Additional revenues to the Land and Water Conservation Fund would overcome the ten-year deficit between outdoor recreation needs and prospective revenues and are summarized as follows: Estimated total deficit, fiscal year 1968-77... Proposals for overcoming deficit, fiscal year 1968-77: (1) Advance appropriation now authorized. (2) Unearmarked Interior mineral receipts__ (3) Unearmarked Forest Service receipts. Total Billions -$2.7 +.5 +1.5 +.7 +2.7 Returning to the current situation, the status of funds appropriated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund through December of this year is summarized below. 1 As of Feb. 10, 1967, the amount obligated was $57,725,225. Due to an underrun of revenues to the fund of $2,900,000 in fiscal year 1966, this amount is less than the summation of the appropriated amounts shown in the appropriations acts for fiscal year 1965 through fiscal year 1967 of $251,000,000. 'Includes options accepted. It is apparent that both the National Park Service and the Forest Service had obligated about 70 percent of the moneys available to them as of December 31. Both agencies are increasing their rates of obligation and by the end of this fiscal year, it is expected that obligations will nearly equal allocations. With the moneys expended through December, the Forest Service had purchased about 130 thousand acres and the Park Service about 21 thousand acreas. As in previous years, you have already been furnished both a summary and individual tract listing of the 1968 recommended program for the National Park Service, Forest Service and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. We and the agencies are prepared to answer questions that you may have on those detailed schedules as you may wish. In the administration of the Federal aspects of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as with the State aspects, numerous policy questions have arisen. There have been problems associated with recreation admission and user fees. Both this Bureau and the acquisition agencies have been concerned over the extent of reprogramming that has occurred over the past two years. Some of this doubtless is inevitable but if it becomes too extensive, questions of good faith and competence of the agencies involved are at stake. Similarly we are being confronted now with court awards in eminent domain cases that are running substantially over the original desposits. Accordingly, there have been prepared with the cooperation of the agencies concerned two reports, one on each of these subjects; namely, the reprogramming of tracts approved by the Appropriations Committee, and the effect on available funds of court awards through eminent domain. I am submitting at this time Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I appreciate deeply Estimated Federal and State outdoor recreation needs, revenues to the land and water conservation fund from presently authorized sources, and amounts from proposed 1 Based on authorization of a Redwood National Park and a supplemental appropriation of $56,000,000 (utilizing the advance appropriation authority) for land acquisitions in the park. be no revenues from this source. 3 This amount would be about $192,000,000 more if the tax on motorboat fuels is extended beyond the present expiration date of Sept. 30, 1972. Under existing law, any advance appropriations made in earlier years would be repaid beginning with bined total of $73,000,000 less than the amount shown. the future to the United States and how much to Louisiana. The amount which may be released to the RECEIPTS FROM FISCAL YEARS 1967-68 Chairman HAYDEN. Will you please place in the record a statement of the estimated receipts to the Land and Water Conservation fund from the various sources established by law? Show these for fiscal years 1967 and 1968. Mr. CRAFTS. Yes, sir, I will do that. They are in the statement which I am submitting for the record. Chairman HAYDEN. I note that the estimate of income from the annual recreation permit is still below its expectations and that one of the reasons is a low estimate on the number of families who would purchase the permit. Is the lower number of families a result of inability to afford the permit or a smaller number of those who are interested in purchasing a year's entrance to Federal areas? Mr. CRAFTS. I think really the answer to that is neither. The visitations to the Federal areas in general have gone up. We do not have evidence that the $7 is a prohibitive price. I think we are coming to the conclusion on the other hand that in some respects it is too good a bargain. Among the basic reasons for the permit not being sold in larger numbers includes the decision on the part of some of the participating agencies not to designate areas which might be designated. There are problems of lack of authority for enforcement. There are problems as to the length of the year to which it is feasible to apply these fees. There are many other problems. But I do not think it goes to the question of the price of the permit or the fact that there are small numbers of people using the recreation areas. Senator BIBLE. Might I ask a question at that point, Mr. Chairman. Chairman HAYDEN. Certainly. PERMIT REVENUES Senator BIBLE. At the time that the land and water conservation fund was established it was estimated, if my memory is right, that you would receive something in the neighborhood of $15 million per year from the sale of these $7 permits. Is that right or wrong? Mr. CRAFTS. I think you are a little low, Senator Bible. We made estimates but I think the estimate was around $25 million a year that we expected to get from the sale of the permit. Senator BIBLE. How much actually was received in the first year of its operation? Mr. CRAFTS. We got about $1 million in 1965, which was a partial year. We got $3 million in 1966. We are getting $5 million this year, as nearly as we can judge in 1967. It is gradually going up. You see it is very substantially underrunning the estimates. Of course in addition to the revenues from the permit there are revenues from user fees. Senator BIBLE. I am just talking about the permit. Mr. CRAFTS. The permit itself, last year it was $3 million, this year it is about $5 million. Senator BIBLE. When you say this year you are using that on a calendar basis? Mr. CRAFTS. Fiscal 1967. Senator BIBLE. Your fiscal 1967 will bring you about $5 million? Mr. CRAFTS. That is right. Senator BIBLE. You are estimating fiscal 1968 will bring you about $7 million or $8 million? Mr. CRAFTS. Yes. Senator BIBLE. It is still way below your best judgment at the time we passed the Land and Water Conservation Act? RECREATION LAND COSTS STUDY Mr. CRAFTS. Yes, that is right. I don't know whether this is the time to introduce it or not but we have prepared here and we have just received them this morning, as a matter of fact, a study of what is happening to the price of recreation land. This is the recreation land price escalation report which was requested of us by the House. I would like to make it available to the committee members. We have in here a 10-year program in which we price out both the estimated needs of the agencies and the States and we also price out the prospect of revenues and the source of revenues. This is the latest and best long-range program that the Department has. I would like to submit it to the committee. Senator BIBLE. Mr. Chairman, I am very anxious to follow this study. It was my intention at a later time and possibly after you concluded your questions, to try to go into this in depth. I might even ask Mr. Crafts to come back at a later time after I have had the benefit of reading the study which I have not seen but the purpose of my question was to try to pinpoint one single facet of it and that was to find out how much he receives from the permits per year, the socalled $7 permit. He has answered it very well. He received $3 million last year. He anticipates he will receive $5 million this year and he hopes to receive $7 million next year but this is still below the $25 million which is the predicate on which we established the land and water conservation fund. Chairman HAYDEN. You are speaking as a member of the committee that authorized it. Senator BIBLE. More particularly as a member of both committees but I think this is a very critical part in the creation of new parks because of the accelerated land cost. I don't want to go into that at this time. I just wanted to cover the revenue part with these preliminary questions. ASSISTANCE TO STATES Chairman HAYDEN. For assistance to States you propose a $65 million appropriation, of which $3,250,000 will be withheld from apportionment and will be used as a contingency reserve. Would you please explain the use of this fund? Mr. CRAFTS. The contingency reserve is a portion of the allocation to the States. It is not specifically authorized but it is within the framework of the authorization for the apportionment of funds to States in the basic Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. It specifies that 40 percent should be allocated equally to the different States and the balance distributed in accordance with need, and that population and Federal programs and out-of-State visitor use and so on be considered. In connection with the apportionment to the States the formula has been submitted to this committee and to the House committee in earlier hearings. The formula contains provisions for holding back 5 percent of what is called a contingency reserve for unusually meritorious and unforeseeable needs. I think in retrospect this has proved to be useful. This is the amount of money that the States could qualify for over and above their normal apportionment. I give you a few examples of how this money has been used. A substantial sum was made available to the State of Nevada to help finance a State park on Lake Tahoe. A substantial sum has been made available to the State of Maine to preserve the Allagash River under the administration of the State of Maine. A sum has been made available to California for additional State parks to preserve the redwoods. Some for a State wilderness river in Wisconsin, the Wolf River. We use this money for especially meritorious projects that have come up, that are more than can be handled in the normal State allocation. This is what this fund is for. Chairman HAYDEN. How did you determine the size of the contingency fund? DETERMINATION OF FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED TO STATES Mr. CRAFTS. The $65 million is the total amount that will be allocated among the States next year under the budget request. The contingency portion of that $65 million is 5 percent. Chairman HAYDEN. How did you determine the amount of $65 million? Mr. CRAFTS. The $65 million is the amount that was determined in making the initial breakdown between the States and Federal agencies. Last year the States received about the same amount. This year the administration has recommended an increase in the total fund from $110 million to $142 million. It further recommends that that increase be made available to the National Park Service for the purpose of moving forward on some of the recent authorizations that have been supported by the administration and passed by the Congress. It recommends that the States continue next year at their present level of this year. Chairman HAYDEN. What is the statutory authority for establishing the contingency fund? |