ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

The Nation's baby boom is far from being the sole factor in proliferating demands for space to play and relax out of doors. Higher wages and earnings, longer vacations with pay, and a shorter workweek have made it possible for industrial workers, white collar and professional employees, farmers and others, to choose the best uses for their leisure time with greater assurance than ever before that a considerable amount of leisure time can be spent out of doors.

Faster, easier transportation, encouraged by a multitude of State and local tourists bureaus, local chambers of commerce, railroads, buslines, airlines, travel agencies, and resorts help the American people pursue sun, water, and scenery, in numbers and at distances which would have been regarded as visionary to most of us a short half-century ago.

The accelerating growth of great metropolitan areas makes open space and park lands hard to find and expensive to acquire near our big cities. Housing, airports, roads and highways, utilities, commercial, and industrial development are all competing for this space.

This dilemma is of particular significance to working people who are found in largest number in urban and industrialized areas. Therefore, the AFL-CIO urges broader mass recreation opportunities and high priority for planning, acquisition and development of mass recreation facilities within easy access of large concentrations of population. Enactment of H.R. 3846 will speed action toward these goals.

H.R. 3846 sets forth a general policy which has AFL-CIO support-that a great deal of land must be acquired by public agencies to meet present and future public recreation needs. We believe this program must go forward without delay. Approval of this program by the 88th Congress is essential to get it underway. Another general policy implicit in H.R. 3846 suggests that the States should exercise the dominant role in the administration and development of outdoor recreational programs.

But the Federal Government will be channeling more than $1.4 billion to the States for planning, acquisition and development of recreational areas and services for the duration of the 10-year program. Therefore, we believe sound Federal standards must be established and complied with on a continuing basis, before States qualify to receive Federal financial assistance for their recreation programs.

Fortunately, H.R. 3846 establishes some standards which must be met by a State as a prerequisite to receiving financial assistance, including assignment of responsibility to a single State agency, an evaluation of supply of and demand for outdoor recreational facilities within the State, and a program to carry out the plan, together with such other necessary information as the Secretary of the Interior may determine.

The AFL-CIO supports the concept of sale for voluntary purchase of a conservation sticker to help finance the land and water conservation fund. We urge that the sticker be sold at the lowest possible price and that it be made available for purchase in post offices and other Federal buildings, travel agencies, and the like. We also urge that an educational campaign be undertaken to convince Americans that purchase of the sticker is a needed and useful contribution to the cause of conservation.

The AFL-CIO endorses the principles of user fees in H.R. 3846. We believe that individuals who use Federal lands for business purposes should pay user fees. Furthermore, we support the imposition of reasonable charges on the use of overnight camping facilities which afford such services as electric washing machines, electric lights, hot water for bathing, and the like, where it is feasible to make collections. But we do not endorse the general principle of user fees, which too often impose a regressive burden on low and middle income families, and we urge that no user fees be imposed upon individuals who may have to cross Federal lands for purposes other than recreation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to repeat the support of the AFL-CIO for the aims of H.R. 3846. We believe enactment of this legislation will be a solid step forward in our Nation's efforts to assure conservation of our land and water resources and to assure adequate recreation opportunities for our citizens. Mr. MORRIS. The next witness will be Mr. Charles A. Robinson, Jr., staff engineer and counsel, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. ROBINSON, JR., STAFF ENGINEER AND COUNSEL, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIA TION

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Charles A. Robinson, Jr. I am the Staff Engineer and Staff Counsel of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which is the national trade association for REA-financed rural electric systems which serve some 5 million consumer members in 46 States.

As always, I consider it a very real privilege to be accorded the opportunity of appearing before the distinguished members of this subcommittee. I want to express my appreciation for this in advance. Our interest in the present bill is its essential effect on the economies of multiple-purpose projects constructed and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers.

Of the 1,000 rural and electric systems in existence, 500 of them obtain all or a portion of their wholesale power requirements from such projects.

In the fiscal year 1961 they paid $60 million into the U.S. Treasury for this power which constituted in that year 39 percent of the total power supply of all rural electric systems.

At the time when most of the major multiple-purpose projects now in operation were conceived and constructed, the recreation factor, and the importance of recreation, was not anticipated, and therefore no substantial portion of the cost of such projects is currently allocated to recreation.

In connection with that matter I call your attention respectfully to the table which appears at page 3 of our prepared statement. It lists 16 multiple-purpose projects, showing the annual visitor days recorded at each one, the project cost of each, and the dollars allocated to recreation.

I am not entirely satisfied with the complete accuracy of the last column in that table because of the fact that although it is reported to me that zero dollars are allocated to recreation at some of these projects, I think some small portion of specific costs is assigned to recreation at them, although no substantial portion of total project cost, and certainly no portion of joint costs.

I feel some minimum figure representing specific facilities is actually assigned at some of these projects which appear as zero.

Actually, during the fiscal year 1961, the Corps of Engineers reports that over 175 million visitor-days were experienced by projects under its jurisdiction, under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. This is about 10 million more visitor-days than was experienced by all of the national parks and national forests combined. In our opinion, it indicates that the importance of the recreation potential of multiple-purpose projects is very considerable.

This importance now being recognized by the Corps, by the Bureau, and by the Federal Power Commission which recently issued an order requiring that all license applications provide for public recreational facilities at non-Federal hydroelectric projects.

The increasing recognition being afforded to recreation at these projects is indicated by the fact that the Bureau of Reclamation has,

or will shortly, submit to the Congress the project plan for its Auburn-Folsom South unit with about 25 percent of the project cost allocated to recreation.

The omnibus rivers and harbors bill for 1962 contained the Joanna project with about 25 percent allocated to recreation.

As we understand it, this means recreation is assuming what we consider to be a position of major importance in the formulation of these multiple-purpose projects, a position wherein the benefits of recreation will be recognized in the benefit-to-cost ratios and in the cost. allocation procedures. We are hopeful that recreation will bear a portion of the cost of these multiple-purpose projects and will be recognized as a coequal purpose of these projects.

In this connection we would call your attention to section 3(b) of the proposed bill here under consideration, H.R. 3846. This is the portion of the bill which authorizes the President to credit to miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury such moneys in the separate account set up by section 2 of the bill as he may feel desirable for the acquisition of lands used for recreation at multiple-purpose projects. Our suggestion, Mr. Chairman, which we respectfully make to this subcommittee, is that there be considered in addition to the President's authority to use this money for the acquisition of lands a parallel authority to use it for the repayment, if you will, of not only the cost of lands but the costs of such dams, appurtenant facilities, and structures as may be erected on these lands and as may be allocable to recreation. It seems to us that if recreation is to be a coequal purpose of such projects then it should be a coequal portion of project cost; and to the extent possible the project costs allocated to recreation should be reimbursable.

We are not ready to ask that the total amount of project costs allocated to recreation be made reimbursable because that would probably inflict on the recreation users an unbearable burden.

I think that in this bill, the Congress would be setting up a selfperpetuating fund similar in some respects to the reclamation fund, and to that extent, the direct beneficiaries of that fund might be willing, and we think ought to be willing, to bear a proportionate share of the cost of these projects which they enjoy.

I think that Secretary Udall, in his prepared statement, made reference to this and stated that in his opinion the direct beneficiaries of the recreation features of Government projects should be willing to pay their share of the costs.

The members of the subcommittee might quite logically ask how will this affect the rural electric systems? How will this affect their power supply from these projects?'

As we view it, up until the present time, the fact that no major portion of project cost has been allocated to recreation has meant that the other beneficiaries of the reimbursable features of the project have to some extent been bearing a portion of the project cost which perhaps should have been allocated to recreation, and to the extent that this portion of project cost is hereafter allocated to recreation it will reduce the burden created by allocations to power and to irrigation, the othe two project beneficiaries.

The parallel allocation to irrigation and to power should come down in some amount as the recreation allocation goes up. That is our

basic interest in the bill. That is our reason for suggesting the amend ment. We are certainly in favor of the bill. We recognize in broad terms the need for recreation and the desirability of embarking on a program which will provide for additional recreational opportunities. We are grateful for the action of the full committee and this subcommittee in taking the large amount of time that is necessary to understand these technical problems, in dealing with multiple purpose project evaluation and cost allocation procedures, and we are grateful to the executive branch for undertaking its studies of these projects which have thus far resulted in more equitable project evaluation procedures, and which we hope will result in more equitable cost allocation and cost sharing procedures.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we thank you very much for the opportunity of appearing.

That concludes my oral presentation. I would respectfully request that our prepared statement be included in the record in full if that is possible.

Mr. MORRIS. Without objection, your request is granted. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen on the subcommittee, my name is Charles A. Robinson, Jr. I am the staff engineer and staff counsel of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the national service organization of REA-6nanced electric systems which operate in 46 States. Membership in NRECA which is entirely voluntary, is held by over 92 percent of all REA-financed systems.

INTEREST OF RURAL ELECTRIC SYSTEMS IN H.R. 3846

The interest of rural electric systems in H.R. 3846, and its companion bill S. 859, arises from the relationship between the recreational facilities and the hydroelectric power facilities in Federal multiple-purpose river basin develop ment projects.

During the fiscal year 1961, some 500 REA-financed electric systems obtained all or a portion of their wholesale power requirements from Federal power agencies. During that year they purchased from such agencies 12.2 billion kilowatt-hours, representing 39 percent of the total wholesale power supply of all rural electric systems in the United States. For this power they paid to the United States Treasury $58.9 million. The magnitude of this payment, and the wholesale cost of Federal power depends, of course, on the relative share of multiple-purpose project costs allocated to hydroelectric power.

And, to the degree that project purposes other than hydroelectric power bear greater or lesser portions of project costs, the calculated power rate base goes up or down. Our membership is, therefore, deeply concerned with the instant legislation which recognizes the increased importance of the recreational facilities at multiple-purpose projects; and with recent decisions of the executive branch agencies which indicate a more realistic allocation to such recreational features of total project costs.

IMPORTANCE OF RECREATION NOT ANTICIPATED

During the period in which many presently existing major multiple-purpose reservoirs were being planned an constructed, and during their initial years of operation, the importance of the recreational opportunity to be afforded by these reservoirs was not anticipated, and hence not recognized in benefit to cost ratio calculations or in cost allocation procedures. The Corps of Engineers estimates at over 175-million visitor days per year the use of recreation facilities at multiple-purpose projects under its jurisdiction and under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. That is more than the attendance at national parks and national forests combined. Yet, only a very minor portion of the cost of multiple-purpose projects have been traditionally allocated to recreation.

The following table indicates the relatively small amounts of project cost alocated to recreation at 16 projects.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The effect of allocating to recreation less than its proportionate share of total project costs is the imposition on other project purposes of a cost allocation representing not only the costs of such other purposes, but in addition, a portion of project cost which should, in equity, be borne by recreation.

NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES

During the past 5 years, the executive branch agencies responsible for adminiscration of both Federal and non-Federal water projects have increasingly recognized the importance of recreation as a feature of multiple-purpose projects. Thus, the Chief of Engineers, Lt. Gen. Walter K. Wilson, Jr., stated, as early as April 3, 1957, in an appearance at Seattle, Wash., that "Only recently has recreation been recognized as an economic asset deserving consideration in planning water resource developments. Here in the Pacific Northwest, one of the great hunting and fishing recreation areas of the world, the need to develop the recreational potentialities of reservoirs is perhaps less than in some other regions. But, in many places faced with the problems of swiftly increasing urbanization, people are beginning to realize that recreation is almost as imporant to the social health of a community as a good water supply is to its physical health. The corps believes that this benefit is one which should be taken into account in computing the benefits to be derived from its reservoirs."

On April 18, 1963, the Federal Power Commission, which is empowered to 【rant licenses for the non-Federal hydroelectric development of navigable watervays, issued its order No. 260-A, amending its regulations, after opportunity 'or comment, to require that a plan for public recreation use of lands and waters nust be filed as part of all hydroelectric power license applications. The plan so required by FPC must show locations for camping, picnicking, bathing, boating, unting, fishing, and similar activities, and must be prepared in cooperation with State and local agencies; and with the Federal agency having supervision in cases where lands of the United States would be affected.

On February 19, 1962, the Secretaries of the Interior and the Army agreed ipon a policy relative to reservoir project lands which provides that "Insofar as ermitted by law, it is the policy of the Departments of the Interior and of the Army to acquire, as part of reservoir project construction, adequate interest in ands necessary for the realization of optimum values for all purposes, including dditional land areas to assure full realization of optimum present and future ›utdoor recreational and fish and wildlife potentials of each reservoir."

The new policies, standards, and procedures, approved by the President on May 15, 1962, to guide the executive branch in the formulation, evaluation, and eview of water resource project plans, clearly recognize recreation as an imporant multiple-purpose project feature and provide that all multiple-purpose roject features, including recreation, shall be coequal for purposes of project valuation and cost allocation.

Last year, the Corps of Engineers, with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, announced that allocations of joint project costs to recreation would e considered in amounts up to 25 percent of total project costs, and the Omnibus livers and Harbors Act of 1962 contained at least one project, the Joanna roject in Missouri, which closely approached the 25-percent limit set by the orps. We understand that the Department of the Interior has placed, or will

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »