STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE K. GODDARD, SECRETARY OF FORESTS AND Waters, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, my name is Maurice K. Goddard. I am Secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Forests and Waters, and among other functions, I am responsible to the Governor for the administration of the Pennsylvania State Park System. I welcome the opportunity to express my views on H.R. 8578, purpose of which is to amend Title I of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, thereby authorizing deposits to the Land and Water Conservation Fund from outer continental shelf oil receipts, for recreational uses. The History of Pennsylvania's Outdoor Recreation Programs may be briefly outlined to emphasize the established Federal-State-Local partnerships, and to point to consequential aggressive action, in outdoor recreation. In response to obvious public demand, our General Assembly has provided General Fund capital development moneys for State park purposes on an expanding basis since the early 1950's, even though the dollar competition among State agencies and other programs remains acute. To augment the General Fund appropriations, the General Assembly also provided a special fund, the Oil and Gas Lease Fund, some twelve years ago, which set aside revenues (received from oil and gas lease rents and royalties on State forest lands), for the acquisition and development of new State park lands. Some $16.5 million have been expended to date from that special fund. Through our General State Authority (a bond sale program), financial capacity for the development of State park lands, was increased to a point where $19 million was authorized for the 1965-67 Biennium. The increasing need for an intensive and extensive land acquisition program was recognized, and in 1964, enabling legislation was authorized, which provided $70 million for State and local governments to acquire land for recreation, conservation and historical purposes. I am happy to inform you that on January 19, 1968, significant enabling legislation was signed by Governor Raymond P. Shafer to provide funding capacity for the acquisition and development of State and local outdoor recreation areas, in the amount of $200 million. The Act also provides $200 million for reclaiming abandoned strip mine areas, the elimination of acid mine drainage, the problems arising from subsidence, underground mine fires and $100 million for financial assistance to communities to assist in construction of sewage treatment facilities. I believe that these major programs dynamically illustrate the Commonwealth's accelerated responses to the amplified awareness and needs of a growing population. But, even in light of our aggressive programs, we look to similar responsiveness and continuity from the Federal Government. State and local governments cannot satisfy the demand and need alone. The intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, and the achieved coordinated Federal-State-Local effort cannot be permitted to regress. Our State programs are tenaciously integrated with authorized and proposed Federal projects and help. I respectively submit that the Congressional cut-back, ordered on December 18, 1967, has occasioned the reduction of grants for recreation land acquisition and development in the amount of $4.9 million, according to a Department of the Interior news release dated January 24, 1968. Now, this is not the kind of astronomical amount that we are generally conditioned to reading, but it is an important amount when the three "partners" are beginning to realize and see their plans surmount the tremendous task before us, the task of providing satisfactory, public outdoor recreational oportunities at all levels of political subdivisions. I respectively refer to the Commonwealth's Oil and Gas Lease Fund, cited above, without which our State Park development program could not have received timely and effective acceleration. I liken that program and our two bond issues to the provisions of H.R. 8578, now before you. Passage of H.R. 8578, will generate immediate opportunity to acquire park and recreational lands before escalating prices makes it prohibitive to do so. The spiraling land costs are detrimentally effecting the entire program of acquisition and development, and the resolve to meet the needs of people is jeopardized. I strongly recommend the enactment of H.R. 8578, with the considered amendments recommended by the Department of the Interior. 91-301-68-18 STATEMENT MADE BY COL. JOHN A. MAY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OUTDOOR South Carolina is supporting H.R. 8578 which is to increase Land and Water Conservation monies. In November of 1967, the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, which administers the Fund for South Carolina, began a study of what requests would be made for Land and Water Conservation Fund monies during calendar year 1968. The study was undertaken because there is a noticeable increase in the number of counties and municipalities interested in participating in the Fund program. The results of this study are now being compiled so that a priority system can be established for the allocation of present and future apportionments. Questionnaires were sent to all State and local agencies with recreational responsibilities. Since the beginning of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program in South Carolina, $2,980,720.27 has been apportioned for allocation to the State and its political subdivisions. State agency replies indicate that requests of $828,460.00 will be made in calendar year 1968. This figure reflects those requests anticipated by the South Carolina Wildlife Re sources Department, the Department of Metal Health, the Division of State Parks of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, and the Planning and Development Section of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism for updating the South Carolina Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Local communities have indicated that they will make requests of approximately $909,600.00. In light of these intended requests and what has already been obligated and the monies that have already been obligated through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the people of South Carolina will undoubtedly need greater financial assistance to meet current and future recreational demands accurately. Communities are becoming more and more aware of the importance of outdoor recreation for the development of the individual. Coupled with a surge of interest in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, South Carolina is beginning to move forward in the necessary planning, staffing, and developing phases, and we will soon be in the position of having limited funds to meet seemingly unlimited needs. Not reflected in the figures mentioned above are several large scale recreation projects for the acquisition and development of hundreds of acres of land in the Piedmont and Coastal regions that will require financial assistance from both Federal and State governments. South Carolina realizes that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is not a panacea for all recreational problems, and we anticipate that the State will, in the near future, begin a program on its own to assist local communities in conjunction with the Land and Water Conservation Fund monies. The South Carolina Legislature is showing particular interest in this program and is today concurring in a joint resolution urging Congress as a whole to enact the Legislation embodied in Senate Bill 1401. The South Carolina Recreation Commission, which offers technical assistance to local communities in establishing recreational programs, on Friday of last week passed a resolution urging H.R. 8578 be enacted. The South Carolina Recreation and Parks Society whose membership represents the broad spectrum of Recreation and Parks Administration throughout the State has shown much interest in State and Federal Legislation dealing with outdoor recreation. The Executive Board of the Society meets next week and H.R. 8578 will be a prime item of discussion. Mr. P. K. Fuller, President of the Society, assures me that he will transmit the Society's recommendations to this Committee. Realizing the tremendous implications the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program has for recreational development in the State of South Carolina and because of the above reasons, I urge this Committee to give a favorable recommendation to the Congress for enactment of H.R. 8578. STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD BEMISS, CHAIRMAN OF THE VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION My name is FitzGerald Bemiss. I am Chairman of the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation. In 1964, as a member of the Senate of Virginia, I was patron of the Act which created the Virginia Outdoor Recreation Study Commission, and subsequently served as Chairman of the Study Commission. The Report of the Study Commission, entitled, "Virginia's Common Wealth" (a copy of which I shall leave with you), was the basis of the Virginia Outdoors Plan-a comprehensive and continuing program of action to protect and use wisely Virginia's outdoor recreation resources. The extensive legislation recommended by the Study Commission was enacted by the 1966 General Assembly. On July 1, 1966, the Commission of Outdoor Recreation and the legislative acts supporting it became effective. In the period of approximately 18 months since that time significant beginnings have been made on the Virginia Outdoors Plan. A booklet published by the Citizens Committee For the Virginia Outdoors Plan, entitled, "18 Months of Progress," tells what has been done in some detail. I shall leave a copy of this booklet with my statement. Major elements of progress on the Virginia Outdoors Plan have been: 1. Seven new State Parks either acquired or in the first phase of acquisition. These are truly distinguished places, such as Mason Neck, just below Washington on the Potomac; False Cape, a rare strip of Atlantic Coast beach; Smith Mountain Lake near Roanoke; and Chippokes Plantation, a James River plantation dating from the 17th Century which was given to the State largely because of the Virginia Outdoors Plan. 2. A number of matching grants to local and regional agencies to enable them to carry out their parts of the total Plan. These include some truly excellent local and regional park and open space projects. 3. Development of the multiple use concept on or adjoining lands originally acquired for only hunting and fishing but now available for camping and general outdoor enjoyment. 4. A great variety of studies and plans developed with private individuals in an effort to preserve a river, a historic place, a scenic road, or a suburban open space. I tell you about these things not simply to brag about what Virginia is doing or trying to do, but to tell you what the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Federal Government together have accomplished and more or less committed themselves to accomplish in the future. Everything we have done, we have done in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and most of what we have paid for, we have paid for on the basis of 50% State money and 50% Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. This is just as the original ORRRC Report envisioned it and as the original legislation provided. It is nice to be right, but in our original study we were righter than we cared to be when we predicted the pressure of people, houses, industry, shopping centers, highways, and a great many other things, on the dwindling supply of attractive, accessible lands and waters for recreation. I am sure I don't have to tell you what has happened to land prices almost everywhere, but especially within reach of the urban centers. We expected the supply to shrink and the price on the remainder to rise. But the rate has been far greater than we dreamed. And, of course, this is not a matter solely of statistics and land prices. What really matters is that unless we act now to acquire these places, many now available will soon be unavailable or only available at staggering prices. The people of our Commonwealth, like the people of any other urbanizing and industrializing place, will have lost a highly significant part of their heritage and have lost the great social and economic benefits that might have come from the intelligent preservation and use of these resources. So, the need is for more money now-not for less money, as the present situation indicates will be the case. For the first biennium of the Virginia Outdoors Plan, the Commonwealth appropriated about $4.3 million and the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund matched that. We are advised by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation that in the coming biennium, under present provisions, we can expect $3 million from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. This, unfortunately, has encouraged the State to provide only $3 million in its Budget. So in the second biennium of our life, with greatly increased needs, we are confronted with a decrease in funds of about 25%. I should like to emphasize that over 75% of the total funds we received went to land acquisition. This is the crucial matter. Whatever funds we get for the next biennium we plan to apply largely to land acquisition. This means that we do not really spend these funds, we invest them. This joint State-Federal investment in these significant places for the lasting common benefit, in my opinion, is the very soundest sort of investment for the Commonwealth and for the Nation. It is an investment not just in real estate, but in the lives of people and the character of our communities. So, speaking for one of your partners in the excellent concept and program which the Federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation were designed to implement. I urge the passage of Congressman Foley's Bill, H.R. 8578. I understand that if it is passed, it could nearly double the amount of funds for which Virginia might be eligible. If it is passed promptly, it could have substantial effect in encouraging our General Assembly, and perhaps others, to make more adequate provision in the State's Budget. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PENN MOTT, JR, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA My name is William Penn Mott, Jr. I am the Director of Parks and Recreation for the State of California and the State's liaison officer. I wish to speak today in support of the concept which is presented in H.R. 7578, introduced by Representative Thomas S. Foley of Washington-namely. providing additional funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Program. July 1, 1967 marked the third year in which applications have been accepted in California for consideration under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Program. During this period in which $11 million was available as California's share of this Fund, we received applications for in excess of $70 million worth of projects. In other words, the demand for funds exceeded the money available by more than 600 percent. This demand for funds for land acquisition and capital improvements to meet the receration demands in California is directly related to the rapid growth being experienced by the State. The California State Department of Finance estimated that the population of California as of January 1, 1968 was 19,774,000, an increase of more than two percent over the January 1, 1967 figure of 19,800,000, California's population has increased more than four percent during the period of its patricipation in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Program: however, during this same period our annual apportionment has actually decreased. Based upon an average increase in population of two percent a year, it is estimated that California's population will increase more than twenty percent in the next ten years. With this growth rate, which is one of the fastest in the nation, we are confident that the demand for Land and Water Conservation Funds will continue to outstrip the supply of these funds. Statistics gathered in California indicate that the local cities, counties, and special districts are capable of matching funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to at least four times the amount now being received by California from the Fund, which is approximately $32 million. California is proud of its record in the distribution of the funds. Of the $11 million received, we have distributed this money to 57 separate projects: $6.400,000 or 59 percent has been obligated to 25 acquisition projects, 4 of them State and 21 local; $4,500,000 or 40 percent has been for 31 development projects, 7 State projects and 24 local; and $100,000 or 1 percent has been obligated for one planning project. It should be noted that the percentage distribution of acquisition projects over development projects is consistent with that suggested by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Of the 57 funded projects, 43 are local projects sponsored by 33 separate local jurisdictions; 15 counties, 15 cities and 3 recreation and park districts represent the local jurisdictions. These are distributed quite evenly throughout the entire State. Twelve State projects have been funded. Six of these projects are the responsibility of the Department of Parks and Recreation and six of them are the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Board. Of the $11 million received in California, $3,200,000 has been requested or paid out by the end of the current fiscal year, June 30, 1968. It is anticipated that an additional $2 million will be either requested from the federal government or disbursed to participants. California has received in addition to the $11 million approval for $3,500,000 from the Secretary's Special Contingency Fund; $2 million of this has been received and disbursed for the acquisition of the Pepperwood Grove Project in the Humboldt Redwoods State Park. The additional $1,500,000 will be received by the end of the current fiscal year. This will complete the Contingency Fund project. The Department held during the month of January 1968 four public hearings to discuss the rules and regulations for the disbursement of federal funds to State agencies and local jurisdictions. Although land acquisition remains critical, particularly for the larger metropolitan areas, the rural areas of the State feel that there must be greater emphasis placed on development in order for them to continue with land acquisition. There appears to be considerable feeling in the rural and suburban areas that allowing open space to remain undeveloped may prohibit further acquisition or make it impossible to hold open space for park and recreation purposes. The Department of Parks and Recreation for the State of California now owns, operates and maintains in excess of 800,000 acres of land comprised of 200 units which make up the State Park System. Although there are critical needs for land acquisition, such as the beaches, rounding out existing state parks and eliminating inholdings within state parks, and the acquisition of state parks which will serve the major metropolitan areas, the greater emphasis should be placed on developing existing state parks. Mr. Chairman, the above information should provide your committee with ample evidence that additional funds are desperately needed during the next several years to meet in California the demand for funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and it is for this reason that I strongly recommend approval of H.R. 8578. STATEMENT BY WILLIAM M. LIGHTSEY, ARLINGTON, VA. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: I am William M. Lightsey of Arlington, Virginia. I am Director of the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. I am also a member of the House of Delegates of the Virginia General Assembly, now meeting in Richmond. During the 1966 General Assembly session, I helped to marshall the legislative support needed to implement the Virginia Outdoors Plan. This initiated the first comprehensive State-wide program to acquire and preserve the natural resources of Virginia and to make them available for the use and enjoyment of the citizens of Virginia and of the Nation. I am here to urge your approval of HR-8578. The increased level of revenues that would accrue to the Land and Water Conservation Fund under HR-8578 is sorely needed, as is the authorization for advance land purchase contracts which HR-8578 would provide. Otherwise, the acquisition and preservation of land and water areas to meet the objectives of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act cannot stay ahead of the rapidly escalating land values and the disappearance of these areas under the press of the population explosion. Last Friday and Monday morning, I discussed the provisions of HR-8578 with our Virginia Senators Harry Byrd, Jr. and William B. Spong. The statements which State Senator Bemiss and I are making before you today carry their support. I appreciate this opportunity to tell you how important we in Virginia believe the enactment of H.R.-8578 is to our Commonwealth, and especially important to the urban areas such as Northern Virginia, just across the Potomac. In a few years, three-fourths of Virginia's population will be living in urban areas. This Bill is a needed and timely proposal to strengthen the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, a first line of defense in the fight to meet the fast-growing demands for open space ahead of its disappearance and continued sharply rising cost. Action now by you and the Congress is crucial to Virginia. In Richmond today the General Assembly is holding hearings on Governor Godwin's proposed budget for the coming two years. The appropriation of State funds to the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation proposed in that budget for 1968-70 is less than that appropriated for the current biennium. This is in large part due to the fact that the level of Federal funds Virginia can expect to receive from the present provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act is significantly below that anticipated by the Act. The initial appropriation of State funds for the newly created Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation for 1966-68 was $4.3 million, enough to match Virginia's allocation of Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds dollar for dollar. Unless the increased revenues proposed by HR-8578 are available the Virginia allocation is expected to be only $4 million, a reduction of 30%. The enactment of HR-8578 would provide an incentive for Virginia to advance |