concessionaires on the Corps of Engineers lakes and reservoirs. The money so received goes to the concessionaires, as a result of the fee, and the concessionaire's fees go to the Corps of Engineers. Concessionaire fees do not go to the land and water conservation fund.

I assume that under the statute as written and as discussed at great length on the floor-and the Senator is far better able than I to recall this, I am sure—was that the fees were to be charged in the instances where the Government made a special investment in a particular area for purposes of recreation, and at that particular point, a user fee would be charged for those facilities.

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. It related directly to quid pro quo, as the basis for charging the fee. In other words, it was felt that it would help to finance additional improvements in the recreation areas by charging a user fee, which in turn would help to amortize the cost of that investment.

With this kind of a policy, it was the intent, at least, of the Congress to obtain more investments on the part of the Federal Government in developing facilities for recreational purposes.

Dr. SMITH. Well, this is why I was never completely oriented to S. 2828, because it appeared to me that the services that they were highlighting were not the services in which the Federal Government had made an investment or for which fees were charged. Receipts were accruing to particular concessionnaires who were there on the basis of a permit. In other words, the Government was not involved at all, except in the fashion of the money they received from the permit. Therefore, it was somewhat diffcult for me to understand how we were going to cut out all the fees when we didn't have control over the establishment of them originally, and that is why I appreciated very much the Chair's colloquy this morning with other witnesses on this point.

Mr. Chairman, this is, in substance, our comments: We certainly do support S. 1401. We understand that another measure is to be considered later, and apparently, it hasn't been discussed very much. This is S. 1826. We would just comment upon this that this is an interesting

observation

The CHAIRMAN. We will take that up later, but I think it is appropriate for you to speak to it. You go ahead and comment on it.

Dr. SMITH. I was just going to say that there seems to be viable compromise on this measure, if we would use the total amount of receipts from the Outer Shelf in the land and water conservation fund for a period of 5 years, and at the end of that time, remove this allocation from the land and water conservation fund, and allow all 50 States to share equally in it, or something of that nature. But I would hope that this would not contravene the present posture of the land and water conservation fund in looking toward the receipts from the Outer Shelf as a source of revenue.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Smith. Your entire statement will be included in the record in addition, of course, to your supplemental remarks.

As always, we appreciate having the benefit of your counsel and advice.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., Secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C. It is may pleasure to represent a distinguished and outstanding group of conservationists who compose our Board of Directors. As always, it is an equal pleasure to present our views before this distinguished Committee regarding natural resource problems.

Subsequent to extended discussions with members of this body and members of the Executive Branch of the Government, the distinguished Chairman of this Committee, for himself and on behalf of many of his colleagues, introduced S. 859 on February 19, 1963. After extensive hearings before this Committee and its counterpart in the House of Representatives, Public Law 88-578 was signed on September 3, 1964, creating the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965.

It is not our purpose at this juncture to review either the procedural or substantive history of the passage of this landmark legislation. It is sufficient for our purposes at present to indicate that it has functioned well within the context that it was required to operate. The total revenue received by the Fund was not equal to the amount anticipated, primarily because the amounts received from user fees were below the estimates. It did achieve, however, an effective base for facilitating the acquisition and development of recreation

resources.

The purposes of the act at the very outset were to effect a working relationship between the Federal Government and the States in order to meet the significant increase in demand for recreation areas. While the use of funds allocated to the Federal agencies were to be used exclusively for purposes of land acquisition, the funds allocated to the state programs were for land acquisition, development, and planning. The act was first operational in 1965 and it required some time for the states to fund their part of the effort, achieve an administrative structure and provide for implementation of their program necessary to fulfill the regulations of the statute in providing a state recreation plan. With only a few years of experience under the act and at the risk of being dogmatic, it would appear that the recreation posture in most states has been improved significantly. Often the information emannating from various organizations would appear to contradict such an observation. It should be pointed out, however, that in implementing the act, the focus of attention in analyzing recreation needs and means to meet such needs have delineated the details of the recreation problem which was not in such perspective previously. Spokesmen from the Department and the States, however, are better able to analyze in sufficient detail the strides that have been made on behalf of the states.

Often the success of the program is questioned on the basis of those land acquisition programs of the Federal Government that have been authorized and not funded. It would appear that a number of reasons are responsible for such a result. First, the Fund never attained the total amount that was anticipated. Second, the appreciation of land values, especially in uses for recreation, advanced at a rate not anticipated by the wisest of experts at the time the original act was being formulated. Third, the rapid rate of increase in land values coupled with the delay between the time of authorization and the time of purchase, found authorizations inadequate. Fourth, the total dependence on the Fund for financing all Federal land acquisition for purposes of recreation by the Federal agencies was not adequate.

All of these circumstances have caused a significant backlog in the Federal agencies of areas and programs authorized but not yet funded. In the National Parks system alone, programs authorized, with a ceiling but not funded, total $89 million. If this funding is to take place presently, one would have to add $101 million, or consider a total of $190 million, in order to carry out the purposes of the authorizations. Also, areas authorized with no ceiling for the National Park system are estimated presently to require $128 million if the terms of the authorizations are implemented. Thus, the total projects now authorized for the National Park System would require $318 million to achieve full implementation.

In addition, the Administration has programs now pending before the Congress which would total $160 million. This amount includes only $60 million for the Redwood National Park. If one completes the authorizations with and without ceilings in addition to those now pending, approximately $478 million would be required for the Park Service alone.

The Forest Service operates under a different program requirement than that of the Park Service. Additions to Forest Service land are authorized under the Weeks Act. If their recommendations for purchase are approved by the Forest Reservations Commission, they have completed the requirements of authorization and require appropriations for purchase. The Forest Service has estimated, however, that in a 10-year period the acquisition of lands primarily for recreation would approximate $310 million.

The Bureau of Sports, Fisheries and Wildlife shares in the Fund only by acquiring land for endangered species or to meet special recreation needs. Their general estimate for a projected period of 5 years approximate $15 million.

To provide for a means of meeting this significant demand for outdoor recreation resources the Chairman of this Committee has introduced S. 1401 for himself, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Kuchel, and Mr. Nelsen, to amend Title I of the Land and Water Conservation Fund of 1965 for the purpose of augmenting the revenues accruing to the Fund.

At the present time the Fund receives revenue from three sources: (1) proceeds from fees received by the Federal agencies at installations they administer; (2) all proceeds from the disposal of surplus real property and related property under the Federal Property and Related Services Act of 1949; (3) the refundable portion of the fuel and special gasoline used in motorboats; (4) advance appropriations, beginning with the third full fiscal year to average not more than $60 million for each fiscal year.

S. 1401 would increase these revenues by adding: (1) the unearmarked monies now deposited in the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; (2) the unearmarked receipts from the National Forests which are now deposited in the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury; (3) the receipts from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. These additions would accrue to the Fund for a specific period extending from July 1, 1968 and concluding on June 30, 1973.

The annual receipts from these sources of revenue would approximate between $16 and $19 million from the Mineral Leasing Act, approximately $450 million from the Outer Continental Shelf, and approximately $88 million from the National Forests receipts. The Department of the Interior has indicated in its report that according to their studies the total local and state needs for the next 10 years are estimated to be about $3.6 billion. The same report suggests that the Land and Water Conservation Fund be established at a ceiling of $200 million annually for the next 5 years. They conclude that if their recommendations are agreed to by the Congress that some $540 million would need to be found from additional sources.

It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that we are almost back where we started in our attempts to relieve the backlog. We would prefer S. 1401 without the ceiling limitation of $200 million annually. If the limit becomes incorporated into the Statute and budgetary restrictions are eased over the next few years, in order to raise this ceiling another amendment would be required. It appears to us that it would be more prudent to continue with the original concept of the Fund. As the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 stands at present, all monies must be appropriated from the Fund by the usual appropriations procedure. If the Appropriations Committees determine that it is not in keeping with the total public interest to appropriate all the revenues accruing to the Fund in a particular year and the Congress agrees with this decision, no undue hardship has resulted. Also, under the stipulation of the Statute, if all monies are not appropriated within a two-year period they are returned to the Treasury.

In Short, S. 1401 takes into account the significant need not yet met and does not seek to make the restriction of funds in any given year a basic part of the Statute. It would appear to us that S. 1401, as introduced, provides a more flexible vehicle for meeting the problem of funding recreation programs.

We should like to call special attention to the addition of Section 8 to Title I of the basic act as provided by S. 1401. This new section would permit $30 million to be authorized to be appropriated by contract authorization. Mr. Chairman, this has not been a popular procedure with the Congress. While there has been precedent in the case of the Open Spaces provisions of the Housing

and Urban Development Act, and to a degree in the Highway Trust Fund, the procedure is usually accepted only in emergency circumstances. In this case, Mr. Chairman, it appears to us that the emergency clearly is evident. The lapse of time between authorization and appropriation has caused an egregious hardship upon the Federal Government. The details of using this contract authority can be fully circumscribed at the time the authorization is given and the amount of $30 million clearly indicates that it be used for emergency considerations only. Mr. Chairman, we feel that S. 1401 is a measure that goes to the heart of the recreation resources problem. We wish to commend the Chairman and his colleagues who have labored so long and accomplished so much in behalf of establishing the recreation resources of the people of the United States. We hope that the Committee will find favor with this measure and that the Congress will subsequently enact it into law at an early date.

(Subsequent to the hearing the following additional statement was received:)

Senator HENRY M. JACKSON,

Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 20, 1968.

New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

An amendment to S. 1401 would remove the new sources of revenue for the land and water conservation fund provided in S. 1401. The amendment would substitute for the loss of these new revenue sources authorizations to be appropriated at a level of $200 million from the general fund. We oppose this amendment. The fund was established originally because of the failure in obtaining necessary appropriations from the general fund and the advanced appropriations authorized by the land and water conservation fund from the general fund have not been appropriated. A so-called compromise amendment would allocate 37% percent of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing revenues to the States which are contiguous to the water areas where leases are established. The remaining 621⁄2 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf lease revenues would be credited to the land and water conservation fund. We oppose this compromise amendment since it would unnecessarily ally land and water conservation fund revenues with a special privilege to a few States and if accepted make passage of S. 1401 highly questionable.

SPENCER M. SMITH, Jr.
Secretary,

Citizens Committee on Natural Resources.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fred Cutlip, appearing in lieu of Angus Peyton, commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Commerce. Is he here?

STATEMENT OF FRED CUTLIP, RECREATION PLANNER, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. CUTLIP. My name is Fred Cutlip, West Virginia Department of Commerce, recreation planner. Commissioner Peyton is unable to be here today. We have another gentleman scheduled to appear before the committee in a few minutes, Mr. Bradford, who will speak on behalf of the State of West Virginia.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine, thank you very much.

Mr. William E. Towell, executive vice president, the American Forestry Association.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TOWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. TOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am William E. Towell, executive vice president of the American Forestry Association, a nationwide conservation orgnization composed of some 55,000 persons, mostly laymen. The object of the association

is the advancement of intelligent management and use of our forests, soils, water, wildlife, and all other natural resources necessary for a quality environment, healthy outdoor recreation, and the well-being of all citizens.

Our interests in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act date back to the inception of legislation to create this fund and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. From both a State administrator's level and from my position with a national conservation organization I have watched many worthwhile outdoor recreation projects become reality because of the fund. Great progress is being made in federal acquisition of recreational lands as well as acquisition and development of recreational facilities by state and local governments. Matching incentives provided by the fund have stimulated increased effort by local governments in financing of recreational projects.

A major weakness in the present fund, however, is that there is not enough money to meet demands of the States and local units of government or to keep pace with authorizations by the Congress for new Federal parks and recreation areas. If the fund is not increased, it would be almost meaningless for the Congress to authorize more new conservation areas unless it also approved appropriations from general revenue sources to finance them. Additional revenues in the land and water fund would be achieved with the passage of S. 1401.

I am aware that there is considerable concern about earmarking of funds even for worthwhile conservation projects and I share this concern, but the existing land and water conservation fund already is from earmarked sources. As a general rule, I feel that earmarked funds should be dedicated to the lands or projects from which they are derived and not diverted to unrelated projects.

We support the administrator's viewpoint that receipts under the Mineral Leasing Act and from national forests' sales and leases should not be diverted into the land and water fund, but rather that a portion of revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf be used to supplement the fund. We also approve the idea of a limit, both in amount and time, as proposed by the Secretary of Interior. A $200 million ceiling for a period of 5 years should aid greatly in catching up on Federal acquisition and be a big boost to the States. At the end of that time a review of needs and backlogs would reveal whether the amount was in need of increase or decrease.

If, however, Congress does not find it desirable to increase the Land and Water Conservation Fund through Outer Continental Shelf revenues, as recommended, then I would urge very strongly that new national parks, seashores, recreation areas or other Federal projects now being financed or backlogged for financing by the fund be authorized for purchase from other revenue sources. The land and water fund has been a valuable conservation tool but it will become a limiting factor on how rapidly the Nation can proceed on conservation and recreation projects unless the fund can be significantly increased.

Other provisions of S. 1401 appear to be very desirable. The advance obligational authority to permit contract for purchase before actual appropriation of funds should help to hold down prices. And, the sell-back and lease-back authority will enable the Federal Government to recoup land acquisition costs on some land transactions to replenish the land and water conservation fund.