, p. 421, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Year:

State expenditures for parks and recreation

(Includes operation and maintenance, and capital expenditures)

Amount

1 $186,600,000

1960.

1962.

1964.

1965

1966

2 226,030,765

1 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Report No. 25, table B, p. 6. 2 State Outdoor Recreation Statistics, 1962, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Supply Inventory (forms BOR 8-73 and BOR 8-79). State and Local Public Facility Needs and Financing, table 3, p. 531, a study prepared for the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, December 1966.

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1967, table No. 585, p. 421, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (Includes total outlays for parks and recreation.) The CHAIRMAN. Senator Allott?

Senator ALLOTT. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate having you.

Mr. MACMULLAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Harry Figge, chief of land acquisition and development, Fish and Parks Department of the State of Colorado. Mr. Figge, we are delighted to have you with us this afternoon.

Mr. FIGGE. Thank you, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Allott?

Senator ALLOTT. Before he starts, we are very happy to have Mr. Figge with us today. He is chief of the land acquisition and development of the Fish and Parks Department of the State of Colorado, and I have already spoken to him privately. I usurped a part of one short paragraph of his material this morning because I wanted to ask the Secretary about it, and he has also mentioned several other things that I hope he will comment on this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Very fine. Mr. Figge, would you proceed?

STATEMENT OF HARRY J. FIGGE, LAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CHIEF, STATE OF COLORADO GAME, FISH, AND PARKS DEPARTMENT

Mr. FIGGE. Mr. Chairman, I will make this brief, but I do appreciate the opportunity of reading a portion of this into the record. I do represent Harry R. Woodward, who is director of the Colorado Game, Fish, and Parks Department, and is the designated State liaison officer administering land and water conservation funds in Colorado.

Mr. Woodward also is a member of the executive board of the National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers. I want to point out at the beginning that in the figures that I give for the amount of land and water conservation funds appropriated in Colorado there is an apparent discrepancy that I have not resolved. I showed a figure of $2,066,850. I find that there is an indication of $2,900,000 that has already been appropriated.

The CHAIRMAN. You can submit a letter to the committee on that when you have resolved the discrepancy.

Mr. FIGGE. There has been a lot of evidence presented that there has not been enough money appropriated to the land and water conservation fund. In order to accomplish the purposes envisioned in the passage of this act, it is evident that there is a need for a substantial increase in land and water funds. A tremendous interest has been generated by political subdivisions to acquire and establish outdoor recreation areas, since the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 was passed. Political subdivisions that were faulting the State for taking fand off the tax rolls for recreation now are in the job themselves, because of the land and water funds.

We do concur in Secretary Udall's recommendation in his letter of January 4, 1968, to the Honorable Henry M. Jackson, chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, wherein he recommends that the level of financing of the land and water conservation fund be increased. We would recommend, however, a higher ceiling than the $200 million per year which he recommends because of the urgency to acquire and develop areas before it is too late.

We have not set a limit, believing that the committee would have better information to set a limit. I appear here today to support S. 1401, provided that the original concept of the land and water conservation fund be maintained. This concept was that not more than 40 percent of the land and water conservation funds be used for Fed

eral expenditures and 60 percent be allocated for State projects. We are fearful and highly chagrined that the administration has apparently forgotten the original provisions and are attempting to reverse the trend so that the Federal grant will eventually get the lion's share of the fund.

We vigorously oppose, therefore, Secretary Udall's recommendation in the same letter to the Honorable Henry M. Jackson which

states:

In addition the administration believes appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund should be divided equally between eligible Federal agencies and the several States.

Colorado was a strong supporter of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act during its consideration by Congress. It should be noted that Colorado was responsible for securing the support of a number of other States for the act. This support was obtained on the basis that the act contained the provision that 60 percent of the funds would be allocated to the States. Reduction in the percent of funds granted to the States cannot be justified, and it seems to us that such a change in the basic formula at this time would be a violation of the trust placed by the supporting States in the administration.

We also strongly support and recommend the continuation of the use fee concept as exemplified by the Golden Eagle passport.

But the 50 percent actually doubles the amount of recreation they buy.

This would also go for Senate bill 2828. We also recommend proper enforcement of the provisions requiring that users purchase the Golden Eagle Passport before entering the areas requiring its possession. There has been opposition to the Golden Eagle passport as there has been to all new fees assessed.

It appears that time has now almost eliminated that opposition. With the provisions equitably enforced, the opposition reduced, the income from that source should increase. The use fee concept has an undeniable point in its favor. This is the fact that it is the people who use the area that are the ones who are paying toward this use. In Colorado we have found one extremely important side benefit that was not anticipated when Colorado's use fee was put into effect. Vandalism has been eliminated or appreciably decreased on areas where user fees are required.

Secretary Udall did refer to that point. There is a psychological factor, in that people who make an investment in an area, even if it is only the $7 Golden Eagle Passport, tend to take care of it better than if it is handed to them free.

We also support and encourage the allocation of all revenue obtained under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended, and also support and encourage the allocation of all revenue obtained under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 that is legally possible to appropriate to the land and water conservation fund.

We do thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make this presentation which emphasizes the importance of: (1) increasing the appropriation to the land and water conservation fund; (2) retention of the original concept of 60 percent of the land and water conservation funds allotted to the several States; (3) the continuation of and particularly the enforcement of the provisions of the Golden Eagle pass

port; and (4) maximum legal appropriations of funds derived from the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 to the land and water conservation fund.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and you wish to have the bill passed by the Senate of Colorado included in the record?

Mr. FIGGE. As part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. Your prepared text, followed by the bill mentioned, will be included in full.

(The data referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HARRY J. FIGGE, LAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CHIEF, COLORADO GAME, FISH, AND PARKS DEPARTMENT

Mr. Chairman, I am Harry J. Figge, Land Acquisition and Development Chief of the State of Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department. I represent Harry R. Woodward, who is Director of the Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department and is the designated State Liaison Officer administering Land and Water Conservation Funds in Colorado. Mr. Woodward is also a member of the Executive Board of the National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers.

Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, Chapter 62, Article 14, paragraphs 7-10, was enacted by the Colorado General Assembly to cover the allocation of Land and Water Conservation Funds in the state. A copy of this bill is attached. The statute provides that not more than 75% of the L&W Funds allocated to Colorado be spent for state acquisition and development projects and approximately 25% of the funds be spent for projects requested by political subdivisions of the state. The Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Commission within the scope of the statute has been granting over 50% of the allocated L&W Funds to political subdivisions. This has been desirable because the requests made by political subdivisions has been so much higher than anticipated and L&W Funds considerably less than anticipated. Cities, counties and recreation districts have passed bond issues, assessed mill levies and acquired funds from other sources to match federal funds on a 50-50 basis. The state also has more money than available federal funds to match on the same percentage. During the three year period 1965, 1966 and 1967 that L&W Funds have been available, the total allotment to Colorado has been $2,066,850. Political subdivisions in the state requested $5,173,000 and the state has had $3,559,000 for a total of $8,732,000 available to match with L&W Funds for eligible projects. More than four times as many L&W Fund dollars could have been appropriated. To accomplish the purposes envisioned in the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, it is evident that the need for a substantial increase in L&W Funds does exist.

Tremendous interest and incentive to acquire and establish outdoor recreation areas has been generated by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. And, it appears extremely desirable to take advantage of this in providing sufficient funds as soon as possible to acquire sites before development of those sites for other purposes and the escalation of land prices make the projects prohibitive. We do concur in Secretary Udall's recommendation in his letter of January 4, 1968 to the Honorable Henry M. Jackson, Chairman Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, wherein he recommends that the level of financing the Land and Water Conservation Fund be increased. We would recommend, however, a higher ceiling than the $200 million per year which he recommends because of the urgency to acquire and develop areas before it is too late.

I appear here today to support S.B. 1401 provided that the original concept of the L&W Conservation Fund be maintained. This concept was that not more than 40% of the L&W Funds be used for federal expenditures and 60% be allocated for state projects. We are fearful and highly chagrined that the administration has apparently forgotten the original provisions and are attempting to reverse the trend so that the federal grant will eventually get the lion's share of the fund. We vigorously oppose, therefore, Secretary Udall's recommendation in the same letter to the Honorable Henry M. Jackson, which states, "In addition the Administration believes appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund should be divided equally between eligible Federal Agencies and the several states".

Colorado was a strong supporter of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act during its consideration by Congress. It should be noted that Colorado was responsible for securing the support of a number of other states for the Act. This support was obtained on the basis that the Act contained the provision that 60% of the funds would be allocated to the states. Reduction in the percent of funds granted to the states cannot be justified, and it seems to us that such a change in the basic formula at this time would be a violation of the trust placed by the supporting states in the Administration.

We also strongly support and recommend the continuation of the use fee concept as exemplified by the Golden Eagle Passport. We also recommend proper enforcement of the provisions requiring that users purchase the Golden Eagle Passport before entering the areas requiring its possession. There has been opposition to the Golden Eagle Passport as there has been to all new fees assessed. It appears that time has now almost eliminated that opposition. With the provisions equitably enforced, the opposition reduced, the income from that source should increase. The use fee concept has one undeniable point in its favor. This is the fact that it is people who use the area that are the ones who are paying toward its use. In Colorado we have found one extremely important side benefit that was not anticipated when Colorado's use fee was put into effect. Vandalism has been eliminated or appreciably decreased on areas where user fees are required.

We also support and encourage the allocation of all revenue obtained under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (67 Stat. 462; 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), as amended and from the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 437; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), that is legally possible to appropriate to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

We do thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make this presentation which emphasizes the importance of (1) increasing the appropriation to the L&W Conservation Fund; (2) retention of the original concept of 60% of the L&W Funds allotted to the several states; (3) the continuation of and particularly the enforcement of the provisions of the Golden Eagle Passport; and (4) maximum legal appropriation of funds derived from the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. HOUSE BILL No. 1088

An Act relating to the financing of outdoor recreation resources. (Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act.)

Be It Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: Section 1. Article 14 of chapter 62, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTIONS, to read:

62-14-7.-Declaration of purpose.-It is hereby found and declared that the tourist industry and outdoor recreation have become a major element of Colorado's economic structure and one of the largest sources of income and pecuniary benefit to the people of this state and that there is an increasing need for outdoor recreational facilities, both for the citizens of Colorado and its visitors. In recognition of these increasing public demands for outdoor recreational opportunities, and to further assure that present and future generations be provided adequate outdoor recreation resources, it is desirable that all levels of government take prompt and coordinated action to the extent practicable, without diminishing or affecting their respective powers and functions, to conserve, develop, and plan outdoor recreation resources. That in order to insure accomplishment of such objectives, within individual areas throughout the state, consideration shall be given of all authorized uses, purposes, and other pertinent factors relating to such individual area. Plans for development of recreational resources shall be confined to certain types of public recreation resources within the individual areas, or in portions thereof, as may be considered necessary by the game, fish, and parks commission.

62-14-8.-Definitions.-(1) "Outdoor recreation" means any activity conducted in an outdoor environment by an individual, such as hiking, camping, boating, fishing, and the like.