the Interior says, is the basis for all of these bills which we have coming in.

If you will remember that report, you will recall the very heavy emphasis placed on water resources. While the survey showed car driving was the leading recreation, there was also very strong evidence that when water resources were available these became the chief sources of recreation.

If we abide by that philosophy, which I intend to do, and I think the Interior Department and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation does, these water resources which would directly affect the boaters of America would get, if anything, top priority.

When you suggest that we earmark these tax funds that come from motor fuels for water resource development, would you also, then, agree we should earmark the user fees from the national parks for nonwater resources development?

There will be more money coming in from these other sources than there is from the water resources. If we are going to earmark this, if anything, you will be in an adverse position because there will be less spent on water development than we would normally get.

Mr. LIFTON. Mr. Kyl, perhaps our apprehensions are ill founded. We have heard a great deal of talk, not only this year but in the past, about large sums of money being listed for nonwater resource develop

ment.

As one who has served on the Commission and close to this picture, if you can assure us this is not the case, perhaps our fears are entirely ill founded.

Mr. KYL. Certainly there will be a lot of nonwater resources, both acquired and developed. There is no question about that.

Even by that token we come out in the long run ahead so far as water resources are concerned.

The reason I want to buy these inholdings where we can get them is because the Interior Department right now, for instance, spends so much unnecessary money on administration. These create administrative problems.

Once these things are cleared up then there is more of an operating fund available annually for the kind of development we want on water resources and the rest.

I think if you start to earmark the funds from the boat tax, motor fuel tax used in motorboats for water, then we will segregate this thing so that the greater fund which comes from user fees, et cetera, would be earmarked away from the water and in the long run you would come out on the short end of the stick.

Mr. LIFTON. The only other comment in the statement is that like the fish and game agencies, we have within the past 4 or 5 years begun to develop in the States a series of boating agencies concerned with this problem. These people are prepared to move ahead if they can find a source of funding.

It seems to me there was somewhat of an analogy between their situation and the situation which the fish and game people faced several decades ago.

Possibilities of immediate development showing quick results would be possible through this kind of an earmarking program.

If the feeling of the Congress is that this money is necessary, certainly as part of the overall package, we will not drag our feet.

Mr. KYL. I appreciate that, and I also appreciate your attitude. You have to look out for this situation. I think your fear is unfounded.

You will recall the nature of the survey made. People were not only asked what they like to do best but they were asked "What do you now do which you would like to do more of?" "What kind of recreation is not available now which you would like to have available?"

In all these studies the plain fact-I say "fact" because it is just that when water resources are developed they are used, and therefore the ORRRC definitely shows its attitude-we need more of these water resources because they do offer, at a reasonable price, a tremendous amount of recreation which appeals to the people.

With that basic philosophy, which I hope we can maintain, I think you will get a very major stress on development of these factors. As a matter of fact, it comes quite naturally, as you know. You build a flood control reservoir somewhere and you don't have to do any promoting.

Mr. LIFTON. I think our experience in the Plains States and TVA would sustain that; yes, sir.

Mr. KYL. That is right.

Mr. LIFTON. I appreciate your statement. This is the first time anything like this has gotten into the record.

Mr. KYL. We thank you for being here.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Rivers?

Mr. RIVERS. In regard to the 4-percent tax on marine fuel, you suggest that we pattern this after the Dingell-Johnson Act and what other act?

Mr. LIFTON. Pittman-Robertson.

Mr. RIVERS. Do you want to indicate how you like the formula of one better than the other?

Mr. LIFTON. I think the present formulas are the same, roughly 3 to 1 Federal to State. The more realistic formula today would be 50-50. I would have to agree with that.

Mr. RIVERS. You refer to the earmarking as the desirable feature of these two acts in reference to our present problem?

Mr. LIFTON. Yes, and the fact they serve as a direct incentive to the States to immediately implement programing.

Mr. RIVERS. Thank you.

Mr. SKUBITZ. I have no questions.
Mrs. REID. I have no questions.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you very much.

Our next witness will be Mr. Joseph Jaeger, Association of State Park Directors.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH JAEGER, JR., ASSOCIATION OF STATE PARK DIRECTORS

Mr. JAEGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Joseph Jaeger, Jr., a member of the executive board of the Association of State Park Directors, and director of State parks for the State of Missouri.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Proceed.

Mr. JAEGER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this statement represents the official position of the Association of State Park

Directors in endorsing the basic principles of H.R. 3846, the land and water conservation fund bill. The association represents the various State park directors in most of the 50 States and these are the men who are directly responsible for administering the various State parks systems which last year served over 200 million visitors.

This proposed legislation certainly recognizes that the States will play a pivotal role in the administration and development of outdoor recreation opportunities in this Nation. However, it further realizes that due to the complexities of our modern-day society that there should be a form of partnership between the Federal Government and the States in providing all Americans with the outdoor recreation opportunities they desire and deserve.

We should like to suggest several changes in H.R. 3846, which we feel would strengthen this proposed bill:

(1) The Federal-State matching formula under the grants-inaid program should be changed from 30 percent Federal-70 percent State to 75 percent Federal-25 percent State.

(2) The limitation on amount that may be used for development of projects under this proposed bill should be eliminated. (3) Maintenance and operation of projects developed under the proposed bill should be permitted up to 25 percent of total allotments to any State.

We believe that the preceding changes, as suggested above, would be most beneficial; however, they should not be considered as deterrents for early action by your committee on H.R. 3846. The associa tion urges a favorable report by your committee on H.R. 3846.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you, Mr. Jaeger.

Mr. Aspinall?

Mr. ASPINALL. I have no questions.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chenoweth?

Mr. CHENOWETH. Why do you recommend that the matching formula be reversed and the States will pay only 25 percent, while the Federal Government will pay 75 percent?

Mr. JAEGER. Reversing is based upon the experiences that the fish and game departments have had so successfully with the PittmanRobertson and Dingell-Johnson bills.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Are the States in a position to assume a greater share under the matching formula?

Mr. JAEGER. We feel the States would be able to do a lot better job with the formula reversed and to be balanced out with the 2575.

Mr. CHENOWETH. You want 75 percent Federal and 25 percent States?

Mr. JAEGER. The present law is 30 percent Federal and 70 percent State. We suggest a change to be considered by the committee, 35 and 65 percent and practically reverse it.

Mr. ASPINALL. Does that not do just what we are trying not to do! Doesn't that put the Federal Government into the driver's seat so far as the ultimate programs are concerned rather than placing the responsibility in the local community?

Mr. JAEGER. I would say it this way, Mr. Aspinall: By reversing the procedure from the outdoor recreation opportunity as related to State parks we have nothing prior to base our judgment on except the

visitation by several millions of tourists annually. There were 13 million visitors in 1962 and with more vacationers and retirees, the prospects for broader retirement benefits in all activities, I believe that Florida will become a much more densely populated State.

That means the need for more recreation facilities.

It is surprising to many people to realize that practically threefourths of Florida's population is presently urban. It is expected that this will continue in a greater percentage due to the fact that many retired people are moving into the centers of population.

That means that they want a place to get away to for recreation, to get out in the open, get into the outdoors.

It is anticipated that with present plans for an expanded highway system in Florida that the State parks and other recreational facilities will be crowded to the limit.

It is imperative that we take fuller advantage of our ocean and gulf shorelines, of rivers and lakes, and the unique tropical flora and fauna which provide such wonderful outdoor recreational opportunities. Today we have 36 State parks containing 121,000 acres.

As an illustration, one of the larger State parks is 48,000 acres, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, off the coast of Florida.

It provides a vacation outlet for thousands of visitors each year. A new State park being planned will be announced this weekend and it is for St. Josephs Peninsula, a lovely strip of beach and forest in my district.

These are just indications of the work being done.

This work will be carried on under the new Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 on which I previously commented.

This act will match the requirements of my bill, H.R. 4267. In fact the planning, land acquisitions, and development would go hand in hand on a planwise basis to provide an excellent system of increased State park facilities throughout the State of Florida.

There are presently many natural areas with valuable scenic attractions which should be reserved permanently for public use.

One of these is the Fort St. Mark's National Monument. Legislation recommended by this committee last year, and passed by Congress, provided for a park, a memorial to old Fort St. Mark-one of the oldest and most significant historical sites in the Southeast dealing with the Spanish occupation. The State has responsibility under that act for acquiring the land. That is to be accomplished under the new State program I mentioned.

We have been doing our part in Florida, but I think this legislation is very essential to help carry on the job in my State and in all other States.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience in hearing me and I respectfully and strongly recommend the passage of this legislation.

Mr. MORRIS. Personally, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida on behalf of the committee.

One question I would like to ask the gentleman is this: You agree that one of the main purposes of this legislation is the encouragement and creation of a partnership between the States and the Federal Government in developing our resources for recreation?

Mr. SIKES. Very definitely, Mr. Chairman. That is a highly important part of it.

99-738-63- -15

{ Mr. MORRIS. I thank the gentleman very much for his excellent

statement.

ふ Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORRIS. The next witness will be Mr. Perry Merrill, Associa

tion of State Foresters.

Is Mr. Merrill here?

(No response.)

Mr. MORRIS. If he is not, we will proceed.

If he desires to submit a statement later, it will be accepted for the record.

(The following statement was subsequently supplied :)

STATEMENT OF PERRY H. MERRILL

My name is Perry H. Merrill, commissioner of forests and parks for the State of Vermont for which government I have been employed since August 1, 1919. I am a member of the legislative committee of both the National Association of State Park Directors and the National Association of State Foresters.

I wish to give wholehearted support to Congressman Aspinall's land and water conservation fund bill, H.R. 3846. I need not tell you the crying need is for the immediate acquisition and development of recreational facilities for the bursting over demand of the American public to enjoy the great out-of-doors. One of the most pressing needs is the acquisition of land before the choice sites on lake and streams are acquired for private development. Each year sees land values skyrocket. The pressure for camping is already here. Five years from now will be too late. In some States, people wait overnight to get into a State park where they wish to camp.

There are many States like my own State of Vermont where nearly 90 percent of our campers come from without the State. Within 1 day's auto trip from Vermont there is a bulging population of 50 million people. Our State has been trying to meet this outside State camping demand by a $1 million bond issue during each of the past two bienniums and the assurance that this session will make a like appropriation.

We have a limited income like many small States though we would be pleased to help cater to the recreational needs of other States.

I feel that all government agencies should make charges for their recreational facilities. It does not make sense for one agency, State or Federal, to make a charge and another not far away to give all the services free of charge. Operation and maintenance costs run quite high, thus, if the Government pays for the costs of the development, individuals who use them should help pay the cost of the maintenance.

Mr. MORRIS. Is Mr. Kenneth B. Pomeroy of the American Forestry Association here?

Mr. Pomeroy, it is a pleasure to have you before the committee this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. POMEROY, AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Kenneth B. Pomeroy. I represent the American Forestry Association of Washington, D.C. This is a nonprofit, educational organization with members in all the States and territories of the United States.

We recognize the upward surge in outdoor recreation to be of a magnitude that can be met only by the concerted, coordinated efforts of all public agencies. Therefore, we urge enactment of legislation authorizing Federal-State cooperation in recreation planning, acquisition, and development. We are, however, less enthusiastic, but not com