REVENUE TO THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATON FUND, BY SOURCE AND AGENCY, FISCAL YEARS, 1965-68

Department of the Interior..

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

==

Senator ALLOTT. Now, in answering the question of the chairman, Mr. Secretary, what were the overall figures, and you were testifying to receipts overall in the Federal Government, were you not?

Secretary UDALL. We were referring to the overall receipts from all agencies.

Senator ALLOTT. That would be $5.6 million in 1967?

Dr. CRAFTS. Senator Allott, in 1967, if you are looking at the table that is attached to the Secretary's testimony, the last sheet, under the line "Annual permit for 1967", shows $3.8 million. This is the income from the sale of the $7 annual permit.

In addition, there is $5.6 million collected from user and other entrance admission fees other than the annual permit. So, the total income in 1967 for recreation, entrance and admission fees is the sum of those two figures, $9.4 million.

Senator ALLOTT. Now, you have not included in those figures, of course, the motorboat fuel tax.

Dr. CRAFTS. No. The motorboat fuel tax is the next line, $31.3 million in 1967.

Senator ALLOTT. What would you say totally within the Department of the Interior-and I will ask the Engineers the same question-what would you say from your annual permit and other admission and user fees, which you point out is $9.4 million, is the percentage of that that is actually utilized in connection with the Department of the Interior only? Would it be around 10 percent ?

Dr. CRAFTS. I think that the Park Service for all practical purposes dominates here as far as the Department of the Interior goes because the collections from the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife are so minor. The Park Service figure, I think Mr. Hartzog gave 11 percent.

Senator ALLOTT. Now, one of the recommendations, I understand, Mr. Secretary, and I am stealing a little bit out of the statement of the Representative of Colorado, who is here, is that you reduce the sharing to a 50-50 basis between the States and the Federal Government.

In his statement, he very well points out that that the States had to enact legislation, most of them, in order to avail themselves of the funds under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and that in effect this leaves the violation of the understanding or breach of the understanding contained in that act which gave 60 percent to the States and 40 percent to the Federal Government.

What is your reason, except to get more money for the Federal Government,

to

reduce this to 50-50?

Secretary UDALL. I would say the one overriding reason is that we have been falling behind at the Federal level. The States are partners in this program, we are delighted with the good running start they have gotten. They have many wonderful projects in a lot of the States that have been made possible by this act.

The 60-40 division is not mandatory by law. In fact Congress gave us flexibility under the original act. Because of the fact that we have been falling behind at the Federal level, because we have the prospect of the Redwoods, we feel we ought to shift to 50-50, at least for a period down the road.

My own feeling is that here we are, it has been 311⁄2 years since the act passed, we are back with you reviewing it and changing it. My anticipation will be that every 3 or 4 years we will have to come back and see how is it working and what is needed. It seems to us in the immediate period ahead we will need more money on the Federal side in order to catch up and to do the big jobs and projects which Congress has authorized.

Senator ALLOTT. We had plenty of discussions with Mr. Beatty on the division of those funds between the Federal Government and State government, and you are quite correct that it was not a mandatory division. Unfortunately, I think it should have been.

May I inquire as to what has been the actual division based upon your experience so far?

Dr. CRAFTS. It has been almost exactly 60-40. I think it has been 61-39.

Senator ALLOTT. In general, you have adhered to what was I am sure the intent of Congress at that time even though the act did not strictly require you to adhere to that?

Dr. CRAFTS. That is correct.

Senator ALLOTT. I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Church.

Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to commend you and Senator Kuchel for including this legislation which I think follows along the original pattern of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and provides for the necessary expansion of that fund to meet the increasing outdoor recreation needs of the country.

I have, Mr. Chairman, prepared a short statement in general support of the legislation. I would like, with your permission, to include it at an appropriate place in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will follow Senator Kuchel's

statement.

Senator CHURCH. I have one question which I would like to ask. That has to do with your recommendation, Mr. Secretary, that the additional money that will be raised should be split 50-50 between the Federal Government and the State government. This departs from the 60-40 guideline in the original fund.

If there are many States like mine that now are in a position to implement a recreational program and have the State money available, Isn't it important that we continue to adhere to the original formula? I question seriously the advisability of departing now from the 60-40 formula since we have established it and we have adhered to it up to

now.

Secretary UDALL. Senator, I certainly understand that many of the States have been aggressive, and I agree with you that this has been one of the finest things out of the program. I call the attention of the committee to the map that we have here. It looks a little bit like smallpox but shows what has been done in 3 years with Federal, local, and State projects with a few hundred million dollars. We could change the whole face of the land in the future if we should continue this for another decade or two.

I certainly welcome the strong State leadership which has been forthcoming. We should understand if we double the fund there is twice as much money available under the formula presumably for the States. I would like Dr. Crafts to comment on this. It may very well be that this could be balanced out so that we do not penalize the States that have vigorous programs. Maybe if the States that have weak programs, if their money lapsed quicker so that we would in effect be penalizing them for getting into action and using that money on the Federal side that the committee might consider something like this but I can see that there is keen interest in this and I am sure the States are going to speak up loud and clear as to their own wishes and we don't want to get into a big argument with them. We have our problems and they have their problems, too.

Dr. CRAFTS. I might just add a couple of remarks, Senator.

Quite a number of the States are in the same situation as Idaho where their obligations are up to their allocations and they have more money, State money, than there is Federal money to match. On the other hand, there are quite a number of States that are not in that situation. Under the terms of the present law, the apportionment to the State is for a 3-year period after which time the unspent portion reverts to the Secretary for reallocation to the States. It can't be allocated to a Federal purpose.

This 3-year period is really going to occur significantly for the first time this coming July. While the States are rapidly increasing their obligations at the present time, I think it quite likely that there may be some monies to reallocate from previous appropriated monies on the first of July to those States which are able to spend more than they have previously received. This could be done within the framework of the 50-50.

Now, the 50-50 is purely a judgment situation. Under the ceiling which is being recommended, $200 million annually, there simply is not enough money, frankly, to meet the State and local needs and the Federal needs. The escalation in real estate is occurring in State and county purchases just as it is in Federal purchases.

If there were not so many recent Federal authorizations or if we were further along the road in completing the acquisition among those Federal authorizations, I think we would not have made this proposal to give the Federal a little larger share. Of course, the States, I think without exception, object to this.

I would point out to you, however, what the effect would be over the 5-year period. Under the 50-50 split is compared to the present ratio the States would receive an increase of some $221 million. Under the 60-40 split as compared to the present guidelines the States would receive an increase of $321 million. Therefore, the difference between the 50-50 split and the 60-40 split amounts to about $100 million, or about $2 million per State spread over 5 years.

Senator CHURCH. The only reason I am a little skeptical about changing the formula is that if we change it in the direction of enlarging the Federal share on the grounds that there is not enough money anyhow to take care of our increasing recreational need, one could use that argument to keep all the money for Federal recreational needs.

I think we started the program for the purpose of enlarging the State activity. This was the idea, if the States could get matching money they would greatly enlarge the totality of the recreation program for the people of the country. This has been successful.

So, I am wary of now beginning to move this formula back in the direction of the Federal program. Once we start moving in that direction we may find that the Federal share will grow and grow, and the State share will begin to diminish. This would defeat the real objective of the program and I think that would be very unfortunate.

I don't want to overstate this, but this is the basis of my concern for tampering with the formula.

Secretary UDALL. It is a matter of striking the balance. Of course, the committee will have to exercise its judgment on this issue.

The CHAIRMAN. The first thing we will have to decide is how much money will be made available in the fund. Once we have made that decision, then we can work out, I hope and trust, a logical split, because we will better know how much we can make available to the State and how much to the Federal Government.

This is a matter which has to be resolved, because the official departmental position is to limit the overall fund to an input of $200 million. Now, the pending measure, of course, goes well beyond that. It would be well over $400 million or more than double.

I think the point Senator Church has raised is an important one which we will have to pursue in relation to the decision that we make ultimately in this committee as to the total amount that we would want to put into the fund each year from the various sources authorized by the pending measure.

Senator Hatfield.

Senator HATFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I would like to compliment you on your testimony as the other committee members have done. I think this is the first official opportunity that I, as one of the committee, have had to publicly commend you on the restoration of Ford's theater. As a member of the subcommittee which was involved with you in the area of preservation of historical sites, I think this is a remarkable and outstanding achievement.

I especially would like to commend you on not just restoring an empty building but in developing a performing theater in conjunction with the restoration.

From your testimony, I assume that the evidence which you have presented this committee indicates that the need is far greater than that which you are recommending, that you would not disagree with our chairman in his analysis but rather it is a matter of priority at this time and the availability of funds. Is this correct?

Secretary UDALL. This is a pretty good way of stating it, Senator. Senator HATFIELD. Could I assume that if we had some of that $25 billion that the President is now recommending for Vietnam and for the war, to spend on such matters as this, that it would be certainly to your happiness and joy, too?

Secretary UDALL. Well, we are trying to do the best we can in our sector, Senator.

Senator HATFIELD. I understand that. The point is that it is primarily because of the demands of such things as the war that makes it impossible for you to suggest a greater amount for this purpose?

Secretary UDALL. This is the amount that we were able to get in a very stringent budget year year and I think we are fortunate to get this. I would prefer to put it that way.