I do not address this letter to the 50/50 question or the 60/40 question as such, on what the distribution of funds should be. Leaning on the testimony of our Dr. MacMullan yesterday, I think we looked to a nationwide plan that is put out by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation this year. It should certainly show the relative balance between Federal and State efforts. We would hope that this is based upon attainable standards, both for buying Federal and for buying State or local properties, so that we can get a better fix on what the distribution formula should be between the Federal and State and local sector. I thank you for this opportunity to be here and to commend the committee, particularly the chairman, the sponsor of the bill, for taking these next steps toward the stewardship of our resources. Certainly by your action we can answer in part the problem of the past of being there with too little, too late. I think we do need your support and all the money that can possibly be mustered. I appreciate this opportunity to appear on behalf of the State of Washington. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hendrickson, for a very fine statement. And please express our appreciation to Mr. Lewis Bell, from Everett, Wash., who is chairman of the Interagency Committee, and Gov. Dan Evans for their support of the proposed legislation. Any questions? Senator ANDERSON. Are you recommending that all of the Continental Shelf revenues-$400 million a year-be used in the fund? Mr. HENDRICKSON. We support the bill wholeheartedly. Senator ANDERSON. You said in the next 5 years there would be a need of how much? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Anderson, the way the bill is drafted, revenues could run over a period of 5 years, could amount to as much as $3 billion. That amount includes receipts under the Mineral Leasing Act, as well as the national forestry receipts, as well as the Outer Shelf revenues. However, as you know, the executive departments have indicated their opposition to the inclusion of the Mineral Leasing Act and Forest Service receipts. They limit it to a $200 million fund, overall. Senator ANDERSON. You recommended $400 million a year for 5 years? Mr. HENDRICKSON. Yes, Senator Anderson. We do feel that $200 million would be a mere beginning for satisfying the needs. But we could spend considerably more than that in the State of Washington alone. Senator ANDERSON. Everybody could do so in his own State. How would you balance it off? I think saying that the Continental Shelf can provide so much a year is questionable. You would have a long battle over it. Have you ever formed an opinion as to how much would be too much? Mr. HENDRICKSON. The needs in our State presently stand at $600 million based on the identified need in the immediate years. What fraction of that should come out of the Federal sector, or State, or local, is an open question. I submit that the nationwide plan, which the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has a responsibility to prepare, should give some answers on how much of the responsibility is Federal, how much is State, and how much is local. I believe that in the State of Washington we are operating considerably above the level of Federal funding; at this time, for the 6-year period there are only earmarked $5 million of Federal funds to the State under the present formula. Under Senate bill 1401 this amount might increase by perhaps 50 percent. In the State and locally, we far exceed this. For example, Forward Thrust in Seattle, King County, next week is voting on $118 million on the immediate county just around Seattle. Senator ANDERSON. You say you would like to see the Congress set the level at $400 million annually for the next 5 years-$2 billion? How far away from the administration recommendation is that? Mr. HENDRICKSON. This figure would roughly be double the present recommendations of the administration. Senator ANDERSON. It would be $2 billion in one State alone? Mr. HENDRICKSON. No; the whole country. Excuse me, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Under the existing law the ratio for the first 5 years to the States is to be 60 percent. For the first 5 years it is 60/40, and they can adjust it up to 15 percent either way. It has been running -the testimony yesterday was 61/39. I think it would be well to point out here that the State of Washington passed a bond issue, isn't that correct, in the referendum in 1966, making $40 million available for parks and recreation. Of course, only a small portion of this amount will be used for matching Federal funds. The rest of it will represent expenditures on the part of the citizens of the State of Washington for park purposes generally, without aid from the Federal Government. Mr. HENDRICKSON. That is correct, Senator. So far we have had a portion, exceeding $3 million, of the land and water conservation funds, whereas we have projects of $141⁄2 million. So many of them have gone unassisted, without Federal aid, at this time. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Senator HANSEN. I have a couple. I understand that in addition to what has already been done-you refer to the $40 million bond issue passed a year or two ago-Governor Dan Evans now proposes in his 1967 message to the legislature that $50 million-are you talking about the response to that request that $40 million was passed? The CHAIRMAN. That is right; but in additional funds what was the action on that? Mr. HENDRICKSON. The legislature last year put on this year's ballot the extra $40 million, which we vote on this year. Senator HANSEN. It was in response to the Governor's message for $50 million that the $40 million resulted? The CHAIRMAN. Under our law such a matter must be referred to the people for a vote. So it will come up as a referendum. Mr. HENDRICKSON. The preceding referendum to which you refer passed by about a 7-to-3 vote a few years back. The CHAIRMAN. This will make a total of $80 million if the referendum which has been referred to the people is approved. Senator HANSEN. Oh, then further to clarify my understanding as to what happened in Washington, $40 million has already been voted? The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Senator HANSEN. And now there is a referendum before the people on the ballot this year to authorize another $40 million bond issue. Is this right? The CHAIRMAN. Is that not correct? Mr. HENDRICKSON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. So it will make a total of $80 million. Senator HANSEN. I would add, then, parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that I commend the people of the State of Washington. I think this is entirely proper procedure, to give them an opportunity to express first hand the priorities they think are indicated in the solution of their most urgent and pressing State problems. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hansen. Again, Mr. Hendrickson, I want to thank you for your very fine statement and presentation. Bert Cole, the commissioner of public lands of the State of Washington has written a letter endorsing this legislation. Without objec tion, it will be printed at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Olympia, Wash., February 1, 1968. Chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I strongly support and urge passage of S. 1401 to provide adequate financing of the Land and Water Conservation fund from Outer Continental Shelf revenues. Sincerely yours, BERT L. COLE, Commissioner of Public Lands. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Brinkley of Georgia also endorses this legislation. His letter will be included at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., January 30, 1968. Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you regarding Senate Bill 1401 on which you have scheduled hearings early next month. The State of Georgia is engaged in a most ambitious program for the development of outdoor recreation facilities. Many projects are in progress or are planned in the Third Congressional District which I represent. The present source of funds provided under P.L. 88-578 is not adequate to meet the needs in the state. For this reason I fully endorse the provisions of Senate Bill 1401 and urge that your Committee report it favorably to the Senate. I would appreciate your making this letter a part of the Record of the hearings. JACK BRINKLEY, Member of Congress. Sincerely, The CHAIRMAN. Governor Otto Kerner of Illinois has sent a statement in support of S. 1401. Without objection it will be included in the hearing record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY HON. OTTO KERNER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present to you and your Committee my views on S. 1401, your Bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. As has been so aptly pointed out in other statements before this Committee, the Nation is fast approaching a crisis in the matter of financing the acquisition of needed recreational areas. Our growing population and expanding urbanization are creating the need for additional space for outdoor recreation, while at the same time this very growth is making the needed space harder to find and more costly for public bodies to acquire. As the demand for new recreational land increases and the supply of such areas dwindles, local, State and Federal governments are forced to endure the increasingly costly burden of acquiring the needed lands and facilities for outdoor recreation. It has been estimated that the Nation's needs for recreational land acquisition and development will exceed the resources of the land and water conservation fund by $2.7 billion by 1977. Obviously, something must be done now to expand the resource base of this fund. Mr. Chairman, the States have been significantly assisted in their efforts to provide for the recreational needs of their people as a result of the establishment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The matching grants provided to the States under this act have been a vital force in aiding and promoting the planning, acquisition and development of land and water recreational areas and the construction of facilities. The States have been stimulated to develop comprehensive recreational plans such as we in Illinois have recently completed. If our own plans for recreational development in the State of Illinois are to go forward with due regard for the interests of our people, we will need even greater support from the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the bill which you and your distinguished colleagues have introduced is the kind of legislation which is vitally desirable if we are to continue to act responsibly in providing for the health, welfare, and enjoyment of our people. I would like the committee to know that I am fully in accord with the provisions of S. 1401 which would earmark additional Federal revenue for the land and water conservation fund. I believe also that there is great utility in providing for additional contract authority which will help make the planning and acquisition of new Federal recreational areas more economical and more expeditious. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, let me say that as a Governor who is doing everything possible to meet the recreational needs of his State, I fully support the provisions of S. 1401 which would preserve the language of the original act calling for a 40% Federal, 60% State split, unless otherwise dictated by the appropriations of any particular year. I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that in order to avert a crisis in the acquisition of needed recreational lands and facilities, we must act now both to increase the resources available to the Federal Government for this purpose, and continue to make the same percentage of these increased resources available to the States by means of 60% Federal matching grants to the States through the land and water conservation fund. The CHAIRMAN. I have received a letter from Gov. Paul Laxalt of Nevada, and also a letter from Elmo J. DeRicco, director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources of the State of Nevada, for inclusion in the hearing record at this point. (The letters referred to follow:) Hon, HENRY M. JACKSON, THE STATE OF NEVADA, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER. Carson City, Nev., January 26, 1968. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I have called a Special Session of the Nevada Legislature on February 5, 1968. As much as I would like to, it will be impossible for me to leave Carson City to attend your important committee hearing February 5-6, 1968, on Senate Bill 1401. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, since its inception, has encouraged more than any other program, interest in outdoor recreation throughout Nevada and the nation. In Nevada, state and local governments are relying on this program to acquire needed recreation lands and to develop facilities. A prime example is the acquisition of recreation land at nationally famous Lake Tahoe, made possible through Land and Water Conservation Funding. To date, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the few federal programs which we feel are being administered with the least strings attached and with benefits to such a wide segment of the population. Nevada, like many states, and the federal resource agencies are experiencing demands for Land and Water Conservation funds far exceeding the money presently available. We have felt for some time that if the intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act was going to be fully implemented, a new source of funding would have to be found to increase present state and federal apportionments. We have studied Senate Bill 1401 in detail and urge its passage in principle at the earliest possible date. Amendments proposed by the Department of the Interior may have merit as we certainly do not advocate legislating funds in excess of what can feasibly be used in the recreation program. We do question the Department of the Interior's proposal for stabilizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $200 million and changing the distribution ratio to 50% federal and 50% state. Presently, the existing state-federal distribution is 60-40; with 60% of the money being allocated to the states. We feel prior to changing this ratio very careful consideration should be given to determine if adequate funding would be available to the states under the proposed 50-50 modification and to insure that equitable apportionment between the states and the federal agencies is achieved. It is impossible to determine under the Department of the Interior's stabilization plan, the amount Nevada's apportionment would increase. I hope that your committee and the Congress will proceed rapidly with the enactment of a bill that will carry out the intent of S. 1401 and retain the present state-federal distribution at 60-40 until such time as studies show a need for change. Sincerely, PAUL LAXALT, Governor of Nevada. STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Carson City, Nev., February 5, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: In reviewing S. 2828, I find that passage of this legislation will prohibit the charging of fees in connection with projects administered by the Secretary of the Army as provided for under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation program in the State of Nevada has created a public interest in all of our resources. We have not only received substantial financial support in our recreation programs, but we have received indirect benefits which cannot be measured in money. Developing our State Park Master Plan, as required in the program, has done more to coordinate the thinking, planning, and programing of our various resource interests than any program with which we have worked in our State. Resource interests on both the federal and local levels who have in the past had conflicting views on the development and use of our natural resources, worked closely together in an effort to develop a plan which would serve the best interests of our state and nation. Our State Park Program will be developed with due regard to all of our natural resources, and with the objective of obtaining the greatest benefits for the public. I am confident that without the incentive created by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation program and the Land and Water Conservation Fund monies, it would have taken many years to achieve this coordination. I appreciate that in any new program of this nature we cannot avoid some public resistance, but the benefits we have derived and those we can expect in the future will far outweigh the small resentment we are experiencing now. Receipts from the Golden Eagle portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program have been a disappointment to all of us and studies are in process in an attempt to correct deficiencies. It would not be in the best interests of the Land and Water Conservation program to pass legislation such as S. 2828 pending the results of the investigations and studies. |