Today, severe budget constraints at all government levels have halted the expansion of most public recreation systems and further threaten a marked deterioration in the quality of recreation experiences on public lands. Evidence of these cutbacks abound: grants to states under the Land and Water Conservation Fund the U.S. Corps of Engineers is closing nearly 400 recreation sites; visitor services and interpretive programs, along with brochures describing specific parks, are being curtailed by the National Park Service; some municipalities (including Toledo, Ohio) have actually state recreation program cutbacks include Michigan's decision to leave its public beaches unguarded this summer, in contrast to last year's hiring of more than 2,000 lifeguards; and public works programs which have played a key role in maintaining public recreation areas during the 1970's CETA and YACC, for example are being eliminate.. - How have we reached this juncture where public policy and budget decisions threaten to overshadow marketplace demonstrations by Americans of the value they attach to recreation? Part of the answer lies in the primary reliance of public recreation programs on general revenues for operating and maintenance budgets. This has forced recreation programs to compete head-to-head with defense and education, welfare and medical services, police and fire services for an increasingly scarce commodity general government funds. The Quest for General Revenues Grows Increasingly Difficult Even in less troubled economic times, recreation has not fared well in the revenue allocation arena. A study published in 1978 in the Journal of Leisure Research reported: "Examination of U.S. Census information showed that the priority status of leisure services in the competition for city tax dollars declined between 1964 and 1974 in 19 of 30 major cities in the U.S. Leisure services generally received steadily decreasing proportions of total city funds irrespective of the level of those funds." One consequence was a sharply increased dependency on federal funds. Monies provided through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Fund, CETA and other federal programs rose to an average of one-third of all local park program budgets by 1980. With sharp decreases in these funds in FY 1981, FY 1982 and FY 1983, the fragility of state and local public recreation program budgets has been underscored. Aid to state and local governments for all purposes has been one of the most significant losers in recent budgets not merely failing to keep up with inflation but actually decreasing in current dollars. - Can state and local governments be expected to cushion federal cutbacks to public recreation programs? Possibly, but prospects are thought to be worse than at any time in recent memory. At the state and local levels, revenues are not keeping pace with growing costs and borrowing has become both difficult and costly. In October 1981, Business Week stated: 11 "Falling revenues are now combining with an inability to borrow in a way that is making it extremely difficult for Washington's great partner in the federal system, state and local government, to fill its traditional role of producing the basic government infrastructure for growth such elementary things as bridges, roads, sewage, water and mass transit. So serious is the decay of the nation's infrastructure and so poor the prospects for its refurbishment that many sophisticated businessmen and economists believe that the U.S. is entering a period of severe crisis for state and local govern ment. Local units of government face hundreds of billions of dollars in capital expenses during the 1980's to replace aging prisons and health "Historically among the best credit risks in the finan- In short, the recreation community should be concerned about the consequences of inaction on public recreation program financing at all federal, state and local. levels The User-Pay Alternative In the recent past, there has been a reluctance in the U.S. Congress and in other government agencies to emphasize recreational user fees. In fact, a variety of statutory and administrative barriers now exist which limit the extent and the amount of user fees and charges. These barriers reflect an awareness of the importance Americans attach to recreation on public lands and a conviction that recreation is of sufficient social value to our nation that it should be subsidized. Others have long felt that such subsidy was wrong, not because recreation was unimportant but because the use of general revenues for recreation represented a resource redistribution effort subject to governmental subjectivity. Governments would spend money to aid certain recreationists and ignore the needs of others. 6 The American public and many private sector businesses involved in recreation have unquestionably benefitted from the policies of the past. Thus, it can be argued that recreation policies of the 1960's and 1970's were right for that period. As we look ahead, however, it seems likely that a continuation of existing policies, including a primary reliance upon allocation of general revenues to recreation programs for operating expenses could rob Americans of the leisure-time choices they so enjoy. User fee systems need not be onerous nor unpopular. level, a variety of user fee strategies are employed: programs, hunting and fishing licenses, for example. Many local parks and recreation programs make extensive use of fee-based classes and programs. Even at the federal level, user fees in the form of excise taxes are levied on hunters and fishermen under the Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson Acts. At the state boat registration Many of the programs covered by these fees are enduring today's budget difficulties quite well where the collected fees are earmarked - or dedicated to provide the services desired by those paying the charg es. In fact, numerous examples exist whereby those subject to user fees initiated or actively supported substantial increases in those fees. Wisconsin snowmobilers, for example, initiated a successful campaign to double state registration fees to expand the state's snowmobile trail system. Parks and Recreation Management magazine carried a story in September 1981 reporting on an experiment in Burlington, Vermont, to determine user response to the establishment of an entrance and user fee at a popular local park. The authors concluded: "1) Park visitors were receptive to reasonable user fees. "2) Reasonable user fees have little effect on total park use. "3) A park entrance fee (for automobiles only) can help alle- "4) Revenues collected were reinvested in park maintenance "5) A park entrance fee, appropriately designed, does not have However, there are user fee systems which do not develop support and do not assist recreation programs to deal with budget difficulties. Several federal examples of this type exist. Recent Recreation fees at federal sites, for example, are not currently returned to the operating budgets of the collecting agencies. initiatives to raise fees for camping in national parks and forests at . the same time many services are being decreased thus expose federal land managers to greater criticism from recreational users of the area who now pay more for less. Similarly, millions of dollars in federal fuel taxes generated from fuel used in boats, snowmobiles and off-road vehicles are not returned to these users. In fact, boaters secured legislation to earmark their but the resulting fund has monies in 1980 - the so-called Biaggi Act - been ignored in three successive budget cycles. Even dedicated fee programs need one further ingredient: a means for those being charged to identify the level of services for which they are willing to pay. In the private sector, the marketplace determines |