I know that with the new type transportation that will be coming available, Alaska certainly is going to have a big boom in terms of outdoor recreation.

Mr. RIVERS. I was endeavoring to indicate that I am concerned, not only about Alaska as a State with lots of land and in need of a little more money from the outset for the development of this resource, but I was trying to indicate that I am concerned about other States, too. Secretary UDALL. Yes.

Mr. RIVERS. Particularly problems of Western States, although some Eastern States have done a good job in looking ahead and obtaining lands which are probably going to fit into an overall development plan in partnership with the Federal Government. I am not trying to be provincial about this thing. I am seeking your views and attitude on the overall problem.

Secretary UDALL. There are some other States, it seems to me, that have problems similar to Alaska. There are some of the Western States, and California is a good example. California, because of its tremendous growth, has acquisition problems that are as acute as New York's. We have a different pattern with different States.

Mr. RIVERS. I thank you for indicating that flexibility is needed here. I recognize this is something the committee is going to have to make a decision on. I would ask you to tell me a little bit about the user fees in Federal areas as they might apply to Alaska because practically all of southeastern Alaska is a national forest where people have used the trails and the hunting grounds since time immemorial.

All of the cities in southeastern Alaska are surrounded by national forest. There is a 400,000-acre allowance for selection by the State to give expansion room around these communities within the national forests.

The State manages the game resources and the sports fishing resources within the forests and elsewhere and manages commercial fishing within the archipelago of southeastern Alaska, and along the coast of the rest of Alaska, but every one, outside of paying for his hunting or fishing license and paying it to the State as an appropriate excise charge, is not expecting to pay user fees to go through or dangle around in the national forest, for that matter.

I am sure everybody is willing to chip in but I cannot see how, on what basis, they are going to chip in because of the historical background of having lived within these national forests.

Secretary UDALL. It would seem to me, Congressman, if I may suggest it, and I am trying to indicate rather clearly the guidelines we have in mind, this would be a very good program for Alaska to get into because of the people from other States who come there and who pay a user fee for using an area or who buy a conservation sticker.

It would be my guess Alaska could get much more back than they put in. In that sense, it would be a good bargain for the State. It seems to me that the user fee system is something that will work, will not be oppressive, and that people will accept rather readily when we get an educational program or campaign going.

Mr. RIVERS. I think there could be a little flexibility in the adaptation of the user fee theory.

Secretary UDALL. That is what we anticipate; yes. I have tried to indicate today that we think we can make this much less oppressive than some people have indicated in the past.

I think we have worked out something that will be very reasonable and it will be very workable.

Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORRIS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, the cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. KYL. Mr. Secretary, while we have you and Dr. Crafts both before us, I would like to sweep a few things out from under the rug so that we can have an idea exactly where we are. I am trying to be helpful.

If we were to make an exception on user fees in the case of North Carolina, to what extent would this type of exception be necessary in other parts of the country? How consistent or inconsistent would we be in such a case?

Secretary UDALL. Your colleague from North Carolina is here and I think this is a very good time to discuss this very candidly.

North Carolina does have a couple of special problems. These arise from the fact--and we are still thinking some of this out-in some instances actual agreements were made with the State of North Carolina with regard to certain things. Let me point out Shenandoah National Park, Virginia; Great Smoky Park in North Carolina and Tennessee, and part of the purchase price of the land was put up by the States. I do not think there was any general agreement with regard to that aspect of it but States also provided rights-of-way for Blue Ridge Parkway for example. There have been certain agreements and understandings with regard to user fees and we are trying to determine exactly what the understandings were. If there were understandings, they should be honored. These are special situations and I do not think they exist elsewhere.

I think that we are not going to end up by saying that as far as North Carolina is concerned, there will not be any user fees. It may be that there will be some limitations there, but we will adapt it to meet the situation and to honor whatever agreements were made.

This would be my answer.

Mr. KYL. Would these agreements be as binding as our treaties

with the Indians?

Secretary UDALL. I hope we can be more honorable than we have been with the Indians.

Mr. KYL. The gentleman anticipated my reaction.

The gentleman from Alaska brought up another point which is of great concern, apparently, to several States. Check me to see how accurately or inaccurately I understand this proposition.

To begin with, this legislation was considered as an aid to State and private development of recreation potential; is that correct, rather than an extension of the Federal Government into the field of recreation?

Secretary UDALL. You are talking about this bill?

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Secretary UDALL. This bill is primarily in its tenor and where the money goes, a State aid bill, helping the States perform their major responsibilities in this area, yes.

Mr. KYL. From a very practical standpoint of permitting 10 percent for development rather than a 50-50 basis, do you anticipate there will be any funds available which would not be used?

Secretary UDALL. My own feeling about the need that exists is that the States-this is indicated by our response-we have 44 of the 50

Governors already on record that the States will get into this program, and enthusiastically. The money will be spent, yes.

Mr. KYL. In other words, if we increase the proportion here to 50-50, the amount of money we have would be used in fewer places in greater amounts, is that correct?

Secretary UDALL. Well, if the basic assumption I have made is true and you have 70-30 matching, this would mean you would get more done, yes. It might mean that there would be more States. I hope there will not be very many but it might be there would be more States that might say, "Well, we don't think 30 percent matching is enough. Let us not get into the program now. Let us wait awhile and see if they increase it."

Mr. KYL. This presumes that the States are not interested in doing anything for the development of recreation? Are you aware of any States which have not been trying to develop?

Secretary UDALL. No; I am not. I think our contact with the States has confirmed the fact that there is a very great interest in it. I think there are several of the Governors and several of the States that have made considerable reputations for themselves by doing outstanding work in this field.

The State of Florida is an example of one that has a big new program, a $50 million program, and a very fine one being considered by their legislature right now.

Mr. KYL. In this morning's mail, I received two communications which are interesting to this discussion. One of them is from a conservation department in the State asking that this amount of Federal participation be increased and the State amount decreased. The other one is from a group in the South saying they were afraid we were heading toward a great program of Federal acquisition of lands. In essence, that person was arguing against a bigger share from the Federal Government, was he not?

Secretary UDALL. Well, it would seem to me that this is the proper interpretation, yes. We think there is a Federal job to be done but the basic tenor of the legislation says the States have the bigger part of the job to do and we want to help them do it.

Mr. KYL. Another thing in your statement here, Mr. Secretary, that bothers me a little bit is this:

On page 14 of your statement, you estimated acquisitions for the National Park Service would be 1.4 million acres; roughly 30 percent in-holdings.

Of course, the Secretary knows I have been especially interested in trying to clear these things up if for no other reason than to improve administration. You say here the remainder is for financing such newly authorized proposals as Cape Cod, Point Reyes, and so on.

Does the Secretary anticipate we would have to use great amounts from the fund which would be created under this legislation to help pay for projects which are already authorized by the Congress?

Secretary UDALL. Well, what we will fund here and this is in this legislation largely prospective except that it is flexible enough in terms of the appropriation process where, for example, by the time this legislation is enacted, if it is enacted this year-Cape Cod-about half of the money will have been appropriated. I would assume that with Point Reyes and these other projects that Congress approved, that the

Appropriation Committees at that point would say, "We now have this new fund and let us finance these further acquisitions from the fund." This will really be a congressional decision and not our own primarily. I would think this would be a sound way to approach it. It is only in these three new areas where we have major acquisition work to be done. Congress will, of course, pass on all new ones pending.

Mr. KYL. Does the gentleman anticipate this might place our total appropriations for national parks and so forth in jeopardy, and that the amount in total might be reduced by the amount raised through this fund?

Secretary UDALL. No, no. I would not think so.

It is going to take the usual effort that we have to make. Congress has been very positive and good on this in recent years; both in the Interior and Agriculture, your development funds and maintenance funds are kept at a good level. The Mission 66 program is a good example, but I certainly hope that Congress would not take the view that at this stage of the game, considering the urgency of acquisition, that we finance Federal development or maintenance from the conservation funds. This might come at some later stage, but I certainly think not now.

Mr. KYL. I would like to refer for a moment to the Oklahoma amendment on page 10, at the bottom of the page. Secretary UDALL. Much broader than that.

Mr. KYL. I was being only partly facetious.

I believe the Secretary realizes that a great many of these reservoirs being built as flood control projects are promoted locally, amost entirely, from a basic recreational point of view. Does not the Secretary think it would be advisable to write into this legislation a provision which would definitely assure future arrangements for the collection. of such fees where the Federal Government has turned administration of reservoir lands over to the State for administration?

Secretary UDALL. You have really opened up a very big subject. It is one I have discussed recently with the chairman of the full committee. It is part of a larger problem on which this committee by resolution has requested action by the Department. In other words: What is our policy with regard to reservoirs and recreation and fish and wildlife?"

We are entering into a whole new period here and I think this committee is quite properly asking those of us downtown, what should our policies be?

Let us get everything out on the table and fix policies. Whereas 20 or 25 years ago, or even up to more recently, we thought normally of recreation, fish and wildlife values of a reservoir as merely being incidental, now we see that this is economically and otherwise one of the main benefits. Formerly, no one attached much financial value to it with regard to the allocations in payment or repayment of the project. Consequently, we did not allocate much to it. Now, we have to ask ourselves this question, prospectively, I think: What should our policy be? If we are going to allocate 25 percent or more to recreation, fish and wildlife, should there be provision for repayment? Should we just hand these areas over to the governmental entities free? This, I think, is a big problem and I would hope we can come up with an answer. I do not know if it should be in this bill, however.

Mr. KYL. If we are going to have any kind of an arrangement for the future which precludes the kind of problem we had to face with this bill

Secretary UDALL. I would defer to the committee on that with regard to what it does, except

Mr. KYL. We would like to have some direction, or if not some direction, some response from the Department on this.

Mr. ASPINALL. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. ASPINALL. I think what the Secretary has in mind is that this bill perhaps should not carry the overall problem of cost allocations, and so forth, for these values. This bill does carry with it, as I see it, and will carry with it in its final version, a provision which says that so much of these funds shall be used under certain formulas for this particular use.

I think that we must establish that kind of a formula in this bill, but it is up to the Administrator, then, to divide it within the limits of percentages we set.

Mr. KYL. In the case of the Western States, the problem is considerably different, as the chairman well knows and the Secretary well knows.

Take the instance of a reservoir in the Fourth Congressional District of Iowa which is entirely a flood control project. Because of the nature of the river and the use of the downstream water, the recreational benefits are almost completely unknown, unpredictable. There may be nothing but a mosquito swamp at times and at other times a very fine recreational area.

The only thing I wanted to get into this bill, if possible, was language which calls for some kind of an agreement between the Federal Government and the State relative to collecting user fees for these projects which will be developed in the future.

Secretary UDALL. Well, I think this is something that the committee might very well consider, whether in terms of policy or whether in terms of these reservoir values, outdoor recreational values have been created.

If you are going to turn it over for operation, management, and development to some other entity, that there will be a policy with regard to user fees to help repay the project or so that Congress can write reasonable and broad legislation in this field.

It does seem to me that one possibility might be the fact simply that arrangements could be made in the leasing of these facilities for a payment, by whatever entity takes over the facility, to help pay back the investment the taxpayers of the United States have made in creating the facility.

This is a big shortcoming presently in our policy, in our law. I think this is part of the problem.

I say that the committee said to us the other day they would like to have us come up with some recommendations on this.

Mr. KYL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad to join with the other members of the committee in welcoming the Secretary to appear before us.