resolution be sent to our representatives in Congress respectfully urging them to help maintain and preserve the Federal free policy of the inland waterways. Adopted, this 10th of July 1962. O. P. KREPS, President of the Commission. O. R. KREPS, Secretary. HOMER H. JAMES, Commissioner. THE ASSOCIATION FOR MULTIPLE USE OF MAINE TIMBERLANDS, WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SIR: Our association wishes to go on record in opposition to H.R. 11172 which provides for a Federal land conservation fund to be dedicated to the acquisition of lands by the U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture. We believe that the Congress should not grant to Federal agencies blanket authority or funds to extend Federal forest land ownership. Further development of presently owned public lands, both Federal and State, should come ahead of the acquisition of more land for recreation. The provisions of H.R. 11172 appear to be contrary to the recommendations and findings of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission which points out the need for outdoor opportunities near centers of population and suggests that State government should play the key roll in the further development of outdoor recreation. For these reasons and the fact that there are more pressing needs for public funds, we are opposed to this bill. Yours truly, JOHN T. MAINES, President. GEORGIA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: The Georgia Forestry Association would like to be placed in the record of your committee hearings on H.R. 11172 as being opposed to the passage of this bill. We feel that the proposal is outside the bounds of sound legislative procedure. We cannot accept the thinking that it is needed at this time. Too much is disguised under the term "recreation" in present legislative matters before Congress. We are opposed to setting up any such fund in this matter. The Federal Government owns too much land now. According to the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission a bill like H.R. 11172 is not needed nor advisable from a practical point of view. Congress must face reality and stop spending tax moneys indis. criminately. We respectfully urge your committee to report this bill unfavorable. Sincerely yours, JIM L. GILLIS, JR., President. WESTERN FORESTRY & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, DEAR CONGRESSMAN ASPINALL: Western Forestry & Conservation Association is pleased to see the early attempt to implement the major recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission as represented by your H.R. 11172 and other bills. The proposed authorization and encouragement of recreation user fees on the public lands seems particularly well called for. As you know, the ORRRC report recommends recreation user fees "to recover a reasonable portion of the cost of administering, operating, and maintaining such (exclusive-use and specialized) facilities. However, this should not preclude the recovery of part or all of the capital costs in special cases where this is possible with reasonable fees." The report, as we read it, neither calls for a crash program of acquisition nor earmarking user fees entirely for that purpose. It does emphasize that the problem of supply of outdoor recreation resources is not one of number of acres but of effective acres. It points out that public areas now designated for outdoor recreation include one-eighth of the total land area of the country; but, due to lack of access or location, much of this vast acreage is not available for general public recreation use. The ORRRC report concludes: "To a large degree, then, there has been a failure to use well what is already available. The problem, essentially, is one of management. This is not to minimize the needs to acquire additional public recreation sites nor the advisability of getting them sooner rather than later. Opening up unused parts of present sites, however, is just as imperative; indeed, without this kind of development, the United States could spend billions on new parks and still not keep up with the demand * 串串。 "We are not running out of land. We are failing to use it effectively People want things where they live-and where most people live is in our growing metropolitan regions * * *The first task is to provide recreation for the metropolitan regions *** the metropolitan recreation problem cannot be solved somewhere else. Additional recreation land in the faraway places is needed, but the need is far more urgent close to home ***." In view of these major findings and recommendations of ORRRC, which are in line with the policies of this association, we must oppose any provision for earmarking recreation user fees excusively for acquisition. We request that suitable provision be made, as recommended by ORRRC for the more urgent development, operation, and maintenance of recreation facilities on existing public sites; that whatever acquisition of new public sites is needed be left largely to the States and local governments. Furthermore, we urge that such Federal acquisition as is provided for be concentrated on obtaining recreation sites near large metropolitan centers. There is little if any need for additional national forest, national park or wildlife refuge lands for recreation. The vast acreages already in these national land systems are, for the most part, undeveloped and inaccessible for recreation. More land will not solve, but aggrevate, this condition. We believe these proposed changes can be made in presently contemplated legislation in such a way as to provide for a balanced program of acquistion, developmnt, operation, and maintenance of outdoor recreation opportunities. Finally, the association respectfully requests that these remarks be made a part of the record of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee's current hearings on H.R. 11172 and similar bills. Sincerely, H. R. GLASCOCK, Jr. EMPIRE STATE FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION, WAYNE N. ASPINALL, It is our understanding that hearings on this bill were held on July 11 and 12 and that further hearings will continue later this month. The Empire State Forest Products Association takes a very strong stand against the H.R. 11172. We see no valid reason for its existence and we are unalterably opposed to the establishment of any such fund for Federal land acquisition, particularly under the circumstances prevailing in this instance. We wish to register our opposition to H.R. 11172 for the following reasons: 1. The bill sets up a readily available source of Federal funds for the purchase of private lands within the boundaries of national parks, national forests, and national refuges. 2. Moreover, provides ready funds for Federal acquisition of new additional parks and recreation areas, national forests and refuges in southern and eastern areas where they are not now located. Secretary Udall and members of the committee have stated that such was the primary purpose of the bill. 3. Finally, the bill is not at all in accord with the recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission which emphasizes the fol-lowing: (a) State governments should play the pivotal role. (b) Should first provide recreation for the metropolitan regions. (c) The primary needs of national forests and parks is the effective use of lands already owned. This we think is most important. (d) A user fee should be designed to recapture at least a significant portion of the operation and maintenance cost of special facilities. I am reminded to request that this letter be made a part of the record in relation to H.R. 11172. Sincerely yours, S. W. HAMILTON, Executive Secretary. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, WESTERN PINE ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN ASPINALI: The Western Pine Association, representing some 400 lumber manufacturing mills employing 70,000 workmen in 12 Western States, believes that the continuing specter of Federal acquisition of private lands is a serious threat to the economy and stability of the States, counties, and local communities. It views with grave foreboding a plan to implement acquisition by means of H.R. 11172, which would set up a crash program of nationalization of land in the name of public outdoor recreation. Public lands in the United States are already of such vast extent as to constitute a monopolistic influence over hundreds of communities. To a substantial degree these public lands are underdeveloped for recreational use, or any use. In other words, Government agencies have more lands in their care today than they can manage effectively. To entrust them with more is not sound procedure. In any program to enhance public outdoor recreation as part of the established policy of multiple use, the great need today is to develop potentials of lands already in public ownership. We believe that only those lands which are essential to vital functions of Government should be added to Government ownership. The function envisaged in H.R. 11172 cannot be in that capacity under any concept, and especially so in view of the large areas of public lands that stand waiting for attention. We believe further that it would be a tragic mistake to saddle this Nation with a heavy new expense for nationalization of private property, the end result of which is inevitably to reduce tax rolls, constrict industrial opportunity, and make people less able to pay the Government. The association respectfully asks that its position against this type of legislation be made part of the record of your committee's hearings on H.R. 11172. Sincerely yours, W. E. GRIFFEE, Secretary-Manager. NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: The National Lumber Manufacturers Association is deeply concerned with several provisions of H.R. 11172 and other bills to establish a land conservation fund. We seriously doubt that enactment of this bill will assist in developing recreation facilities to meet projected demands. The comments below summarize our views on this legislation. USER FEES The lumber industry is encouraged by the proposed authority for establishing various user fees for federally supplied recreation. This is directly in line with the recommendations of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Establishment of realistic user fees will put Federal recreation on an economic basis and will be a major stimulant to the formation and extension of State and private recreational enterprises which must now compete with free federally administered areas. Improved recreation facilities will be the obvious result. PURPOSE OF BILL We are confused and surprised that the provisions of this bill do not attempt to improve or increase recreational opportunities available to the public. The bill simply authorizes a Federal land acquisition program in areas where the Federal Government already owns most of the land. The lumber industry can see no justification for the land acquisition features of the bill since such acquisitions tend to compound imbalances already existing between Federal land areas and population centers. RECREATION NOT AT ISSUE Recreational use of forests is not at issue our industry, recognizing the importance and compatibility of recreation in Federal forests, has supported their development for this use. Forest land owners have individually expended large sums to provide recreational facilities for public use on their own lands. Merely taking land from private ownership and placing it in Federal ownership fails to increase recreational opportunities-nor does it bring about conservation. LACK OF RECREATIONAL LANDS? The theme of this bill is that the Federal Government needs more lands in order to provide recreation and conservation. There is no shortage of lands for these purposes, nor is there a shortage of such lands already in Federal ownership. Correlation of recreational lands with population masses is a problem, and that problem will be compounded if the concept of present bills is accepted. The Forest Service and the National Park Service control an area more than 7 times the size of Pennsylvania-an area about equivalent in size to the 14 States from Maine to South Carolina. Eighty-five percent of these holdings, however, are in States containing less than 16 percent of total U.S. population. According to Park Service Director Conrad L. Wirth, 95 percent of the use of the national parks is confined to 5 percent of the land-those areas adjacent to roads. This use pattern is typical of all recreation areas-Federal, State, or private. The opportunity for increased use on these areas presently in national forests and national parks for recreation is practically limitless. When less than 5 percent of the federally owned lands are used for recreation now, why acquire more in areas far removed from potential users? Priority should be given to the development of recreation facilities on lands now owned by the Federal Government and, perhaps, sale of present holdings to finance acquisition of recreational lands closer to population centers. ORRRC AND FEDERAL ACQUISITION We are fortunate to have the findings of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission-on which four members of this committee served-to serve as a guide. The ORRRC report clearly recognizes that the greatest needs are for nearby, accessible recreation and that the State and local governments are the key factors in meeting this need. While vigorous action is asked of the Federal Government in cooperative leadership, the Commission does not recommend any Federal crash program for expansion of Federal ownership or control. The lands to be acquired under this bill do not meet the criteria established by the ORRRC—accessible lands with 1 day's travel time from population centers. This bill authorizes acquisition within areas already largely owned by the Federal Government. One significant conclusion of the Commission is that there are alternatives to Federal assumption of costs and responsibility for outdoor recreation that should be considered. INSTABILITY Intermingled with national forest land are millions of acres of private forest lands on which tremendous long-term investments in forestry have been made. Trees planted today must be nurtured and protected for many years before there is a return on the investment. Continued encouragement of such sound land use practices requires stability in Government policies and practices on land acquisition. Widespread Federal acquisition of lands under the guise of conservation and recreation as authorized by these bills would cause permanent instability and seriously undermine private forestry-a business that requires the greatest degree of faith in government-not the constant threat that the property will be taken away, wiping out investments in plants and facilities. Industry, community, and job stability are threatened by this bill. ALTERNATIVES Rather than suggest specific language amendments to this bill, I would like to make several general statements and urge they be considered in redrafting the measure. Full development of existing Federal lands would meet the recreation demands for the areas they serve. Additions to present federally administered areas would only permit more Federal neglect of full development. The ORRRC cites the needs for more recreation areas within a day's travel of major population centers. These are primarily a State and local government matter, requiring only limited Federal assistance or participation. Sale or lease of Federal lands to private or State recreational developers could result in more facilities to meet the recreation demand. Full use should be made of outdoor recreation enterprises. This is the procedure employed in major cities—including Washington, D.C.—to effect desired changes in land use. We recommend no major land acquisition program until there is a review of landownership in each State by an agency-perhaps patterned after the ORRRC-representing Federal, State, and private interests to recommend a stable economic landownership pattern. Congress should establish standards and policies for Federal recreation land acquisition based on use, lack of alternative areas, and the proximity to centers of population. Federal acquisitions should be held to the minimum acreage necessary to the purposes for which the lands were acquired. The Government should, at the option of the private owner, provide for the replacement in kind, of the lands acquired, through the exchange of similar and suitable federally owned land of equivalent value. Approval by the States of Federal land acquisition should be required, and lands to be acquired should be subject to existing safeguards in law as in the Weeks Act. The committee may also wish to investigate alternative programs to encourage State, local, and private recreational developments. It is our recommendation that H.R. 11172 not be reported, but that consideration be given to our general suggestions. I also ask that this letter be made part of the hearing record on H.R. 11172. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely, MORTIMER B. DOYLE. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION SUBMITTED BY JOHN I. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR The American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates the opportunity to present our views on this proposed legislation. Our membership of over 1,600,000 farm families in 49 State farm bureaus and Puerto Rico has a vital interest in such legislation because it deals with taxation and the purchase of land. Our policy, as adopted by the voting delegates at our latest annual meeting held in Chicago last December, is as follows: "Economic growth and private control of the economy cannot be maintained if a continually increasing proportion of the national income is withdrawn from the economy through taxes. |