for all Americans is beyond criticism. That purpose can only be realized through careful planning and through the expenditure of money, and the Congress provided for both when it passed the Act. The Department of the Army supports the general principles embodied in the admission and user charge provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and intends to implement the provisions of the Act fairly and equitably, consistent with the regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior. It is recognized, of course, that there may be imperfections in this Department's implementation of these provisions, and that there are practical, but as yet undefined limits in the application of the admission and user charge concept to Department of the Army projects. However, it is considered that the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act is as yet not fully tested, and should not now be limited in its application. Insofar as the second prohibition is concerned, that relating to the charging of fees for permits to construct floating facilities, which fees are not charged under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, but, rather, pursuant to other authority, the attention of the Committee is called to his Deparment's opposition report, submitted to the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, on S. 2236, 90th Congress, a bill "To prohibit the Secretary of the Army from charging fees in connection with permits for certain floating facilities." A copy of the report is inclosed for your convenience. In this regard, it is noted that, subsequent to the submission of the report, the imposition of the new schedule of charges for docking and floating facilities, has been extended from the January 1, 1968 date given in the report to January 1, 1969. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report to the Commitee. Sincerely, STANLEY R. RESOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1967. Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of the Army with respect to S. 2236, 90th Congress, a bill "To prohibit the Secretary of the Army from charging fees in connection with permits for certain floating facilities." The general purpose of this bill is as stated in its title. More specifically it would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from collecting any fee or charge for the issuance of any permit or license for any private boat mooring facility, duck blind, ski-jump float, swimming or diving platform or raft, or any other similar floating facility on any of the waters of any project administered by the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers. It would not, however, prohibit the requirement of a permit or license for such floating facility. The Department of the Army is opposed to the enactment of this bill. In consonance with the Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended, the Department of the Army provides for construction and operation of public park and recreational facilities by local interests; and, in addition, where public requirements justify, provides for operation of commercial concession facilities. The operators of the concession facilities are required to furnish specified services and facilities supplied by commercial concessionaires, individuals have organized business. The rates and prices charged the public by the operators are approved by the responsible United States Army Engineer District. Thus, the public can rely upon the availability of services and facilities at reasonable rates. In addition to the boat docks, marinas, lodging accommodations and other facilities supplied by commercial concessionaires, indivduals have organized yacht and boat clubs, and sailing clubs, in lieu of patronizing the commercial establishments. The need for the use of Government lands along the waterfront by clubs for such purposes as the storage of boats and the sale of oil and gas to club members has been recognized. However, it has been concluded that rentals should be obtained from the clubs commensurate with the privileges granted. This policy recognizes the need for such clubs, while also affording some protection to concessionaires who have invested considerable capital in business ventures fraught with many risks. The remaining type of boat dock user is the resident adjacent to such a project, who frequently is interested in building a boat dock to enhance his opportunity to use the lake for recreation. The adjacent resident has no vested rights in the lake or the shores thereof, notwithstanding his location, but is entitled to use the lake and the shores to the same extent as other members of the public. Nevertheless, these individuals have heretofore been permitted to build private docks free of charge, despite the fact that other members of the public must pay for similar privileges at commercial areas or by joining yacht and boat clubs. The inequity of this situation has been recognized. The Bureau of the Budget has enunciated the Government's policy that fair market value should be realized where the exclusive use of Government property is involved (cf. BOB Circular A-25 dated 23 September 1959). Further, the Act of 31 August 1951 expresses the sense of Congress with respect to fees, charges, or prices for things of value or utilty provided or granted by any Government agency (65 Stat. 290; 5 U.S.C. 140. To correct the inequitable situation and to establish conformity with the above-mentioned policy, a schedule of charges has been established for the use of Government-owned property, i.e., the land area underlying the dock and including any walkway approach thereto. It is emphasized that there is no charge being made for the use of the waters of the project. The criteria for, as well as the amount of, the charge have been the subject of an intensive study, during which the views of our field representatives in various sections of the country have been obtained. After full consideration of the amount of compensation to be obtained for such use, the annual rate was established at $10.00, plus seven and one-half cents for each square foot of the area occupied in excess of 200 square feet. The policy, which will be effective 1 January 1968, applies to all water resource development projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. The application of the new procedure for granting such permits on the basis of a reasonable fee will afford notice of at least six months to those who now hold permits heretofore granted. The payment of a reasonable fee by individuals desiring to make such private use of Government property will place these individuals in the same category as others who obtain like privileges from operators of commercial concession leases granted either directly by the Government or by States or political subdivisions thereof through third party agreements as provided in leases for public park and recreational purposes. Accordingly, the Department of the Army, for reasons above stated, strongly recommends that S. 2236 not be enacted. The enactment of this legislation will have no apparent effect on the budgetary requirements of the Department of the Army. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report to the Committee. Sincerely yours, STANLEY R. RESOR, Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 3, 1968. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: This responds to the request of your Committee for a report on S. 2828, a bill "To amend the River and Harbor Act of 1965 to prohibit certain fees from being charged in connection with projects administered by the Secretary of the Army." We strongly recommend that the bill not be enacted. The bill prohibits the charging of Federal recreation fees under the authority of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897) for entrance, admission, or access to project areas (including the waters) administered by the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, or for the use of minimum recreational facilities, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, at such project areas. We assume that this prohibition is intended to apply only to those public use areas under the direct management of the Army Corps of Engineers and not to the area leased by the Corps to non-Federal entities for recreation purposes. In addition, the bill prohibits the collection of a fee for the issuance of a permit or license for a boat mooring or docking facility, duck blind, ski-jump float, swimming or diving platform or raft, or any similar floating facility on any of the waters of a project administered by the Corps of Engineers. This latter prohibition pertains exclusively to the province of the Department of the Army and is unrelated to the entrance, admission, and user fees (or "Golden Eagle" program) authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. We defer to the views of the Department of the Army on the advisability of prohibiting fees for boat mooring and various other floating facilities. The effect of the bill would be to prohibit the charging of Federal recreation fees at virtually all water resource development projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers, since it is rare that facilities in excess of "minimum recreation facilities" would be provided at Federal expense. The bill would substantially alter the established policies and principles set forth below: 1. The pay-as-you-go concept adopted by Congress for carrying out the Land and Water Conservation Fund program which is aimed at meeting the increasing needs of our growing population for more and improved outdoor recreation areas and facilities. 2. The Congress intended the Corps of Engineers to be a full participant in the Land and Water Conservation Fund program along with other land managing agencies that administer Federal recreation areas. 3. User charges should be instituted by Federal agencies where the users reap special benefits that do not accrue to the general taxpayers who carry the burden of a Federal program. 4. The pending bill would put in doubt the propriety of other Federal agencies collecting fees at Federal recreation areas they manage which are located on Corps of Engineers and other Federal water development projects. 5. All Fund revenues are needed to help pay for new recreation areas authorized by Congress which have not yet been funded. 6. The pending bill would establish a precedent which could endanger successful recreation charge programs in State park systems, which have State parks located on or in the vicinity of Corps of Engineers reservoirs, by placing such State parks in an adverse competitive economic situation. We believe that the bill would erode the fee provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, constitute a major reversal of policy, and would result in hindering the progress made in recent years in public outdoor recreation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, HARRY R. ANDERSON, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. [S. 531, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That essential outdoor recreation needs of the American people must be met and that this can be done most effectively by increasing revenues to the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order to assist Federal, State, and local governments in acquiring and developing public outdoor recreation facilities. SEC. 2. To carry out the policy of section 1 of this Act, all revenues from July 1, 1967, received under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (except revenues received from lands within naval petroleum reserves), all revenues received from the Potash Leasing Acts of 1927 and 1948, as amended, and all revenues received under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended, to the extent such revenues would otherwise be deposited in miscellaneous receipts, shall be deposited in the land and water conservation fund created by the Act of September 3, 1964. The CHAIRMAN. The differences between S. 1401 and Senator Harris' S. 2828 are readily apparent; S. 1401 would add gravely needed revenues to the land and water conservation fund; S. 2828 would result in reduced revenues for the fund by prohibiting the charging of any fees at Corps of Engineers water installations. However, the issue is not that simple and it well may be that an accommodation can be worked out in the way of more clearly defining those areas in which fees may be charged and the type and amount of such fees. Now a few words concerning the background and purpose of these bills. During the 88th Congress, we enacted several measures which have been hailed as milestones in the history of conservation legislation. Among these milestones were the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, Public Law 88-578. Enactment of these measures was the climax of a number of years of great effort on the part of dedicated citizens and organizations. The purpose of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the provisions of which are based on legislation I had the honor to sponsor, is to help the States and the Federal agencies meet the ever-increasing needs and demands, present and future, of the American people for lands and facilities for outdoor recreation. The act established a fund from which grants are made to the States, on a matching basis, for planning and acquisition of land and water areas, and for construction of facilities on them. A part of the fund is available for appropriation to Federal agencies, through established authorization and appropriation procedures, for acquisition of additional land and water areas. I think there can be no doubt that this act has provided a tremendous stimulus to comprehensive recreation planning, and through it we have made significant strides toward fulfilling the existing needs. Unfortunately, we find that today the fund and its entire concept is in a state of crisis. We all know our Nation has been experiencing an escalation in land prices in general, and a particularly alarming one in prices for recreation-quality lands. With increasing affluence, Americans are willing to invest more money in recreation lands, and these lands, being limited geographically, are selling for ever higher and higher prices. It is common for the price of recreation land to double in 6 or 7 years and, in not too rare instances, to double in 4 or 5 years. This nationwide trend is accelerated when the Congress authorizes a national park or seashore to be created in the particular area. Of significance, I think, is the fact that, while the originators of the land and water conservation fund did not intend that it be a "limiting" fund, in practice it has been just that. The Congress has seen fit to appropriate funds for recreation-land acquisition only up to the limits of revenues earned by the fund. Each member of the committee has before him a copy of a study published last year delineating the land price-escalation problem. That study points out that the combined Federal-State-local needs for recreation-land acquisition and development by 1977 will exceed the income to the land and water conservation fund by $2.7 billion. This figure was stated in prices current in 1966. Section 1 of the bill would do two things. First, it would cover into the fund for 5 fiscal years the otherwise unearmarked revenues from mineral leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf, the Federal share of revenues under the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Federal share of national forest receipts income. The Outer Continental Shelf program has a history which indicates annual returns to the Federal Government of between $400 and $500 million a year. The unearmarked portion of the Mineral Leasing Act revenues averages $11 to $12 million a year. The unearmarked portion of the national forest receipts would average $90 million annually. I want to point out emphatically that this bill would in no way affect revenues from mineral leasing or the national forests that now are allocated to State and local governments for public purposes. Estimates of the new moneys available to the fund from enactment of S. 1401, as introduced, vary from $2 to $3 billion for the 5 years. Referring again to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation report on land price escalation, you will note that the 10-year deficit, in 1966 prices, will be $2.7 billion. A second provision of section 1, found in subsection (b), provides advance contract authority up to a maximum of $30 million a year for a 2-year period for land purchases. It is discouraging to visit an area under consideration or even authorized as a national recreation area or park and see the very heart of the area being subdivided. We have seen instances where the subdivider has advertised that a buyer "can't lose" because the Federal Government will "have to buy you out at no loss to you." This advance contract authority would permit the agency to go out immediately after Congress authorized a project and purchase the key tracts which might be subject to such exploitation. Such action could be taken before any further subdivision caused additional increases in land prices further depleting Federal funds. Section 2 provides certain new tools to the Park Service landacquisition program such as authorization to use a buy-and-leaseback or a buy-and-sell-back-with-restrictive-covenants procedure. It would also permit the use of general exchange procedures for units of the national park system. We have two Members of of the Senate here and I will call on Senator Monroney and Senator Harris, together, I believe, if that is agreeable with our colleagues, to make their comments in connection with the bill Senator Harris introduced, which was cosponsored by Senator Monroney and Senator McClellan. STATEMENT OF HON. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator MONRONEY. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I am very happy to appear here today to give my views on S. 2828, which is cosponsored by Senator Harris and Senator McClellan and myself. This is a subject about which I feel very strongly. I am happy to have the opportunity to tell you of my feeling. Let me say at the outset that Senator Harris and I have cosponsored another bill now pending before the Senate Public Works Subcommit |