is obviously there for only one purpose, I think you can set up a gate or an area where someone checks the stickers, and do it with a little kindness and discretion. I would merely observe that I do not think the problem is going to be a serious one when we get down to specific cases. It sounds difficult to formulate a general plan to cover all situations. Mr. MATTHEWS. I thank the chairman and I certainly agree with him. Mr. UDALL. The gentleman from New York? Mr. O'BRIEN. No questions. Mr. UDALL. I know my friend from Florida has other activities this morning and I thank him for coming and giving us the benefit of his thoughts on this important legislation. Mr. MATTHEWs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. UDALL. Unless there is objection, a large stack of communications in the form of telegrams and letters from various State officials, Governors, various legislators and groups interested in this legistion. will be made a part of the record at this point rather than reading them, or taking the time to read them and identify them all. I will be happy to pass them around to any members who want to see them, if they object. The staff has gone through them previously, I might advise my colleagues. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. CLYDE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF UTAH I wholeheartedly support the basic ideas on which H.R. 3846 are predicated. i.e.. that the States should occupy the key role in the administration and development of public outdoor recreation, that land acquisition and recreation should be financed with as little impact as possible on the Federal budget and upon State budgets, and that the people, or the beneficiaries of recreational programs, should pay a reasonable portion of the costs. I believe, however, in order to insure that we meet these objectives H.R. 3846 should be modified in the following respects: (1) I feel the real need for Federal assistance to States in outdoor recreation is in the area of development rather than in planning. Accordingly, a greater proportion of development costs should be available from Federal funds to States than the 10 percent provided for in H.R. 3846. (2) The formula for allocation of available Federal funds between States should be revised so that less emphasis is placed upon the population factor. Revenues from the public land States of the West with small populations will in large part be the source of Federal recreation funds. The Western States in which these lands are located are already penalized to the extent that these public lands are not on the tax rolls. Having small populations, those States are further penalized because of the excessive weight attributed to population. (3) I believe the bill should provide that user fees may only be charged in areas where recreational facilities have been fully developed. Again, I should emphasize in the Western States large percentages of the total land area are in the Federal ownership. Our citizens should not be required to pay entrance, user, or so-called conservation fees for visiting areas that have not been developed. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. WELSH, SECRETARY-MANAGER, NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. My name is William E. Welsh. I am secretary-manager of the National Ree on Association. association supports, in general, full multiple-purpose water resources ent including the reasonable development of recreation potentials in connection with other types of water resource development. We support the general principles of H.R. 3864 which would provide for a land and water conservation fund, if the legislation is amended to provide that funds derived in the manner prescribed in the legislation shall be made available to assist in offsetting all costs allocated to recreation, fish and wildlife, and to the development of the project on a nonreimbursable basis. It is a well-known fact that there have been literally hundreds of reservoirs developed in connection with irrigation and reclamation projects throughout each of the Western States, the costs of which are being repaid entirely by water and power users while a vast majority of these reservoirs have made major contributions toward fish and wildlife development and recreation. We realize that we cannot turn back the clock. Furthermore, it might be difficult at this late date to have legislation enacted which would be retroactive and thereby correct some of the inequities of the past. We do believe, however, that in all future water resources development programs where consideration is being given to recreation and fish and wildlife benefits, that consideration should also be given to the allocation of costs to these benefits on a reasonable and nonreimbursable basis, especially where such benefits are more than local in character. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, MONTGOMERY, ALA., April 12, 1963. Chairman, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, The Department of Conservation of the State of Alabama, and especially its divisions of parks, game and fish, forestry, and water safety, are absolutely and unequivocably opposed to H.R. 3846 in its present or any similar form. Specific objection is expressed to said legislation on the following points: (1) The proposed percentage of contributions by the Federal Government to anticipated projects is much too low. (2) The entire program would be under the absolute and arbitrary control of the executive branch of the Federal Government without any requirement for consent or advice of the States and the people most directly affected. (3) Entrance and user fees will be greatly increased and will be imposed on many uses of public lands where no charge is presently made. We feel that this public domain is part of our heritage and its use should be free to all at no cost or the barest minimum of charge. This is another example of a grab for unlimited power by Federal bureaucracy. We sincerely recommend disapproval of this legislation. CLAUDE D. KELLEY, Director of Conservation, Chief of the Parks, Game and Fish, Forestry, and Water Safety Divisions. Congressman WAYNE N. ASPINALL, MONTGOMERY, ALA., April 11, 1963. Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, We urge your support of H.R. 3846, land conservation fund bill. CHARLES D. STAPP, Supervisor, Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, STATE OF ALASKA, Juneau, February 28, 1963. Hon. RALPH J. RIVERS, Member, House of Representatives, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR RALPH: President Kennedy recently transmitted to the Congress a proposal for the establishment of a land and water conservation fund designed to assist the States and Federal agencies in meeting present and future outdoor recreation demands and needs of the American people. The purposes of this bill are excellent. There is no denying the intense need, both immediate and long range, for additional outlets for outdoor recreation in nearly every area of the United States. This need is evident even in Alaska where our vast and varied natural endowments provide the basis for wide outdoor recreational activity. It is estimated that the facilities of the State's 63 roadside camps alone were used by more than 500,000 persons during calendar 1962-equivalent roughly to twice Alaska's total population. I am therefore firmly in accord with the purposes of President Kennedy's proposal. At the same time, however, a review of its provisions raises certain questions concerning its applicability to Alaska and the extent to which it would contribute to meeting the need which exists in Alaska. For example, section 5(e) (2) contains a proviso "that the total grants to States for development projects shall not, during the first 10 full fiscal years in which the fund has been in operation, exceed 10 percent of amounts appropriated for each of said 10 years for State purposes pursuant to section 5." While I do not myself so interpret it, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department of the Interior, stated in a news release of February 15, 1963, that "no more than 10 percent of the amount available to a State in any one year could be used for development projects." As you are aware, the problem facing Alaska is one of development rather than land acquisition which can be accomplished effectively under our statehood land grant. If the 10 percent limitation is applicable to the grant of each State, as indicated by the Bureau's news release, it would appear to remove Alaska effectively from deriving any benefit under the act. I am also concerned by the proposal to finance this program in part with the proceeds from sale of an annual conservation car sticker to be required of any car entering Federal areas when the occupants plan to engage in outdoor recreation. Informational material emanating from the Bureau has indicated a possible $5 charge for this sticker. In view of the vast Federal land holdings in Alaska, the imposition of such a fee would be tantamount to levying an assessment against every family in Alaska as well as border on the undesirable practice of requiring, in effect, two licenses for every hunter and fisherman. An additional major concern has to do with the formula under which the funds would be apportioned among the several States; in particular, that portion which provides that three-fifths of the funds to be allocated to the States would be apportioned on the basis of population. It would be my hope that the Congress would see fit to give consideration to the recommendation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission that the apportionment be made on the basis of population and area, with equal weight given to each factor. The President's proposal is designed to provide the groundwork for meeting future as well as present needs for outdoor recreation. While it may be contended that the more thickly populated States have a more pressing current need, it can be contended with equal logic that the greater the area of a State the greater is its opportunity to provide a desirable variety and multiplicity of outdoor recreational areas. An apportionment overweighted by the population factor ignores the fact that people are not interested in having their recreation in a crowded area. They go away from crowded areas, and it is in these uncrowded portions of our Nation such as Alaska-that there exists the greatest potential. Certainly this is the case in Alaska where there is already evidence to show that our State is being looked upon more and more by the residents of other States and even other countries as an outlet for recreational needs. The views here expressed represent a composite of the comment received upon review of the legislation by the department of fish and game, the department of natural resources, and this office, and are sent with the thought that they might be of assistance to you during congressional consideration of this measure. Kindest regards. Sincerely, WILLIAM A. EGAN, Governor. LITTLE ROCK, ARK., April 16, 1963. Congressman WAYNE N. ASPINALL, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: As director of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission I would appreciate your support of land conservation bill H.R. 3846. NELSON COX, Director, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Sacramento, May 21, 1963. Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have previously commented on the land and water conservation fund legislation (S. 859 and H.R. 3846) indicating California's interest and support and also indicating several suggested amendments. As a result of hearings that have been held and an analysis of the provisions of the bill and their acceptance throughout the country, I should like to give you my present thinking. There is a great need in California for providing new outdoor recreation areas, as there is throughout the entire United States. Our need is intensified by the tremendous growth that California is experiencing and will experience throughout the rest of this century. This legislation will provide the basis for development of an effective Federal program in assisting State and local governments and in meeting the Federal Government's own responsibilities in acquiring critical recreation lands. The open land most urgently needed and most rapidly disappearing to other uses must be acquired now. We agree with the present formula by which the fund would be divided 60 percent to the State and 40 percent to designated Federal agencies, and with the provision that the President could adjust the percentage allocation up or down 15 percent. However, we recommend that the total amount for Federal purposes be limited to no more than one-half of the total amount authorized under this act. The latitude presently allowed for allocation to miscellaneous receipts and for adjustments of allocations to the Federal Government and the States could combine to reduce the States' share below half of the amounts to be authorized under this act. We concur with the provision that for planning purposes the States would be required to match the Federal money on a 50-50 basis. For State acquisition or development, we do not concur with the present proposal that the Federal dollars would be used to make up 30 percent of the total cost with the States being required to supply 70 percent. Our recommendation would be that for State acquisition or development, the Federal contribution should be 50 percent. In view of the fact that the benefits of these recreation programs would be available to and used by citizens of all the States, we feel this more generous Federal allocation is appropriate. We do not concur with the restriction that for each of the first 10 years not more than 10 percent of the moneys appropriated for State purposes could be used for development. We are convinced that it is unnecessary and unwise to so limit development expenditures. Each State is best qualified to plan for its future needs, and the proposed limitation could work a hardship on many of the States programs. We believe this 10 percent limitation should be removed from the bill and expenditure of the entire fund be allowed for either acquisition or development. Land once acquired for these purposes must be developed as rapidly as possible. The public, who pays the user fees, will not tolerate the removal of land from the tax rolls only to let it lie idle and not be placed in such a condition that they can receive full benefits. There would be an added advantage of allowing this program to tie in with the Federal accelerated public works program on similar efforts. User fees should be limited to developed recreation areas, and I recommend that the bill be so amended. As you know, there are at present objections from many of the Western States concerning user fees for public lands in general. California gives its full support to the principles of the land and water conservation bill and considers that the amendments herein suggested would make it an even greater bill. Sincerely, EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor. Congressman WAYNE N. ASPINALL, CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. May 28, 1963. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ASPINALL: I would like to express my endorsement of the land and water conservation bill, Senate bill 859 and House of Representatives bill 3846, and strongly urge your support. Sincerely yours, EUGENE GERMAN, Administrative Assistant. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, May 24, 1963. Congressman WAYNE N. ASPINALI, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR CONGRESSMAN ASPINALL: The hearings on Senate bill 859 and House of Representatives 3846, the land and water conservation bill, I would strongly urge your approval and support. This bill would allow for the additional development of natural resources, plus the conservation of outdoor spaces which is of vital concern to our State and This is, I believe, the most significant legislation related to the park and recreation field to come before your body in perhaps the last decade. With best personal regards, I remain, area. Sincerely yours, JAMES TAYLOR. Director, Park and Recreation Department. DENVER, COLO., May 29, 1963. Representative THOMAS G. MORRIS, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Please place in the record of your hearings on S. 859, H.R. 3846, H.R. 3864, H.R. 3871, H.R. 3882, and H.R. 3883. the support of the Colorado Game and Fish Commission and Department for Appropriations for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. We feel that much time and effort will have been wasted if sufficient funds are not made available to put the outdoor recreation plans into effect. We also endorse the suggested changes in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act submitted by the International Association of Game Fish and Conservation Commissioners, and would like to add another suggestion. Under "Allocation of moneys for Federal purposes," we oppose extensive acquisition of "land, water, or interests in land and water," by Federal agencies. Primary responsibility for managing and administering hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities must remain with the States. The basic principals of the act are acceptable and we urge adoption by Congress. HARRY R. WOODWARD, Director, Colorado Game and Fish Department, Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Hartford, April 18, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE ASPINALL: Although other commitments make it impossible for me to appear personally before your honorable committee, may I submit through you the following statement to indicate my strong support for H.R. 3846: Connecticut is proud of its beautiful land and waters. We have never been more concerned with the problems of protecting and developing these resources, especially in the area of outdoor recreation, than we are at present. |