Federal timber should be offered for sale at prices and under terms and conditions which will foster a continuously healthy industry; support employment; and stabilize dependent communities. At the same time, government recreation programs should be geared to demonstrated public interest and not to subjective estimates of recreational demand.

We are pleased to note that the Public Land Law Review Commission's Study No. 15 on Outdoor Recreation will place "emphasis on testing criteria employed in allocating public lands to various kinds of outdoor recreation, and examining the effects of the policies and practices under which such recreation opportunity is made available to the public." This particular study would undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to the Congress' deliberations in making a decision as to whether or not additional revenues should be earmarked to the land and water conservation fund. The ultimate decision should be made in the light of the desirability of policies which will insure a high degree of multiple use of lands under government ownership, and, to the extent feasible, a conversion of such lands so as to achieve the same multiple use under private ownership. The decision should also give full recognition to the economic and social desirability of forest-based industrial operations in the rural areas of the United States.

Although Secretary Udall asked for additional revenues to be paid into the fund, he nevertheless claims that the fund has accomplished much, been remarkably successful, and is not a failure. The fund certainly has been successful if it is evaluated in terms of whether it has substantially added to the already excessive land ownership of the Federal Government. Secretary Udall has stated "For example, the three Federal agencies-National Park Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have acquired about 310 thoussand acres with an expenditure of $880 million since the initiation of the fun." It should be pointed out that this is at an average price of $285 per acre. Secretary Udall has also pointed out that the 89th Congress authorized 23 new Federal recreation areas involving the acquisition of 250 thousand acres at the total cost of $119 million. It should be pointed out that this is an average cost of over $475 per acre.

Secretary Udall has also stated that "Our minimum estimate is that established and recently authorized areas of the National Park System need about $318 million for acquisition, and new areas which the Administration is supporting before the Congress would need an additional $160 million or a total of $478 million." This perhaps would purchase an additional 1 million acres of land for recreational purposes.

Secretry Udall has referred to the great escalation of land prices and supports a provision for two years advance contract authority up to $30 million per year for the acquisition of property within authorized areas. The Secretary stated:

"Such authority will enable the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to negotiate land purchase contracts as soon as new recreation areas are authorized or in other authorized areas where there is need to move swiftly.

"The need for advance land purchase contract authority for federal agencies participating in the Land and Water Conservation Fund arises from the normally unavoidable time lag between authorization of an area by Congress and the first appropriation for such area. The lag for recent authorizations has averaged about 9 months. This is a critical period when land values often rise most sharply.

"The escalation problem would be reduced and substantial savings made if agencies were authorized to proceed with mapping, land title search and other acquisition planning and to acquire quickly or obtain options for key recreation tracts most in danger of rising land values."

There is a serious question as to the propriety of such advance authority to tie up land prior to the time when Congress has actually made an appropiration for its purchase. In addition, this dubious device carries with it no assurance against land price escalation. The rise in prices in great part is due to the operation of factors of supply and demand, and if the demand factor enters the picture sooner than it might otherwise, it is quite probable that the only result will be to accelerate the increases in the land values and prices.

Secretary Udall appears to recognize the concept of the compatibility of recreational uses with economic uses under proper multiple use management. However, he does not push this concept to its ultimate conclusion. He states that "We believe that a recreation environment can be maintained within parks or recreation areas without total federal ownership, so long as controls exist to assure compatible private uses." As previously pointed out, cooperative arrangements have been made in many areas. If sufficient effort and imagination were applied, it is quite possible that the supposed need for continued Federal land acquisition could be largely averted. But that is not the approach represented by the proposals before this distinguished Committee.

The possible alternatives to massive Federal land acquisition for recreational purposes have been recently illustrated in the Connecticut River Watershed in New England.

At hearings in January held by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the Connecticut River Watershed Council testified that a proposed national recreation area was by no means a required or appropriate mechanism for coordinating recreational and related planning in the Valley.

The testimony of the Connecticut River Watershed Council pointed out that approximately 21 per cent of the total land area within the Connecticut River drainage basin was available for intensive, general, or limited recreational use by the public. The testimony went on to state as follows:

"If a count is also taken of the present availability of large tracts of timberland in the north country that is available for limited recreational use and the prospects of additional lands being opened for public use and more intensive use, it is not unreasonable to expect that within the very near future upwards of 3,600,000 acres of land in the Valley or over 50% of its total land area will be available for a great variety of public, quasi-public, and private recreational uses and environmental improvements.

"Substantially greater numbers of recreationists could be accommodated in present areas by relatively modest programs of facilities improvement, expansion, and quality control, and without major acquisitions of additional lands." [Emphasis added.]

The testimony also pointed out that "Urbanization and industrialization take their toll on the natural environment but they also provide the economic base which is the source of much support, directly or indirectly, for preservation of the natural environment. Economic and esthetic values are mutually-improving. The Valley will continue to thrive by public and private programs that seek to maintain a reasonable balance of these values."

Additional testimony presented on behalf of the Connecticut River Watershed Council contained the following statements:

"The Connecticut Valley finds itself in a transitional phase of digestion, consolidation, and implementation of existing plans and programs. It needs time to transform them into reality. This should be borne in mind by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in weighing the effect of broad new proposals upon an already confused public."

"The task ahead of us is to coordinate the plans and programs in existence at the federal, state, regional and local levels. Perhaps the answer lies in an inter-state recreational compact that could be administered by the New England Governors or by the newly created New England River Basin Commission." The Council testified that "existing programs, planning and tools such as easements and zoning coupled with our existing controls on the environment will eliminate the need for the traumatic experience of a Federal Recreation Area in Massachusetts."

The Council listed the following factors as making unnecessary the creation of a National Connecticut River Recreation Area:

"1. Expansive open land acreages owned by many schools and colleges in the Valley.

"2. Islands of natural and historic significance maintained by public and private interests.

"3. Public ownership of the higher ridges.

"4. Privately operated recreational areas.

"5. The proposed Northfield Mountain Project.

"6. More enlightened zoning and/or easement programs.

"7. Anticipated urban renewal.

"8. Water and air pollution abatement."

This is a vivid current illustration of the available alternatives to massive

federal land acquisition for recreational purposes.

If there is any justification for earmarking revenues to be paid into special funds, it is as a means of coupling the benefits and costs of particular programs. For example, such a logical nexus might exist in the use of admission fees to federal recreation areas for improving recreational facilities in these areas. However, we objected to the earmarking of proceeds from the sales of surplus real property and related personal property for payment into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we still do not see the connection. In fact, as we stated in 1963:

"The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 was a laudable piece of legislation, an outgrowth of recommendations of the Commission for the Organization of the Executive Branch. It will be unfortunate if its purpose to achieve economy in government is distorted so as to make possible a great expansion of presently excessive governmental land ownership. In addition, there appears to be no logically valid reason why proceeds from disposal of surplus property should be earmarked for recreational purposes."

We also said:

"It is ironic to note that, in connection with real property, the 1962 Annual Report states at page 12 that: 'GSA further accelerated the disposal of surplus real property in order to place such property in the civilian economy, add the property to local tax rolls, and return sales proceeds to the Federal Treasury.'

"Every one of the objectives would be frustrated or negated if the proceeds were devoted to buying up other lands for Federal Government ownership." (Statement to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of United States Senate, March 15, 1963.)

Likewise, we do not see the justification for earmarking revenues received under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and the Potash Leasing Acts of 1927 and 1948, and by the Forest Service for the purchase of additional land for recreational purposes.

The "Alternative Level III" endorsed by the Administration calls for outlays of $200 million per year for 5 years to be split equally between Federal and State expenditures. This would require additional annual amounts of from $100 million to $128 million to be earmarked out of revenues from Outer Continental Shelf Lands. Thus, curtailment of Federal land acquisition would appear to cancel out very neatly the need for additional earmarked revenues. This would not require any amendment to the basic law, inasmuch as Section 4(b) of the Act provides that the Federal-State ratio shall prevail "In the absence of a provision to the contrary in the act making an appropriation from the fund...."

An alternative suggestion is to amend the act so as to devote the Federal allotment to recreational development purposes alone rather than solely to land acquisition purposes.

Therefore, we respectively urge this distinguished Committee not to report S. 1401 or any other bills which would earmark additional revenues for payment into the land and water conservation fund. We appreciate this opportunity to express our views.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES

The Nation's cities are becoming increasingly concerned about the availability of recreation space for their citizens, for the Nation's accelerating trend toward urbanization is placing ever greater demands on land suitable for recreational purposes in and around our cities. A stepped up effort is needed to preserve land for recreational purposes.

The National League of Cities supports S. 1401 and H.R. 8578 which will accelerate the Federal program to preserve and protect recreation areas for all citizens by amending the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to increase funds available for property acquisition and to expedite acquisition procedures to avoid costs added through appreciation in value of land designated as a recreational area. An increase in the land and water conservation fund is particularly necessary to permit the Federal Government to acquire major national facilities and to maintain State and local programs. It is estimated that, at current prices, $3.6 billion in Federal aid will be needed to support Federal, State and local recreation programs in the next decade. Only about $1 billion will be available if the land and water conservation fund is continued at current revenue levels.

Availability of land for a variety of recreational uses is of vital importance to cities. Recreational areas in and around cities must be preserved now if they are to be available to meet future needs. By 1980 three-quarters of our citizens will live in the expanding metropolitan areas of our country and by the year 2000 predictions are that the era of the three-day weekend and two-month long vacations will have arrived. The combined pressures of a growing population and increased leisure time will create a demand for far more recreational areas to be available for the use of our people than are available today. Recreation areas where people living in metropolitan areas can spend their leisure time within short distances from their homes are those most needed.

People may travel long distances for once or twice yearly vacations, going as often to other cities as they do to the open spaces of the country, but for normal daily or weekend enjoyment, recreation areas close to home are preferred. Much of the value of recreation can be lost if the frustration of a long trip to and from the recreation area must be endured. A report by Urban American, Inc. notes, "the greatest pushes for recreation development are not in the wide open spaces. or even the medium open spaces, but in what could be called the fifty-mile 'day trip' zone".

The 50-mile radius or "day trip" zone around the metropolitan centers, where the need for recreation areas is the greatest, is also the territory where land costs are accelerating most rapidly and where open land is fast disappearing under the press of development. If we are to have enough land available for recreation in 1980 and the decades thereafter, we must accelerate efforts to acquire that land now, for costs will continue to rise rapidly and choice sites for recreation areas are being bulldozed daily by the crush of expanding urbanization.

Addition to the land and water conservation fund of revenues received under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act will permit the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, directly and through aid to the States, to accelerate efforts to acquire land both inside and outside the "day trip" zone. We believe that the most immediate need is to increase programs to provide recreational facilities within the "day trip" zone. For this reason, we are reluctant to accept any reduction in the state and local share of the fund, though we recognize the national need and the value of national facilities to all citizens.

Many State plans provide excellent programs for the development of new recreational facilities inside and outside of metropolitan areas. A few State plans have neglected the recreational needs of citizens living in urbanized areas. The original Ohio recreation plan made no provision for local recreation programs despite the heated objections of many Ohio cities, and some other plans make no specific commitment to aid local governments develop recreation areas. We understand also that in Tennessee, Federal funds have been spent to finance acquisition of facilities previously programed for development at State expense, so that the money has not been spent on new facilities.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation must be in a position to exercise increased authority to review State plans to assure that Federal funds are bing spent in accordance with the aims of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. We hope that the record will state that in reviewing state plans the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation will assure that the immediate recreation needs of the great number of people living in our metropolitan areas are given equitable consideration. State plans should be found unacceptable if this has not been done. In this connection we note that the share of State funds allocated to local governments has grown from 23% to 38% in the last eighteen months, however, there are still inequities in some States.

We hope that any future anology between the recreation program and the highway program will be avoided by assuring, at this early stage in the outdoor recreation program, that urban areas are given fair consideration in state plans to develop recreational areas. Problems arising because of past neglest of urban areas by Federal and State highway programs are noted in the 1968 National Highway Needs Report recently published by the Department of Transportation. Federal and State highway programs are now facing tremendous planning and financing problems because of the crying need to improve urban street and highway systems to deal with today's traffic. Many of the severest urban highway problems and a significant amount of the cost involved in correcting them could have been avoided if the States had given adequate consideration to urban needs in their earlier highway planning.

By insisting that States accelerate programs to preserve recreational areas in our country, particularly those fast disappearing areas in our urban centers. Congress can make a great contribution to the quality of urban living now and in the future. In this time of heavy demands upon our revenue to finance programs dealing with immediate domestic and international concerns, a long-range program to preserve recreational facilities may seem to lose relative importance. However, when the great benefits the program can give, and the heavy future costs likely to be entailed if action is not taken now are considered, an increased financial commitment to these programs at this time is justified. Passage of S. 1401 and H.R. 8578 can fill a great need in providing adequate recreational facilities for our citizens and avoiding a critical shortage of these facilities in the future.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. SYNNESTVEDT, PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL BOATING FEDERATION

From the very beginning the waters of our country, have been preserved as belonging to the people, and their free use by the public has long been the established practice, in law and in fact.

Charging fees for the use of these waters violates this principle, annoys and harasses our citizens, and tends to curtail the economic advantages accruing from America's fastest growing outdoor family recreation-boating.

We therefore support Senate bill 2828.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY MAZZOCCHI, CITIZENSHIP-LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

On behalf of our membership I am happy to endorse the objectives of S. 1401, which will provide additional financing for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

Our membership-like every other labor organization-is composed of thousands upon thousands of families who depend on the federal parks for their summertime outdoor recreation and vacations.

This committee knows that outdoor recreational space is at a premium. We are not keeping up with the demand for national parks. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has not been able to raise enough money to supply the funds which Congress has modestly authorized for new parks. It is my understanding that some $400 million of new parks authorized by Congress are lacking a single penny of financing to bring them under the public domain.

S. 1401 will use for land acquisition some of the royalties which go into the United States Treasury from the continental oil shelf royalties. This is an excellent solution to a knotty problem. We need more park land. Congress has been unwilling to vote the money. The continental oil shelf royalties belong to the American public. What better way to use these royalties than by earmarking some of them for the national park system and other outdoor recreational programs of the federal government.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH N. GILL, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is the most important source of federal funds which we in the State of Connecticut can utilize to assist us in purchasing areas for conservation and for outdoor recreation. The annual allocation of a portion of these monies to our State has averaged close to $1 million since the inception of the Fund. This resource has been most welcome and beneficial to our Open Space acquisition program. However, studies recently completed under the Connecticut Interregional Planning Program indicate that an accelerated program of acquisition of land and water is vital within the next five to ten years if these are to be preserved at all. The cost of this stepped-up program will be at least $50 million from local, state and federal sources during this brief period. In order to achieve our objectives, we will require significantly more Land and Water Conservation funds than we have received in the pasttreble the present $1 million annual allocation.

Discussions with the liaison officers of other states has brought out the fact that most of them are facing the same problems which we are encountering in Connecticut. They also believe that they must purchase more land and water soon before it is lost or priced out of reach.