<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:40050.wais]
STATE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
FEDERAL FUNDING OF THE STATE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT
__________
MARCH 11, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-050 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Steve Hodapp, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 11, 1997...................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Christian-Green, Hon. Donna, a U.S. Delegate from the Virgin
Islands.................................................... 4
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a U.S. Delegate from American Samoa.. 3
Hansen, Hon. James, a U.S. Representative from Utah.......... 1
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a U.S. Representative from Colorado....... 4
Smith, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Representative from Oregon........... 2
Statements of witnesses:
Beck, Judy, Commissioner, Glenview Park District, IL......... 12
Prepared statement....................................... 32
Cove, Thomas J., Vice President of Government Relations,
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association................... 9
Prepared statement....................................... 30
Murphy, Donald W., Director, California Department of Parks
and Recreation............................................. 7
Prepared statement....................................... 29
Stevenson, Katherine, Associate Director, National Park
Service.................................................... 24
Prepared statement....................................... 34
Tindall, Barry S., Director of Public Policy, National
Recreation and Park Association............................ 5
Prepared statement....................................... 40
Additional material supplied:
Murphy, Donald: LWCF Funding Levels.......................... 39
Stevenson, Katherine: Receipts, Appropriations and
Unappropriated Balances Reported by Treasury Dept. (LWCF).. 37
Tindall, Barry:
Capital Investment in Parks and Recreation............... 49
LWCF Project Examples.................................... 48
FEDERAL FUNDING OF THE STATE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:17 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
UTAH; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC
LANDS
Mr. Hansen. We are here at this relatively early hour today
to learn a little about the needs and benefits of Federal
funding for the State Land and Water Conservation Fund program.
This has been a highly successful program, which has brought
the opportunity for open space recreation to millions of
Americans on a daily basis.
I am disappointed to see that Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt, like Secretary James Watt before him, has set
off on a pathway to eliminate funding for the State Land and
Water Conservation Fund program. This is particularly ironic
because the Clinton Administration endorsed the revitalization
of this program in a 1994 report.
Today, we will hear from the Administration that it just
simply is not a high enough priority for them to seek funds. I
find that curious when the Administration is seeking nearly
$300 million for Federal land acquisition in fiscal year 1998.
Included within the Administration's request are such items as
$4.2 million request for the Appalachian Trail, where the
Federal Government is now buying up the viewshed along the
trail at a cost of over $2 million per mile, and $22 million to
buy several dams in the State of Washington.
I know that there are those who advocate increasing funds
for both the Federal and State LWCF programs. That is really
only a question of money, and I look forward to their
suggestions as to where the funds will come from. In the
meantime, it is appropriate to ask the question of priority.
Specifically, should Congress continue to fund the Federal LWCF
program exclusively?
The State LWCF program not only addresses the highest
priority needs of the American public for outdoor recreation
close to home, but because of the matching requirements is an
even better deal for the taxpayer than Federal land
acquisition. Further, report after report documents that the
Federal Government cannot properly manage the 650 million acres
already entrusted to it.
In fact, several years ago the Interior Inspector General
recommended that the Fish and Wildlife Service suspend
acquisition altogether, until they could properly manage the
lands that they had already acquired.
I am pleased that a grassroots effort has begun to help
revitalize this program. I encourage those persons associated
with that effort to work with us on the Committee. As Members
become more aware of the benefits of this program through
efforts such as this hearing, I believe that it will be
possible to generate the strong bipartisan support for this
effort to restore the original vision of this Act which was to
provide recreation opportunities for all Americans.
I have been on this committee for nine terms now, and we
have looked at this every time and I have yet to see something
occur. I would really like to see something come to fruition at
this point.
Mr. Hansen. My friend from Oregon, the Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, is with us. Mr. Smith, do you have any
opening comments in this regard?
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just an observation or
two. The Soil and Water Conservation Fund, as I recall, was
always a sinking hole that those who wanted and could not fund
any other program, find money for any other program, used it.
And as you and I sat and watched the addition to the Federal
lands to 650 million acres and no money to support those
additions, the other parks and other purposes, we raised the
question all along why are we taking more land off the tax
roles, especially in the western States.
In my district, 75 percent of the land is already owned by
the Federal Government. The Federal Government does not need
any more land in my part of the State of Oregon and of course
in many States of the West, as you well know, including your
own. A heavy, heavy percentage of the lands in those States
already belong to the Federal Government and the tax structure
on the rest of the land that is privately held supports all the
infrastructure so we are pinched--by the way, the Federal
Government is a lousy neighbor. They do not pay their way.
So as one who comes from that kind of a background I am
very concerned. I know, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in 1994
Mr. Clinton himself recommended that the shares be in this
manner 30 percent to the State, 30 percent to the Federal
Government, 30 percent to cities, and 10 percent discretionary.
So before we go forward I would like to analyze how we
ought to share this thing. Frankly, I am more inclined to
believe that the States have a better idea how to manage this
fund than does the Federal Government. And taking the
opportunity for the Federal Government to make wrong decisions
I prefer to give it all to the States and maybe some of the
cities. So if we are going to fund it I would like to see it
distributed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
notice he pointed out that he felt the Federal Government was a
lousy neighbor. As you know, members of this committee, we are
going to have a payment in lieu of tax problem as the amount
recommended by the Clinton Administration is substantially
less.
The problem we have out in the West, we have all of the
folks encouraging people to come out to our areas. Like you,
many of the areas in the first congressional district and some
of the counties are 90 percent owned by the Federal Government.
So folks come out and they have a great impact on the area and
we have to clean it up. They are up there hiking and they break
a leg and we have to go get them. They start a fire, we have to
put it out. And then they turn around and say we do not want to
pay you anything.
So payment in lieu of taxes will be an issue here and I
hope we can handle that. I am pleased to see my friend from
American Samoa come in, the ranking member of the committee,
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you have anything you would like to say in
opening statement, sir?
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM
THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, my apologies for being
late. The traffic was not very favorable in my coming this
morning. I certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to
the Chairman of our Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from
Oregon who is also a member of the committee. I am very happy
to see him here this morning.
For the sake of time, I am going to submit my statement for
the record and would like to proceed and welcome our gentlelady
from the Virgin Islands and other members of our committee, the
gentleman from Colorado. I would like to proceed if it is all
right with you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Your full statement will
be included in the record.
[Statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
Statement of Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a U.S. Delegate from American Samoa
Since enactment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in
1964, over $3 billion have been appropriated for matching
grants to the 50 States and U.S. insular areas used for land
acquisition, open space needs and recreation development.
Through this program more than 2.3 million acres have been
acquired and recreation facilities built on some 25,000 sites.
I'm sure each of us can point to successful protects in our
communities which were made possible through LWCF funding. In
American Samoa we have used the funds to improve the Pago Pago
Park and Marina, Utulei Public Beach, Pago Stadium, Mialoa
Fishing Complex, and the Lavolava Golf Course. Improvements
that our visitors and residents alike have enjoyed.
Funding for both the State and Federal side of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund comes out of receipts from surplus
Federal property sales and offshore oil and gas leases. Each
year $900 million is credited to the program from these
receipts, however, throughout the 1980's and 1990's less than
one third of the amount credited has been appropriated for use.
During the 104th Congress State side funding was zeroed out
completely and the Federal share was cut substantially.
Both the Federal and State sides of LWCF deserve continued
funding--the Federal side allows for protection and
conservation of areas of national significance while the State
side allows State and local governments to determine how to use
the funds to address local concerns and interests. I know it is
the opinion of some that only one side of LWCF should be funded
at the expense of the other but I think the success of this
program shows that adequate funding for both sides should be
reinstated.
I thank the Chairman for calling this morning's oversight
hearing and look forward to hearing from our witnesses
regarding their experiences with the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands is
recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Ms. Christian-Green. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning to the witnesses here today. I am new to this committee
so I have not been participating in this ongoing discussion but
I look forward to doing so this morning. And I feel very
strongly about the importance of maintaining parks.
It has been one of the main complaints as I campaigned this
year through the Virgin Islands that our parks were in
disrepair and our young people had no good places to go for
recreation so I am very much interested in hearing the
testimony. And I know the importance of parks not only to
maintaining our country's health but also our quality of life.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado, you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Chairman, I think our first meeting of the
overall committee this year, in our packet of materials was a
map from--I have forgotten where it was from, but it showed the
public lands in this country, the Federal lands that were
owned, and it showed it in a very dramatic and graphic way,
something I knew and understood intellectually but to see it,
it really is shocking.
And that is that from the Colorado eastern border east
there are almost no colored areas. Now, sure, there were a few
parks and there were a few military bases and so forth that
were Federal land east of the Colorado eastern border. From the
eastern border of Colorado west it looked like the Federal
Government owned everything because of the colored areas.
And it is something that--it is a map, I wish I had it with
me this morning, that we ought to have with us here in the
committee to illustrate this and put it in perspective every
time we talk about land and water issues because I do not think
most people understand and I did not understand it quite as
graphically as this displayed it.
The West is largely owned by the Federal Government and
partially because when they had the early settlement that was
land that no one wanted at that time. And now we are living
with that kind of a legacy. You are in Utah and in Washington
and in Oregon, and certainly in Colorado. So as we think of
these things, I think we ought to think of it in the
perspective of that fact that the Federal Government owns a
good part of the western United States and very little of the
East. I think that is why we have trouble getting our eastern
colleagues to understand what we are dealing with.
Mr. Hansen. I think the gentleman's point is well taken.
Our eastern folks do not have any idea of what we go through
but we should have some wilderness in the East. I appreciate
their efforts. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
comments to make.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the Chairman yield?
Mr. Hansen. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just to tell my friend from Colorado that
one of the latest issues of the National Geographic magazine
points out the fact where Federal lands currently are located
and I think the gentleman probably got a copy----
Mr. Hefley. Someone handed me the map, Mr. Chairman, and
the colored areas are Federal-owned lands and this illustrates
what I am saying. This is Colorado's eastern border. If you
look at Colorado west, what it amounts to, and if you look at
Colorado, what it amounts to, and that is pretty dramatic.
Mr. Hansen. I think the point the gentleman made is that--
no disrespect to our good friends from the States east of the
area. But they have very little understanding of the problems
we have out in our area. We are grateful for our witnesses who
are here.
Our first panel consists of Barry S. Tindall, Donald W.
Murphy, Thomas J. Cove, and Judy Beck. If these folks would
like to come up and you have a little sign there in front of
you. If you can all figure out which one is yours we are OK. We
appreciate you being with us today. We will start with Mr.
Tindall, Director of Public Policy, National Recreation and
Park Association, and then we will just move on across.
Does anybody here have a statement that is going to take
longer than five minutes? I really appreciate that. That is
very kind of you. And if you will notice in front of you there,
there is a traffic light and when the green goes on that means
go, yellow means wind it up, and red means stop. And I would
really appreciate you staying within the time. And I appreciate
you being here. Mr. Tindall, we will turn to you, sir, and the
time is yours.
STATEMENT OF BARRY S. TINDALL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY,
NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION
Mr. Tindall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Barry
Tindall. I am Director of Public Policy for National Recreation
and Park Association. We appreciate the invitation to be here
this morning to share some points of view on something we have
been advocates for for a long, long time. Before I get into my
statement, I might say that my organization is looking forward
with great enthusiasm to meeting in Salt Lake City this fall.
We will bring between 5,000 and 6,000 public and other park and
recreation folks into your State. We look forward to seeing and
using the recreation resources at all levels of government,
city, county and Federal resources as well.
Let me also say that I do not fully understand the western
point of view, if you will. My home is in New Jersey or was in
New Jersey until I moved to northern Virginia, but my
organization has historically supported a continuum of
recreation destinations that range from the smallest community
play lot to many of our great Federal resources.
I want this Subcommittee to understand that we are a
national association but most of our members, frankly, are non-
Federal employees. We have an intense interest in the stateside
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as the Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery Program and other things that are
related, other statutes, policies, related to providing
recreation resources and experiences.
You have my statement. In answer to your question, yes, it
would take far longer than five minutes to get through it. I do
not intend to burden you with that. I would simply say that the
stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is, in fact,
one of the great American conservation successes in this
country. We have invested something in the order of $3.2
billion of Federal funds.
The important thing to note is that the States and
subdivisions of States, with a great infusion of private sector
interest, has more than doubled that money. It has leveraged in
many cases 4 to 1, 5 to 1, 10 to 1, times the amount of the
Federal investment to conserve land and to provide recreation
access.
Your staff asked us to say something about the needs for
the program in the near future. In 1995 we did a national
random sample survey of the 5,000 local park and recreation
systems in this country that have at least one full-time
executive. They told us that something in the order of $27.3
billion would be necessary. That is the big picture dollar
amount to restore, to increase the capacity, and to protect
land for capital investment in parks, municipal and county
public park and recreation systems.
The States told us that they need at least $3 billion. We
think this is a very conservative figure and maybe Mr. Murphy
can expand on that. I think it is important, when you are
looking at the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to recognize
that the fund and its dollars are critically important, but it
has also encouraged the States and local governments to
undertake a large number of other conservation and recreation-
related initiatives--State Wild and Scenic Rivers, State trail
systems, and State planning processes, for example. When the
Land and Water Conservation was created in 1964 and
operationalized in 1965, there were very few States that had
anything approaching a comprehensive statewide planning
process, but the fund provided incentives to encourage that
type of thing and many States have worked out similar
relationships with local governments.
It is important, and I will try to wrap up with just
focusing on what we think has gone wrong with the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, particularly State assistance, since
1981 and the abolishment of the Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, originally the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation.
That was the principal planning agency in this country for
recreation and parks. It managed the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. It negotiated between the Federal agencies
as to what Federal priorities would be. That entity was
abolished in 1981 and that exposed, inside the Interior
Department, the stateside of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund to horrible political pressures and the priorities of the
Federal land systems, not only those managed by Interior, but
the Agriculture folks as well through the Forest Service. So
that is an issue, the abolishment of the agency.
The elimination of the minimum allocation for State
assistance in 1976, I believe, was another serious strike
against the stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The reversal of that, to provide the Federal agencies with not
less than 40 percent, obviously provides no protection
whatsoever to the stateside of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
Limited consideration of State and local alternatives to
Federal land conservation actions is another thing that, we
believe, has caused the demise in land and water. The near
abandonment of the resource investment concept is another. The
American people will extract in excess of $2 billion in Outer
Continental Shelf receipts this year. Our calculations indicate
that a minimal percentage of that will go back to the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and, as proposed by the Administration,
exclusively for Federal lands.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would mention the absence of a
grassroots constituency. That is not surprising because the
stateside of the Land and Conservation Fund was created by
Congress to be a grassroots-up program. That is, decisionmaking
is best at State and local government levels. And, frankly,
that has worked so well that some Members of Congress, maybe
many Members of Congress, are challenged to gain political
identify or connection, if you will, with the program.
Given the budget stresses of the last several years I think
the evidence will show that Members of Congress and maybe even
people in the Executive Branch tend to be associated with
specific Federal projects versus the more generic State
program. I will stop at that point and be happy to answer any
questions that the Subcommittee may have a little bit later on.
[Statement of Mr. Tindall may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Tindall. We appreciate your
comments. Our next witness is Donald W. Murphy, Director of
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Murphy, it
is good to see you again, sir. I appreciate your great comments
with us both in California and here last year, especially your
fine statement on the Park Reform Act. That was an excellent
statement. I will turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF DONALD W. MURPHY, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly good
to see you again and good to be here and I appreciate the
invitation. It is a privilege to be here today to talk about
the vital importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
for State and local programs.
By way of introduction, let me tell you that I sit here
wearing several hats. In 1991, Governor Pete Wilson appointed
me Director of the California Department of Parks and
Recreation. It is the nation's largest State park system with
1.3 million acres and a budget of nearly $200 million. I have
been with California State Parks since I entered as a park
ranger cadet in 1980.
Additionally, I serve as president of the National
Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers,
commonly referred to as NASORLO, and it is the organization of
State officials whose responsibility it is to apportion LWCF
moneys to their respective States.
Lastly, I am co-chair of the new organization, Americans
for Heritage and Recreation, a newly formed coalition of LWCF
stakeholders dedicated to securing more stable funding for
conservation and outdoor recreation. This new organization
represents a broad spectrum of individuals and ideas, from the
Wilderness Society to the Sporting Goods Manufacturing
Association, represented by my friend Tom Cove here, brought
together with the realization that the restoration of LWCF for
its original intention is vital for all of America.
This is what I want you to understand from me today. A
program that has worked so well for so many years has gotten so
far off track that we really need a crane to put it back on
track. And I am not here to denigrate the Federal funding side
of the LWCF in favor of the State funding side. The two are
necessary parts of a whole, and one should not exist without
the other. But since I was invited here to speak on the
importance of the stateside funding, I wish to confine my
remarks to that area.
When the Land and Water Conservation Fund became law in
1965, this was its statement of purpose. The purposes of this
part are to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring
accessibility to all such quality and quantity of outdoor
recreation resources as may be available and are necessary and
desirable for individual active participation in such
recreation, and to strengthen the health and vitality of the
citizens of the United States by (1) providing funds for, and
authorizing Federal assistance to, the States in planning,
acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and
facilities, and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition
and development of certain lands and other areas.
The last portion of this statement is most important for my
purposes here today. As the law was written, one of the first
principles behind the Land and Conservation Fund is assistance
to the States. This need was widely recognized on both sides of
the aisle, and in prior Republican and Democratic
administrations.
In the years following this Act's passage, the States
benefited greatly from LWCF. But with the coming of the 1980's,
this changed dramatically. Support for the State and local
programs plummeted. In the last two fiscal years, there were no
LWCF appropriations for State and local matching grants.
California is a case in point. In the 1970's, the Golden
State benefited greatly from the LWCF, averaging a little more
than $11 million each year which the State matched of course
with an additional $11 million. Since then, however, funding
dropped as quickly as a rock off the Golden Gate Bridge. In the
1980's, the average LWCF annual appropriation for California
fell to less than $7 million, and so far this decade we faced
even worse averaging about $1.4 million. That is a mere 10
percent of the funding we received in the 70's.
The negligence is as bipartisan as the creation of the act
itself, and spans administrations of both parties. California
is not unique in this. Attendance in State parks around the
country rose by more than 30 million annually between '87 and
'92. In his 1995 report to Congress on the LWCF, National Park
Service Director Kennedy said, ``States continue to support
this program and depend on its annual apportionment to
supplement existing funding sources in providing recreation
opportunities to their communities. In many local instances it
constitutes the only means of financing much-needed
recreational opportunities for its populace, including youth-
at-risk, senior citizens, the economically disadvantaged, and
those with disabilities.''
There are many debates in these corridors, and even in this
Subcommittee, about the role of Federal Government in
preserving public lands. We experience this in Sacramento as
well, I assure you. In another way, therefore, I cannot stress
enough the importance of LWCF for States and local communities.
In short, it gives more power to the people by placing the
funds closer to home. Here in Washington, you refer to it as
States' rights. Thousands of miles west of here, at the
Capitol, they refer to it as local control. The benefits of
this are numerous. More people are involved in the
decisionmaking process. Communities must match the LWCF grant,
so they have an incentive and a goal that can be attained. In
many areas, problems in a State or community are best answered
by those who live there.
In its day, the LWCF has built ballparks in urban settings
such as Oakland, it acquired Martin Luther King, Jr.'s boyhood
home in Atlanta, and it helped finish off the Appalachian
Trail. Over the life span of the program, stateside funding has
financed more than 8,500 acquisition projects covering more
than 2.3 million acres, and funded 28,000 outdoor recreational
facility developments.
Thirty some-odd years ago, the creation of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund was a bipartisan measure that makes
sense even today. It is an issue that is broad enough for all
to accept and one that crosses many boundaries. That is why
such a broad coalition has come together, as I said earlier.
The restoration of the State and local LWCF funding should
be an easy decision for you, and it is an easy decision that
will immediately show many rewards throughout the country.
There is no controversy in restoring State and local support in
LWCF, but I can assure you there will be if this noble effort
is abandoned.
As you said yourself, sir, the need for public outdoor
recreation space is greatest in urban and suburban areas of
this country. For these reasons, continued exclusive focus on
Federal land acquisition cannot be justified. I could have not
said it better myself, sir. Thank you very much.
[Statement of Mr. Murphy may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I appreciate your
testimony. Mr. Cove, Vice President of Government Relations,
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. The time is yours,
sir.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. COVE, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, SPORTING GOODS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Cove. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Cove. I
am the Vice President of SGMA. We are the national trade
association for producers of athletic equipment, footwear and
apparel, and we welcome the opportunity to testify. In 1994, I
was honored to serve on the National Park Service Review
Committee for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
I continue to endorse the report's basic finding, namely,
that a reinvigoration of the land and water vision is vitally
needed in order for the country to save its heritage of open
spaces and parks. Within my industry, as already has been
mentioned today, we regard the experience of a well-funded
stateside Land and Water Fund to be a demonstrable success.
The fund allowed a great diversity of land to be protected
and created an inventory of recreational opportunities for
citizens in every State. Beyond the actual money it provided,
the fund's incentives created partnerships that have resulted
in innovative programs to protect habitat, preserve historic
sites and provide recreation.
The fund was a promise made to the American people
beginning in 1965 that has delivered a return on investment
that any Wall Street banker would be proud to call his or her
own. And, sadly, the promise has been broken in recent years
when the funding for the stateside of the fund was cut
substantially.
Let me take a moment to highlight why we think the State
assistance program is important. State and local parks are
where the vast majority of Americans recreate day in and day
out. Although most Americans might love to visit our showcase
national parks regularly, they are unable to do for reasons of
economics, geography or competing leisure alternatives.
The fact is most Americans recreate close to home. Whether
for toddlers in a playground, teenagers on a ball field, or
senior citizens on a nature trail, accessible recreation
opportunities are basic to quality of life. Participation in
recreation is valued not just for enjoyment but because
Americans know it leads to improved health, better appreciation
of nature and stronger, shared values.
Providing recreation opportunities close to home is more
imperative than ever. In the 1996 report, the Recreation
Roundtable found that the greatest barrier to participation in
outdoor recreation in America was lack of discretionary time.
Local recreational alternatives speak directly to Americans'
needs to carve more time out of the day.
And at the same time the quality of recreation experiences
in certain locations is falling. In the same Recreation
Roundtable study, Americans living in large, urban areas are as
a group the least satisfied with their recreation
opportunities. The study also found that residents of America's
largest metropolitan areas participate on average in fewer
recreation activities and on a less frequent basis than other
Americans.
A '95 Washington Post article, entitled ``No Place to
Play'', recounts the tragic story of two young girls who died
after playing in an abandoned car in Southeast Washington. The
underlying theme of the story, as articulated by many angry
residents of the neighborhood, was the lack of opportunities
for local children to recreate in a safe, enjoyable way.
Seeing images of unscathed community gardens and parks
located next to torched buildings after the '92 Los Angeles
riots makes clear how urban communities value open spaces. In
suburban America, conflicts over use of parks are increasingly
commonplace. We see at the beginning of every season, soccer
and football league administrators battling over access to
precious fields.
Primary school parents view junior high and high school
sports programs as a threat to their children's ability to get
field time. Women's sports proponents are becoming more vocal,
appropriately so, about receiving their fair share of choice
locations and practice times.
This can limit the number of young people who have the
opportunity to play sports and rarely are the elite athletes
the one who loses, but more likely the intramural player for
whom hurdles to participation become quickly instrumental.
Privately owned fee-based facilities are being developed to
meet the need for recreation. While these complexes do deliver
quality services, we should not allow personal financial
resources to determine citizens basic access to recreation.
At the same time, there are almost daily reports about the
negative health consequences of America's sedentary lifestyle.
Just last Friday, the CDC reported 35 percent of the country's
adults and 13 percent of our children weigh dangerously more
than they should. This is the most overweight our nation has
been since the government began compiling statistics in the
'60's.
The need to make recreation alternatives available to all
Americans is good public policy. I do not want to leave the
impression that the Land and Water Fund is simply or should be
simply a funding vehicle for recreation. Any discussion of Land
and Water must include its fundamental conservation legacy. The
protection of threatened land and water resources remains a
central and essential basis for the fund.
Of particular concern is that we might be bringing up
generations of Americans who have no connection to the wonders
of our country's vast natural legacy. The policy implications
of having large numbers of citizens with no hands-on contact
with nature and conservation are scary.
Looking forward in terms of funding, we believe that
theoretical premise of investing royalty income from depletion
of one non-renewal resource for protection of a different
precious resource remains strong and valid. It should be
maintained if at all possible.
In closing, I would just associate my remarks with my
friend, Mr. Murphy. And I want to be clear as much as our
industry values the stateside fund, we do not advocate draining
the Federal account to increase State appropriations. We
understand the significant budget constraints facing the
Congress but I think I would just like to look to the '94
report which was eloquent in capturing the vision we endure.
So I will close with this. We envision a network of parks,
preserves, open spaces, greenways, recreations sites and
centers stretching across this nation, touching all
communities, and accessible to all Americans. It is a noble and
appropriate vision, one which the Land and Water Fund can
definitely deliver and will only take the commitment--a long-
term commitment--of resources to make it happen. I thank you
for the opportunity to testify.
[Statement of Mr. Cove may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Cove. We appreciate your
testimony. Commissioner Judy Beck, Glenview Park District of
Illinois. Commissioner, we are grateful to have you with us and
we will turn the time to you.
STATEMENT OF JUDY BECK, COMMISSIONER, GLENVIEW PARK DISTRICT,
ILLINOIS
Ms. Beck. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you. My name is Judy Beck and I am an elected park
commissioner in Glenview, Illinois, and have been for 18 years.
I am one of 2,100 elected in our State to serve without
compensation. I have also served as the president of the
Illinois Association of Park District, representing over 300
forest conservation and park districts in the State.
And I would like to speak today on behalf of restoring
funding through the local grant portion of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, a commitment by Congress that is fundamental
to the protection of recreational opportunities for all
Americans wherever they reside.
As a locally elected official I am certainly aware of the
need to contain spending but I also am aware of the need for a
partnership, one that has a long history of success and that is
what my remarks will be dedicated to this morning. In Illinois,
our State's existing public recreation lands and facilities are
inadequate to meet the needs of 11.5 million people, 80 percent
of whom reside in just 18 communities.
Less than 4 percent of Illinois' land is in public
recreation and conservation use. Although we are recognized as
a leader in recreation distribution systems intense competition
for land brought about by urban sprawl in the agricultural
counties severely limits our ability on the local level to
afford the increasing demand for public open space and
recreation lands.
And without increased and stable Federal funding
opportunities will disappear and recreation lands and pristine
natural areas in Illinois for future generations will be lost
forever. Last year, projects totaling more than--last year
communities sought $24 million in assistance and over the years
we have had projects totaling more than $290 million in value
funded in Illinois. The need and the demands obviously are
there.
Let me briefly tell you about some of the parks' industry.
We are a separate unit of government authorized by State
statute that encompasses all of the Village of Glenview and
parts of five other surrounding villages and unincorporated
Cook County, with an approximate population of 50,000. We have
independent taxing capabilities for open space and recreation,
the limits of which have been capped and our budget by design
is 60 percent fees and charges.
The challenge, though, in Glenview, indeed in all of
Northeastern Illinois and in other suburban and urban areas is
to provide for open space and recreation in highly populated
areas with a strong economy driving up land values. To
illustrate that, undeveloped land in my community is priced by
the square foot, not by the acre.
I would like to share with you the outstanding results of
the Land and Water Conservation Program in my community. The
Grove, a 123 acre nature preserve and center, is on the
national historic landmark register. It was the home of Robert
Kennicott, who at the time was the western most natural
scientist for the Smithsonian Institution, the discoverer of
dozens of species of plants and animals, many of which are
threatened and remain on the site today, and one of the early
explorers of Alaska.
In 1975, LWCF money was used as a part of a million dollar
package to purchase 82 acres of Robert Kennicott's homestead.
That money was leveraged with State and public funds as well as
private contributions that include six acres and the Kennicott
homestead from the Zenith Corporation.
Again in 1995, LWCF dollars were used in the same manner
adding to the Grove 41 acres so it was owned by the John C. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. As a result of that, our
agency was able to reunite two parcels that were once
originally part of Kennicott's Grove. We now have open space,
we have habitat, we have two museums, and the nature center.
None of this would have been possible without the original
Land and Water Conservation dollars. In addition, the
operation, maintenance and management of this project is
locally, not federally funded. Today the Grove is a vital part
of our community. Approximately 18,000 school children visit
the Grove and the total annual attendance is about 55,000. It
is clear that by any measurement this is a success story.
I testify before you today because I believe in the value
of parks and recreation and what it adds to the lives of all
Americans. I have seen the impact of suburban sprawl and the
tremendous brownscape problems in the city. I have also seen
firsthand that stateside funding is a stimulus to acquire
additional money for investment in our parks.
Funding does more than provide opportunities for fun and
games. It impacts youths at risk, crime prevention, health care
cost reduction, economic growth, urban revitalization, improved
environmental quality, and promotes a tremendous sense of
family pride in the community. If recreation is viewed as an
industry in 1990 through a study we found that we contribute
$3.1 billion to the Illinois economy including 7,000 private
sector jobs.
I am asking for your assistance and I thank you for the
opportunity to bring the concerns of local officials before you
today.
[Statement of Ms. Beck may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Commissioner, I appreciate your
testimony. The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
testimony that has been forwarded this morning by members of
our panel, and I do have a couple of questions I would like to
ask collectively for their response. I am informed that the
Appropriations Committee does not favor supporting funding
State grant programs.
At the same time it is my understanding if the number one
request from members of the Appropriations Committee is to
provide funding for Federal land acquisition that this seems to
be one of the problems that we have with the law itself, the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. If we put these two together
and there is some very strong disagreements in terms of how we
go about in resolving it.
Now I believe the record will show that the members of this
side of the aisle have always been very supportive of State
grant programs especially when it is on a matching basis, 50/50
match. And I guess the question that is raised here is where do
we get the money to pay for this.
And I would like to ask the members of the panel if you
have any comments to that effect. How do we convince the
Members that what you are saying is positive and that we should
be supportive of funding of the program?
Mr. Murphy. I would like to take a shot at that in the
beginning since you asked it collectively. We are here to
advocate for the original intent of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund which was $900 million from the Outer
Continental Shelf oil royalties. That is where the money came
from and that is where it should continue to come from.
It was a bipartisan agreement back in 1965. It basically
said that we are going to use money made from this nonrenewable
resource to support outdoor recreation and protect other
natural and cultural resources in this country. It was a
perfect tradeoff and it made absolute sense and it continues to
make sense today, and that is where the money should continue
to come from.
However, I want to hasten to add that none of us are
insensitive to the fact that this country faces a tremendous
deficit and that we are in the process after the newly formed
organization that I mentioned, AHR, Americans for our Heritage
and Recreation of looking at ways that we can bring back to
Congress and to this committee a restructuring at LWCF in
looking at other funding sources and we are in that process
right now with our stakeholders.
We think it is very important to at least take a honest
look at that. However, it should not be ignored that this $900
million is there. It was a commitment that this country made to
its people and that commitment should continue to be honored.
As far as the Federal side of the fund is concerned, as you say
there are general requests but Mr. Tindall alluded to the fact
that what happens is that because this program has worked so
well and the programs have taken place on a State and local
level there has unfortunately been a disconnect with Members of
Congress on the stateside of the fund because it has been
administered so well locally.
And what we have got to do is to get Members of Congress
educated as to how their individual districts are benefiting
tremendously from this fund even though they may not recognize
it and see the same direct connection that they see when
Federal acquisition takes place which they then get political
credit for.
But the record is clear that that is there to show Members
the tremendous benefit that has been derived in their
individual districts. It is just a matter of education and that
is also one of the goals and objectives of this newly formed
organization, AHR, to get Members educated in that regard.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Tindall.
Mr. Tindall. Yes. I cannot really speak to your first
observation that the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee may
not look favorably, either collectively or individually, on the
stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I have some
personal opinions on that relative to certain members but I
will keep those personal for the time being.
There are individual members on that Subcommittee and in
the Congress who believe that there is absolutely no Federal
role, no Federal obligation, no Federal responsibility to do
anything relative to parks and recreation for State or local
units of government. That is the perspective and point of view
that they have, and probably nothing that we can do can
dissuade them from that view.
We would argue that you could make a parallel statement
relative to local police forces, or support for local prison
construction, or local education or transportation. You could
go through a whole litany of Federal aid investments.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Or for that matter the entire National
Park Service should return to the States for the localities to
administer.
Mr. Tindall. Well, I am not suggesting that. The National
Park System and the other Federal land systems play critical
roles in this country. But we addressed one Member of Congress
in a private meeting a few weeks ago who said, ``I want to cut
the Federal Government out of this completely.'' Now, I think
this Subcommittee in 60 minutes or less could probably draft an
amendment that would take OCS revenues and send them, on some
formula basis, directly to the governor of each State.
That would create a great equity of distribution. Now that
legislator may or may not write that legislation. But it could
happen and the Federal side could work exactly as it works
today, make a case for Federal systems, for units of the
Federal systems, and see what that adds up to.
But the point is, and if you look at the Administration's
numbers, and I am not sure we are talking about the same
numbers in terms of what the Administration has requested----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Zero.
Mr. Tindall. From the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
fiscal years 1998 and 1997--that is zero as far as the
stateside is concerned, but there are dollars requested with
the Federal system. By our calculations it comes out to 7.2
percent of total OCS revenues of in excess of $2 billion.
Now, we are not a poor nation. Certainly we have budget
problems, but more so it is a question of priorities and how we
use those dollars versus whether we should have parks or
whether we should have transportation or whether we should have
more police or security, things like that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
I will wait for the next round. Thank you, Mr. Tindall.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado is
recognized for five minutes, Mr. Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, and thank the panel. In light of the
bond issues that have been passed by various States and local
jurisdictions in recent years and the lottery, a lot of States
including Colorado have a lottery which proceeds go to parks
and outdoor recreation. Do we really need this fund today, do
the States really need it?
Mr. Murphy. Well, speaking on behalf of the State of
California where we have passed some local bond measures, we
have not passed a State bond measure for the last ten years in
the State of California. And for me the unequivocal answer is
yes, we do need this fund because it is an investment in the
heritage of the people of this nation.
And I might add quickly that it is not a fund that comes
all from the Federal Government. I really need to emphasize
that this is a matching fund for the States so the States have
incentive and responsibility so it is an investment made by the
Federal Government in each of its constituent 50 States and
territories who in turn have to make an investment of their own
as well.
In going back to the fundamental principle here, we talked
about using Outer Continental Shelf oil royalties, a resource
that belongs to all of the people of this nation, and I
emphasize all of the people, not the government. It belongs to
the people who are in the individual States and it was a
bipartisan decision that that money would be divided amongst
the States and the States would match that fund.
I think the need is greater than ever, especially in terms
of the pressures and the numbers of population increases in the
demographic changes that we have particularly in the State of
California just to keep up in this regard. So I think the
program is needed now more than ever and it is not just a
matter of money but it is a matter of commitment and
philosophical investment in the heritage of this country.
Ms. Beck. I would also like to respond. I think that you
have to keep in mind that the Land and Water Conservation Fund
is not funding projects, it is really usually seed money from
which a project is built. And while there is a 50 percent match
that is required, it is usually only one small portion of the
project and it enables with the overall aura of Federal funding
buying the project in the local community, put together a
package, go out into the private sector and get private givers
and foundations involved.
I started out with a group of other citizens in front of
bulldozers in order to--it is just this classic story, in order
to preserve what had been deemed a national historic landmark
but there were no Federal funds that went with that
designation. It was strictly up to the local community to
somehow gather the dollars and the will in order to preserve
that precious part of America's past.
Mr. Tindall. Congressman, there is a dimension of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund that has not really been cited here
this morning. We certainly agree with the previous comments in
response to your question. But what gets overlooked here is
sort of the planning process and the anticipation that a
community can do something about its open space and its
recreation space needs.
I have no numbers whatsoever to support this. But my hunch
is that the hope, the anticipation, that community X or
community Y or the State of California, the State of New
Jersey, is going to get a certain amount of resources on an
annualized basis for Land and Water Conservation Fund projects
encourages communities to think about their needs.
And I think, frankly, there were far more projects that
were unfunded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, even in
the better days than there were those that received assistance.
But the notion that citizens are thinking about their needs
through a planning process is encouraging. I think they find
ways to get the resources whether or not they get a Land and
Water Conservation Fund grant. But it encourages public
thinking and private thinking about a community's resources and
how they are going to be used.
So they have these intangibles out there. But we totally
agree. The seed money, the catalytic effect of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund has been phenomenal. Our data suggests
that only 6 percent of this large need figure would come from
Federal sources. That is all Federal sources, not just Land and
Water, but ISTEA and urban park moneys and maybe some other
things. They all go into that mix.
Mr. Hefley. Does the panel see these funds as needed
primarily for acquisition of more land or for operation
infrastructure to utilize better the lands that you already
are?
Mr. Murphy. I would like to respond to that. I think that
speaking especially on behalf of the State of California, I
think that the fund certainly should be used for addressing
some of the infrastructure problems, rehabilitating some of the
facilities, taking care of lands and projects that have already
been developed over the years. That may be one of the
structural things that is a problem with the fund right now but
certainly those funds should be used for that as well.
On the acquisition side there are still in many States
including the State of California active acquisition programs
that are necessary in certain areas especially in some urban
areas where there are recreational facilities that need to be
built and land that needs to be acquired to buy those
facilities, greenways that need to be developed in urban areas
to provide the kind of atmosphere for people growing up in
urban environments that they should have for their health, an
inspiration and vitality that was mentioned in the original
fund.
So I think that there is still a mix but clearly the
emphasis speaking on behalf of the State of California needs to
be to address some of these recreational infrastructure
problems and worn out facilities, many of which were developed
with the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the first place.
Mr. Tindall. Congressman, if you look at the first page of
our survey, which is actually part of our testimony, the rank
order, if you will, is new construction--almost 50 percent of
the resource needs. Rehabilitation, as Mr. Murphy is
suggesting, is second, 30 some percent of resource needs, and
land acquisition is about 18 percent of fiscal resource needs.
That is the rank order at the municipal level, the local level.
Mr. Cove. From the industry point of view, we see the
capital investment whether it is for land acquisition or for
some of the more infrastructure rehabilitation, in some cases
development, it is capital investment and it is fundamentally
not operations. We perceive this fund being used for operations
to be sort of a black hole. That can go anywhere and we would
not be able to support that kind of--but in terms of the land
acquisition we also see this as much more real toward people
than toward land. The land is to be used, particularly in the
stateside, for all sorts of very close to home recreation and
conservation needs that in the context of the discussion that
the community started with about how much land is owned by the
Federal Government in the West, etc., we see that as a
completely different type of land acquisition than the
stateside acquisition would be able to deliver.
Ms. Beck. I also think you need to look at the pattern,
particularly in the urban and suburban areas where when kind of
a white elephant comes on the market and happens to have some
historical significance they look to the local park district
and it is usually an opportunity but unfortunately it is a
pretty expensive opportunity in order to take a historic
building and restore it and make it available as a public
facility and so those funds are often capital intensive.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my
questions have been pretty much answered through the clear
testimony and the questions of my colleagues. I would just like
to make a comment and respectfully suggest that with regard to
the map if there were more greenspace east of the Colorado that
may help to begin to eliminate some of the social ills that
tend to predominate in our cities and that is my comment.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
acquisition program requires that--for the States requires a
matching fund of 50 percent. Is that correct? And is the same
matching fund the requirement for the improvement programs or
for the rehabilitation programs?
Mr. Murphy. That is correct.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Although I think that the acquisition
program State grants are funded obviously you can acquire more
land with the same amount of money, Federal money, than you can
for the Federal land acquisitions but what I have noticed in my
own personal experience, and I might be wrong, is that usually
most of the State parks are not as well maintained as some of
the national parks, most of the national parks. Am I correct in
that observation or have you had a different experience?
Mr. Murphy. Well, it is certainly not the case in
California and in fact that National Park Service and the State
of California, we have joint management agreements where we
have lands that are contiguous to each other. In California the
same people that founded the National Park Service founded the
State park system in California and I would say that there is
no difference. It may be a difference in degrees depending upon
funding from one year to the other or one park unit to the
other but I do not think there is any general large scale
difference between the two.
I think that all our park systems especially when you look
at it that this is a system of nationwide parks and you do not
make a distinction between national and State and local, we
think of it in terms of a system of parks. We certainly all do
suffer from the failure of the infrastructure just as we are
nationwide looking at failure of the infrastructure in this
nation and that is probably the greatest problem nationwide for
all of our parks is the failure of the infrastructure and the
need to address maintenance backlogs and those types of things.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I do not know much about California
because I am from Puerto Rico and I do not travel very often to
California.
Mr. Murphy. I understand.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. But we in the eastern area have found--
what I have said is from my observations. I have not made an
analysis of it but it seems that the State parks are getting
deteriorated faster and that there seems to be less controls
about internal activities within the park or encroaches upon
the park and in a lot of State parks you find the facilities
that are not really usable because they are torn down or broken
much more so than the national parks. Do you have any
information about this or do you know anything about the
situation in California? Am I correct? Am I wrong?
Mr. Murphy. Well, your question was--your observation is
that facilities or resources in your State parks are more
deteriorated than Federal systems.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Right. I do not know. Maybe I am wrong.
If I am wrong--you said I am wrong as far as California
obviously.
Mr. Murphy. When I mentioned that new facilities and the
rehabilitation facilities are constituted by 80 percent of the
priorities it is local governments which make those
investments. I do not think--I would not want to leave the
impression with the Subcommittee it is because the States or
the territories are not taking care of resources to the extent
that they can. Things wear out and they wear out quickly
depending on how many people use them. The Federal people have
the same dilemmas.
I think we need to understand how many--I mean what the
pressures on State and local governments today to pick up more
and more cost for things that range frankly from welfare to
security to juvenile justice. I mean these are very expensive
programs or services where we are in the midst of a great
national action to push some of those costs elsewhere. That is,
frankly, impacting the money available to take care of public
park and recreation resources.
Dealing in southern California with immigration costs for
education, health care and things like that in other parts of
the country, that takes money and sometimes that money comes
out of State or county park and recreation budgets.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Well, maybe then we should be thinking
in terms of providing funding for rehabilitation and
maintenance over the existing ones until they get up to a
certain level rather than thinking of new acquisitions when the
existing ones are not at the level that we should have them.
Mr. Murphy. Well, under certain circumstances you can use
the Land and Water Conservation Fund for rehabilitation if the
resources degraded to such a point that it is unserviceable.
And our view is that restoration is just as good a conservation
initiative as going out and doing something new. It is, and we
have not talked much about this, I briefly mentioned the urban
park and recreation recovery program which is a non-acquisition
program and may apply to the conditions that you have in your
area.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. What I am trying to point out is
perhaps we should be more concerned at this point in time with
rehabilitating and putting parks in the proper condition before
we think of further acquisitions. I am just evaluating what we
should be doing.
Mr. Murphy. Well, our view is, and this is where the Land
and Water Conservation Fund has such beauty, if your community
in 1995 has one priority, it may be an opportunity to conserve
land, in 1997 it may have a rehabilitation need. In 19 whatever
it might have a new cap, a new facility need. So there needs to
be flexibility to State and local governments to deal with
those priorities recognizing that they will change over time.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, my time is up. I am sorry,
go ahead.
Ms. Beck. I would just like to comment that it seems the
supposition is that the state of the parks you have observed is
because of lack of maintenance. It could be from overuse. In
the county of Cook outside of Chicago, well, actually Chicago
resides in the county, there is a county forest preserve
system. The picnic permit program there begins on January 1.
They issue the picnic permits for the coming year.
There is a tradition there to have people camp outside of
the county building in January in Chicago in order to get
picnic permits. That is how scarce the amount of space is and
how great the need is.
Mr. Hefley. [presiding] Thank you very much. Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. I have no questions.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My State of Michigan
has been a beneficiary of both State grants and the Federal
conservation component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
and I think both are extremely important. I do not think it is
really a question of playing one against the other although I
do know the appropriations for the State grants have been
zeroed out.
But I think that we really have to approach people within
the Congress and make sure that they do not zero them out. I
think when we set this money aside back in '64, '65, these were
earmarked funds and I always felt that like many other of the
special funds here that they should be taken totally off budget
and used for the purpose for which they were originally
intended.
I know that is easier said than done but I really believe
that there is so much need in the country, take my own State of
Michigan, if we were to take the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and each year spend all that was available for both the
State grants and the Federal grants that we would still have
some unmet needs in the State of Michigan.
We have done a lot with both areas. We have preserved the
habitat of the cerulean warbler, which was on the verge of
extinction, up there because of this fund. We were able to
acquire Grand Island, an island the size of Manhattan Island,
which was going to be clear cut by one of the timber companies
up there that would acquire that because of this.
And in so many areas it seems to me that--I for years have
been in the Congress now, this is my 21st year in Congress, and
I have always felt that we should be looking at the needs and
having traveled throughout the country, traveled throughout my
State, feel that if we were to take this off budget and spend
all the money we would still not meet all the needs.
I was sponsor of a bill in Michigan which became law for a
bond for recreation purposes, and in that bonding I made sure
we had an amendment in that much of it was used for what we
call in Michigan up north, but also to acquire land in and near
cities for recreation there. I think that is the balance we
tried to achieve.
But, Mr. Murphy, let me ask you, is the real problem with
the Land and Water Conservation Fund that Federal agencies are
getting too much money or is it that insufficient annual
funding puts undue strains on your agency, your State and local
colleagues, and your Federal partner to protect the resource
lands we so urgently need?
Mr. Murphy. I certainly do not think the Federal side is
getting too much money. It is just that right now the
Appropriations Committee has decided not to fund the stateside,
it is all of the money is going to one side and not the other,
and so what I would argue for is that there is just not enough
of the $900 million that is allowed under the law being
appropriated for the fund so that there can be better
distribution of the funds.
I think the decision in itself is fundamentally unsound and
I think it is our responsibility, my responsibility as the
leader of Parks and Recreation in the State of California and
the stakeholders and the constituency to prevail upon the
Members of the Congress to convince them otherwise. We have
that job to do and I believe we will be successful but I do not
believe that it is that the Federal Government is getting too
much. I mean we are talking about a $900 million fund and all
of it is going to the Federal side, about $158 million, and
that is just patently not fair.
Mr. Kildee. And I would march with you to the
Appropriations Committee to urge that they do that. I think
that Congress--the whole Congress is responsible for this. We
have to approve all the allocations of funds. But I certainly
agree that the States should be getting what is intended to be
your allocation when this was set up.
And I would agree, I do not think we necessarily do that by
robbing Peter to pay Paul on this, that we should make sure
that both the State allocation and the Federal allocations are
addressed. I have asked to be drafted a bill to take the Land
and Water Conservation Fund off budget so that money would be
used for its intended purpose.
Now I know that that is going to be difficult to pass but I
am still getting the bill drafted and I will introduce it.
Perhaps it might not take effect right away or it might not
pass right away but by the year 2002 we are hopefully going to
have the budget balanced and maybe we can start seriously using
these funds for the intended purpose. Hopefully we could do it
before then but in the meantime I certainly agree with you, Mr.
Murphy, that we should be taking care of those State
allocations and I will be urging my colleagues in Congress to
do that but not at the expense of the Federal allocations, just
allocations for both areas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tindall. I would just say, Mr. Kildee, we would welcome
your march to the Appropriations Committee. But I would hope
your route would go through the Budget Committee because the
appropriators in this area very legitimately are dealing with a
constrained allocation to function 300. In our judgment, this
nation with OCS resources ought at minimum to be able to put
another $.5 billion into that allocation, another half a
billion, with an assumption that that will go to the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
Others will quibble about the amount, but let us start with
that and let us convince Mr. Kasich and others that it is in
fact good business. We think it will return to the national
treasury a great deal of benefit over the long-term.
Mr. Kildee. I agree. I served on the Budget Committee for
six years and I know the budget process very well, but I do
know that even within that budget process the Appropriations
Committee, when they do sit down making their distribution that
there is still a great deal of flexibility there and we used to
decry that sometimes but I will certainly go to the Budget
Committee too but there is still flexibility when they make
those allocations under the Budget Act. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Does anyone have second round questions that
they would like to ask at this time? I would just ask one quick
question of the panel and then we will excuse you. We have done
a good deal of talking today about the original intent of this
legislation. The original intent was for outdoor recreation for
all Americans but in recent times with the change in the
funding and so forth it seems to be--we seem to be spending the
money on habitat preservation.
Now I spoke to a group of environmental groups that were in
a convention not too long ago and some in that group said that
for the public lands man should not be there at all. In other
words, 100 percent preservation, not recreation. Man should not
recreate on the public lands.
Now do you all in your positions, particularly you, Mr.
Murphy, running a major park system, but do you all find that
kind of tension between those two goals?
Mr. Murphy. Those kinds of tensions have always existed.
This argument has raged for years in this country, the
preservationist concept versus the conservationist concept. But
just let me speak for a minute from my point of view as a park
director and someone that has been in this business for 20
years and that is involved in preservation of habitat and
natural areas as well as providing outdoor recreation for
people.
For me, this is all about providing connections and what I
mean by that is that humanity, human beings, need a connection
to their world and to their environment. And to directly answer
your question, I do not believe in what I would think is the
more extremist point of view of some of my colleagues in the
environmental community that man should not be in certain
areas.
I think certain areas certainly should be controlled and
managed if there are sensitive habitats and perhaps there are
certain kinds of activities that should not be allowed. I think
that goes without saying. But I also think it is extremely
important to recognize that the connections that are provided
for human beings through their interaction with the environment
is a spiritual and psychological process that binds us to the
earth, to the universe, and teaches us things about ourselves
and about the world that we would not otherwise understand.
That is why it is important to set aside these areas. My
family recreates in the John Meir Wilderness every year. That
is our annual trip. And I cannot tell you the bonding that
takes place between myself and my children and the spiritual
refreshment that accrues as a result of that interaction. For
me, that is what it is all about.
So we are conserving and in some cases protecting these
areas not only for the sake of the animals and the flora and
fauna that we are protecting but also for the sake of the human
interaction with these areas as well. And I think that making
sure that those connections are provided for is extremely
important and I think taking humanity and man out of the
equation is a dangerous approach to that. That is my opinion.
Mr. Tindall. I think, Congressman, that to the extent that
you underfund or do not fund the stateside of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, and the States and local governments,
you will continue to skew its purposes. In fact, because the
State and local governments have focused on access for man and
the development of basic facilities--such things as wastewater
treatment facilities, for example.
You cannot have large numbers of people coming in to
natural or naturalistic environments and not provide for basic
human services. Trail heads, all of these things that encourage
and aid access are eligible for Land and Water Conservation
Fund assistance. And that has been the strength and the
priority of State and local park and recreation systems from
the outset.
Have we purchased a lot of land? Yes, we have purchased a
lot of land and some of that is strictly habitat. And some of
it is for a quarter acre of land in downtown Chicago or
Glenview. We are not prepared to put a weighting or evaluation
on projects. One of the greatest Land and Water projects I have
ever seen was maybe a tenth of an acre park next to a Russian
Orthodox church in Juneau, Alaska.
Anyone can plan a 500-acre park, but to plan a quarter
acre, a tenth of an acre park, you have real challenges! So we
bring in people. We do not agree that we should lock up land,
however you choose to protect it. There are certainly precious,
more fragile lands that need to be dealt with very carefully.
But it is interesting. I do not believe that endangered
species land acquisition was an eligible activity through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. It was added later, and if
you look at how the Fish and Wildlife Service has fared, if you
will, after that switch in the law the Fish and Wildlife
Service was getting a large percentage of the annual Federal
mix of moneys.
It is not good or bad. It illustrates that we need a
recreation resource trust or a revised view of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund that provides options for investment in
rational land uses and land conservation.
Mr. Cove. As my colleagues mentioned, obviously this
tension has gone on for some time but even in the recreation
industry we regard it as a good tension. It is not bad as
historic arguments go on and frankly even some of my colleagues
in industry, if they went too far on the people side it would
be bad for business.
The habitat preservation is a fundamental element of the
outdoor experience. Whether you step in it or walk in it, at
some point you appreciate it, value it, and live off of it
because if you do not preserve the habitat the quality of the
outdoor experience will be diminished over time. So it is a
tension that we have no problem with addressing on a regular
basis and would hope that it would continue to be there.
Ms. Beck. I also believe that there is not one simple
answer. It complicates management of a site. We have eight
threatened and endangered species on 123 acres in a large urban
area and we have been able to manage both public access and
habitat and species preservation at the same time.
I do not know what the future holds. I think there are some
areas where the public intrusion might in a specific case be
endangerous to some species but certainly the vast majority is
really just a management issue and a careful management issue.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
participation this morning. It has been very helpful. Our
second panel is made up of Katherine Stevenson, Associate
Director of the National Park Service. Good morning and
welcome, and we will turn the time over to you.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for
inviting me to testify. I have a written statement I would like
to be entered into the record, please.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much. The Land and Water
stateside has a truly unique legacy in the history of American
conservation and recreation. After the passage of the Act in
1964, more than $3.2 billion in Federal assistance has been
invested in some 300,000 sites and 37,000 projects. I should
say that this amount, as the people who have spoken before I
have, has been matched so that something like $6.5 billion has
been invested in park and recreation on the Federal and
stateside.
Appropriation levels peaked in the late 1970's reaching
almost $370 million in 1979. In more recent years,
appropriation levels ranged in the mid to low $20 million
range. In fiscal year 1996 the Administration proposed funding
in the amount of $25 million. The Congress appropriated zero
dollars.
The report language that year said no funds are provided
for new grants and the managers intend that no funds will be
provided in the future. Following that lead, in 1997 the
Administration requested nothing for the program and Congress
appropriated nothing. That was in keeping with the
Administration's ongoing efforts to balance the budget as well
as the direction of the Congress.
There are no funds proposed for fiscal year 1998, nor are
there any plans to request funds in the foreseeable future. In
the report language accompanying the 1997 appropriation,
Congress indicated that we should use the administrative funds
for the closeout of the State grants program. In just a few
minutes, I am going to talk about that closeout but for now I
would like to look at the rewards of a truly visionary program.
The facilities that the $6.5 billion bought are just on the
street, across town in the intercity, in virtually every nook
and cranny of our country. The parks and projects serve every
segment of the public. Millions of Americans have walked,
jogged, picnicked, hiked, biked, fished, hunted, golfed, or
played ball in at least one of these areas. These are the
destination parks for families of campers and hikers, parks
where kids learn baseball and swimming and appreciation of
nature.
Clearly, the Land and Water Fund has had a broad impact on
outdoor America. As a result of the Act and its funding, States
bought land and improved recreation areas. They also
established their own scenic river and recreational trail
systems and created new State programs to enhance recreation
opportunities.
The $6.5 billion was well invested, very well invested, and
protections were put in place to protect that taxpayer
investment. With Section 6(f) of the Act Congress guaranteed
that all property acquired or developed with this money must be
maintained in perpetuity for public recreational use regardless
of future funding efforts. Of course, as needs changed
conversions are permitted when the property is replaced with
another of at least equal fair market value and usefulness.
The approval of these conversions and the protection of the
Federal investment is an essential role played by the National
Park Service in concert with the States. As we move out to
close out the grants project selection, we will also establish
an ongoing process to protect the properties in the long-term.
At the direction of Congress to close down the grant
process, we are planning to terminate the obligation process by
August 30, 1997. All active projects with unexpended balances
will be terminated on September 30, 2000. We then plan to
expend our energies on the protection of the 30,000 assisted
sites with a much reduced but committed grant staff.
We believe very strongly in the legacy of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and we are doing our best to protect
that investment. Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[Statement of Ms. Stevenson may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Ms. Stevenson. I asked the question
of the other panel, let me ask it of you. Do you think that the
funds from this fund should be able to be used for other things
other than acquisition, in other words, for infrastructure,
operation, those kinds of things?
Ms. Stevenson. I think repair for sites, particularly those
purchased with Land and Water money or assisted originally is a
very good idea. I think if we get into maintenance with this
money, as I think one of the previous witnesses called it a
black hole, and I think that is probably true. I think it is an
expenditure that no one could support.
Mr. Hefley. The Administration has stated that funding for
the highest--that it is seeking funding for the highest
priority projects and has no funds to seek, no plans to seek
funds for the State Land and Water Conservation Program in the
foreseeable future. Let us consider a minute the
Administration's request for the funds for the Appalachian
Trail land acquisition. This year you have requested an
additional $4.2 million and in '95 the Administration spent
$4.2 million to protect a total of two miles of trail for an
average cost of over $2 million per mile.
In fact, in 1995 the Administration purchased land in seven
States which the trail does not even cross. Now are these the
high priority types of things you are talking about and how
many such high priority Federal needs are there which are more
important than the State needs?
Ms. Stevenson. I am not at all familiar with the land
acquisition for the Appalachian Trail so I cannot comment on
that. But what we do face is opportunities where willing
sellers within authorized boundaries for national parks are
wanting to sell land that we believe is very crucial to the
protection of the park. Those are the vast majority of the
funds that we are asking Congress for. And those are usually
the projects that we hear most from congressional Members about
why aren't we protecting significant battlefield lands, why
aren't we protecting significant wildlife habitat within
national parks.
And, you know, it is a very difficult balance. I cannot say
that any one of these, and I think the panel is really in the
same position, it is a very difficult balance between
significant lands authorized within parks and significant lands
used for recreation purposes on the stateside. The Congress has
a very tough row to hoe. I do not envy you in trying to make
choices between what things to fund and what not to fund.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, and welcome, Ms. Stevenson,
before the Subcommittee. I am just trying to see if I get the
picture properly here. We have just had members from our
community testifying that it is a disaster on the part of the
Congress and the Administration not to provide funding for this
very important program, yet on behalf of the Administration are
you just simply following because the Congress definitely has a
position that they do not want to fund this program anymore or
do you feel that you are in agreement with the position that
the Congress now takes in view of the funding aspects of the
program?
Ms. Stevenson. As I said before, it is not an easy balance.
The Administration is trying very, very hard to balance the
budget from its end. In order to do that, we have to make
choices. The Land and Water Fund is a very significant program,
always has been a significant program, but we are faced with
having to make choices of where to spend the very limited
funds, where to ask Congress for money.
In those cases, we have come down on the side of asking for
money particularly within authorized boundaries of parks and of
course other Federal lands. It is not an easy choice. That is
not to say that we do not believe that this is a terrific
program. We do. And we know the States have terrible needs but
we are sort of stuck as you all are.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So basically in terms of priorities
realizing also that $900 million is not chicken feed as far as
trying to provide--I want to ask another related question to
this. The Congress on a bipartisan basis established this fund.
It was not called a trust fund, it was a set aside and whatever
funds or money that we got from these sales of the oil and gas
leases which amounts to about $900 million was to go to the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
We are about to debate a very interesting position now
taken by the Administration. This involves the State
Department, and the State Department is now proposing that we
are going to charge every American that calls in for passport
information and by getting this amount of money which the State
Department expects to obtain about $595 million to assist in
offsetting some of its resource needs within the agency or
within the Department of State and it is going to be an
interesting debate in the Congress whether or not this is the
proper way that we go about funding or provide funds for agency
activities.
And in a similar fashion I notice that we did this
previously in setting aside this $900 million trust fund. We
have expended over $3 billion in the last 30 years and of
course we can give the numbers to justify the fact that this
was a very successful program as far as the States and
territories are concerned.
My question is should the Congress allow this kind of
thing, to allow each agency to go ahead and make charges and
then reprogram the money for agency use and the Congress should
not have any say on how that money should be utilized?
Ms. Stevenson. As you know, we have a fee program in
national parks and we are convinced that Americans who want to
use national parks are willing and excited about paying fees
that the money stays in the national parks. In terms of the
$900 million when you talk to Members of Congress who are on
the Budget Committee what they say is it is all money. It does
not matter whether it was set aside, we use it for offset of
the budget, of the deficit.
And certainly esoteric kind of discussion is above my head,
I have to admit, but I believe it is all money they say and so
it is hard to set aside for any individual purpose. And I think
I will reserve my comments on the State Department.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So as a matter of our national policy
basically despite the concerns that have been expressed earlier
by some of our leading citizens out there in the country it
seems that basically as far as the Congress and the
Administration is concerned the Land and Water Conservation
Fund is axed.
Ms. Stevenson. It seems so, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Simply because of higher priorities.
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. Historically, the Land and Water Fund
received about $900 million annually?
Ms. Stevenson. No. Actually I have a copy and I will be
happy to provide for the record the list of all the
appropriations year by year.
Mr. Delahunt. I am talking about receipts.
Ms. Stevenson. Oh, receipts. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Delahunt. Then--oh, can this--you have the last two or
three fiscal years. How much is going to the Federal side?
Ms. Stevenson. Federal side, total bureaus in 1996 was $138
million.
Mr. Delahunt. And how much stateside?
Ms. Stevenson. That year was zero.
Mr. Delahunt. That year was zero?
Ms. Stevenson. 1996 was zero.
Mr. Delahunt. So the remaining, subtract $138 million from
that $900 million, went to the deficit reduction.
Ms. Stevenson. That is right.
Mr. Delahunt. And has that been in the past two or three
years?
Ms. Stevenson. When you say past two or three, if you are
saying 1995 there was $216 million that went to the Federal
side and that year there were $25 million in State grants
rounded up. And then the balance went to deficit reduction.
Mr. Delahunt. So the reality is that for some time now that
$900 million has been--we have been underpaying----
Ms. Stevenson. That is correct.
Mr. Delahunt. [continuing]--purposes that would--we were
provided for the----
Ms. Stevenson. The highest appropriation I believe was in
1978, which was $805 million stateside and $681--I am sorry, I
am not right there. That was $175 million to State grants. But
I would be happy to provide this for the record. You can look
at it.
Mr. Delahunt. Maybe you could help me with this. Could you
just walk through how you plan to close out the State and
what's involved here?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes. This year----
Mr. Delahunt. Let me just add one other question. I presume
that you are working in individual States with this close-out
thing?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, we are working--actually we are working
with NUSARLO, which is the organization of States so that we
have a single contact, but what we plan to do is terminate the
obligation process, which means we will not be obligating any
more funds as of August 30, 1997. And then that gives the
States from then until the year 2000 to get rid of any
unexpended balances, anything that they might have on the books
from a project that has failed or something that is not doing
very well that they can shore up, get a match, whatever is
necessary. And that will be all done by September 30, 2000. So
that is pretty much a three-year process for them to totally
get rid of all of the--expend all of the money that is on their
books right now.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you.
Ms. Stevenson. You are welcome.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Ms. Stevenson. We appreciate you
being here and it has been helpful. Thank you very much.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you so much.
Mr. Hefley. The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]
Testimony of Donald W. Murphy, Director, California Department of Parks
and Recreation; and President, National Association of State Outdoor
Recreation Liaison Officers
It is a privilege to be here today to talk about the vital
importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for state
and local outdoor programs.
By way of introduction, let me tell you that I sit here
wearing several hats. In 1991, Governor Pete Wilson appointed
me Director of California State Parks, the nation's largest
state park system, with more than 1.3 million acres and a
budget of approximately $180 million. I have been with
California State Parks since I entered as a park ranger cadet
in 1980.
Additionally, I serve as president of the National
Association for State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers
commonly referred to as NASORLO, the organization of those
state officials whose responsibility it is to apportion LWCF
moneys in their respective states.
Lastly, I am a co-chair of Americans for our Heritage and
Recreation, a newly formed coalition of LWCF stakeholders
dedicated to securing more stable funding for conservation and
outdoor recreation. This new organization represents a broad
spectrum of individuals and ideas, from the Wilderness Society
to the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association, brought
together with the realization that the restoration of LWCF for
its original intention is vital for a better America.
This is what I want you to understand from me today. A
program that has worked so well for so many years has gotten so
far off track we need to get a crane to put it back in place.
I am not here to denigrate the federal funding side of the
LWCF in favor of the state funding side. The two are necessary
parts of a whole, and one should not exist without the other.
But since I was invited here to speak on the importance of the
stateside funding, I wish to confine my remarks to that area.
When the Land and Water Conservation Fund became law in
1965, this was its statement of purpose:
``The purposes of this part are to assist in preserving,
developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the
United States of America, of present and future generations,
and visitors who are lawfully present within the boundaries of
the United States of America, such quality and quantity of
outdoor recreation resources as may be available and are
necessary and desirable for individual active participation in
such recreation, and to strengthen the health and vitality of
the citizens of the United States by (1) providing funds for,
and authorizing federal assistance to, the States in planning,
acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and
facilities, and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition
and development of certain lands and other areas.''
The last portion of this statement is most important for my
purposes here today. As the law was written, one of the first
principles behind the Land and Water Conservation Fund is
assistance to the states. This need was widely recognized on
both sides of the aisle, and in prior Republican and Democratic
administrations.
In the years following this Act's passage, the states
benefited greatly from the LWCF. But with the coming of the
1980s, this changed dramatically. Support for state and local
programs plummeted. In the last two fiscal years, there were no
LWCF appropriations for state and local matching grants.
California is a case in point. In the 1970s, the Golden
State benefited greatly from the LWCF averaging a little more
than $11 million each year. Since then, however, funding
dropped as quickly as a rock off the Golden Gate Bridge. In the
1980s, the average LWCF annual appropriation for California
fell to less than $7 million.
So far this decade, we've fared even worse, averaging about
$1.4 million--that's a mere 10 percent of the funding we
received in the 1970s.
The negligence is as bipartisan as the creation of the act
itself, and spans administrations of both parties.
In the meantime in California, our population has
increased, placing even more pressure not just on the 264 units
of our beautiful State Park system, but on regional and local
parks as well. Increased population means more demand for more
parks.
California is not unique in this. Attendance in state parks
around the country rose by more than 30 million annually
between 1987 and 1992. In his 1995 report to Congress on the
LWCF, National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy pointed this
out well. He wrote:
``States continue to support this program and depend on its
annual apportionment to supplement existing funding sources in
providing recreation opportunities to their communities. In
many local instances it constitutes the only means of financing
much-needed recreational opportunities for its populace,
including youth-at-risk, senior citizens, the economically
disadvantaged, and those with disabilities.''
There are many debates in these corridors, and even in this
subcommittee, about the role of federal government in
preserving public lands. We experience this in Sacramento as
well, I assure you.
In another way, therefore, I can't stress enough the
importance of LWCF for states and local communities. In short,
it gives more power to the people, by placing the funds closer
to home. Here in Washington, you refer to it as ``states'
rights.'' Thousands of miles west of here, at the state
Capitol, they refer to it as ``local control.''
The benefits of this are numerous. More people are involved
in the decision-making. Communities must match the LWCF grant,
so they have incentive and a goal that can be attained. In many
areas, problems in a state or community are best answered by
those who live in that state or community.
In its day, the LWCF has built ballparks in urban settings
like Oakland, it acquired Martin Luther King, Jr.'s boyhood
home in Atlanta, and it helped finish off the Appalachian
Trail. Over the life of the program, stateside funding has
financed more than 8,500 acquisition projects covering more
than 2.3 million acres, and funded 28,000 outdoor recreational
facility developments.
Thirty some-odd years ago, the creation of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund was a bipartisan measure, and that
makes sense even today. It's an issue that's broad enough for
all to accept, and one that crosses many boundaries. That's why
such a broad coalition has come together, as I said earlier, to
work for it.
The restoration of state and local LWCF funding should be
an easy decision for you, and it is an easy decision that will
immediately show many rewards throughout the country. There is
no controversy in restoring state and local support in LWCF,
but I can assure you there will be if this noble effort is
abandoned.
As this own subcommittee's oversight plan states, ``the
need for public outdoor recreation space is greatest in urban
and suburban areas of this country. For these reasons,
continued exclusive focus on federal land acquisition cannot be
justified.''
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you very much.
------
Statement of Thomas Cove, Vice President of Government Relations,
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Thomas Cove and I am
Vice President of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
(SGMA). SGMA is the national trade association for producers
and distributors of athletic equipment, footwear and apparel.
I welcome the opportunity to testify this morning and
commend the Committee for its decision to hold a hearing on the
stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. My industry
and the broader recreation community are encouraged by the
attention this hearing brings to this important program.
In 1994, I was honored to serve on the National Park
Service Review Committee for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. I understand our report has been made available to the
Resources Committee--I urge you to look at it closely as it
represents the results of countless hours of discussion and
consensus building. As the sole industry representative on the
review committee, I was extremely impressed by the caliber of
my colleagues and new thinking they brought to problems facing
the stateside of the Land and Water Fund. I continue to endorse
the report's basic finding, namely, that a reinvigoration of
the LWCF vision, whether in its current programmatic form or
otherwise, is vitally needed in order for the country to save
its cherished heritage of open spaces and parks.
Within my industry, we regard the experience of a well-
funded stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund to be a
demonstrable success. The Fund allowed a great diversity of
land to be protected and created a significant inventory of
recreational opportunities for citizens in every state.
Thousands of local parks and facilities were developed under
the state assistance program, providing tangible and intangible
benefits to generations of Americans. Not insignificantly,
beyond the actual funds it provided, the Fund's incentives
created countless partnerships that have resulted in innovative
programs to protect habitat, preserve historic sites and
provide recreation.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was a promise made to
the American people beginning in 1965 that has delivered a
return on investment that any Wall Street financier would be
proud to call his/her own.
Sadly, much of the promise was broken in recent years when
funding for the stateside of the Fund was cut substantially, to
the point of its virtual elimination today.
We strongly urge the Committee to take action to revitalize
the LWCF ideal. Technical and financial assistance to state and
local conservation and recreation has a long history of
bipartisan support. The program was recommended by the Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission in the 1960's, President
Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors in the 1980's, and
the National Park Service Review Committee in 1994 and yet
today is threatened with extinction.
Let me take a moment to highlight our view of the value of
the state assistance program.
State and local parks are where the vast majority of
Americans recreate day in and day out. Though most Americans
might love to visit our showcase national parks regularly, they
are unable to for reasons of economics, geography, or competing
leisure alternatives. Most Americans recreate close to home, in
local, regional and state parks. Whether for toddlers in a
playground, teenagers on a ball field, or senior citizens on a
nature trail, easily accessible recreation opportunities
contribute significantly to quality of life for individuals,
families and communities across the country.
Participation in recreation is valued not just for
enjoyment but because Americans know it leads to improved
physical and mental health, better appreciation of nature and
the environment, and stronger, shared values.
Providing recreation opportunities close to home is more
imperative than ever. In its research report titled Recreation
in the New Millennium, the Recreation Roundtable found that the
greatest barrier to participation in outdoor recreation in
America in 1995 was lack of discretionary time. Twice as many
people cited time versus money as a major hurdle to outdoor
recreation participation. Local recreation alternatives speak
directly to Americans' need to carve more time out of the day.
At the same time, the quality of recreation experiences in
critical areas is diminishing. In the same Recreation
Roundtable study, Americans living in large, urban areas are,
as a group, the least satisfied with their recreation
opportunities. The study also found that residents of America's
largest metropolitan areas participate on average in fewer
recreation activities and on a less frequent basis than other
Americans.
A 1995 Washington Post article, entitled ``No Place to
Play'', recounts the tragic story of two young girls who died
after playing in an abandoned car in Southeast Washington. The
underlying theme of the story, as articulated by many residents
of the girls' neighborhood, was the lack of opportunities for
local children to recreate in a safe, enjoyable way. Too often
this is a way of life in low-income urban neighborhoods.
Images of unscathed community gardens and parks located
next to torched buildings and looted businesses in the
aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles riots illustrate the value
urban communities place on protected open spaces.
In suburban America, conflicts over usage of parks and open
space are increasingly commonplace. At the beginning of every
season, soccer and football league administrators do battle
over access to precious fields. Primary school parents view
junior high and high school sports programs as a threat to
their children's ability to get field time. Women's sports
proponents are becoming more vocal, appropriately so, about
receiving their fair share of choice locations and practice
times.
Lack of fields, courts and facilities can limit the number
of young people who are given the opportunity to play sports.
Rarely are the ones who miss out the elite athletes, but more
likely the intramural player for whom hurdles to participation
become quickly insurmountable.
Privately owned fee-based facilities are springing up to
meet the need for recreation. While these first-class complexes
of sport fields and support facilities can and do deliver
quality services, we should not allow personal financial
resources to determine citizens basic access to recreation.
At the same time, there are almost daily reports about the
negative health consequences of America's sedentary lifestyle.
Just last Friday, the government's Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention reported that, due to inactivity and overeating,
35 percent of the country's adults and 13 percent of our
children weigh dangerously more than they should. This is the
most overweight the nation has been since the government began
compiling statistics in the 1960's. According to the National
Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity, the
economic costs of obesity in the United States exceed $68
billion annually. The need to make recreation alternatives
available to all Americans is good public policy.
I do not want to leave the impression that the LWCF is, or
should be, simply a funding vehicle to provide safe, affordable
recreation opportunities. I have focused on the recreation
issues because I know them better, but any discussion of LWCF
must include its fundamental conservation legacy. The
protection of threatened land and water resources remains a
central and essential basis for the fund.
Development pressures in urban, suburban and exurban
America are well documented. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
found that the amount of developed land in the United States
increased by 14 million acres between 1982 and 1992. According
to National Growth Management Leadership Project, during the
last twenty years in the New York metropolitan area population
grew by 8 percent while amount of urbanized land increased by
65 percent. During the same period, population in Seattle grew
by 38 percent but the amount of urban area grew by 87 percent.
In Denver, projections tell the same story.
Many wildlife and plant resources are threatened by this
development. Strapped state and local budgets limit options to
address habitat degradation. Hundreds of non-game species will
benefit if action is taken before the need for threatened or
endangered designations. An appropriately funded Land and Water
Conservation Fund would offer real potential to protect
important natural settings.
Of further concern is the possibility that we are bringing
up generations of Americans who have no connection to the
wonders of our country's vast natural legacy. The future policy
implications of having large numbers of citizens with no hands-
on contact with nature and conservation are scary. Both for our
industry and for the country.
Looking forward, I offer several recommendations for
consideration. First, the Fund clearly needs to be modified to
allow states and localities greater flexibility to take action.
Devolution requires the ability for states and localities to
adapt a program to locally developed and implemented
priorities. Second, the equity of private land owners must be
respected. Third, federal-state-local partnerships as well as
public-private collaborations should be encouraged. LWCF
regulations should be amended to facilitate such partnerships.
Fourth, oversight and administration of the program should be
raised to the Department of Interior level. Its current status
within the National Park Service does not serve the program or
NPS well.
The theoretical premise of dedicating royalty income from
depletion of a non-renewable resource for investment in
protection of a different precious resource remains strong and
valid. It should be maintained if at all possible.
Having participated in policy battles on Land and Water
Fund for several years now, I must be clear that as much as my
industry values the potential of an appropriately funded
stateside fund, we do not advocate draining the federal account
to increase stateside appropriations. We understand the
significant budget constraints facing this Congress but believe
a full investment in both federal and stateside accounts will
reap fully justifiable dividends for generations to come. The
1994 report eloquently captures the vision we endorse, `` We
envision a network of parks, preserves, open spaces, greenways
and recreation sites and centers stretching across this nation,
touching all communities, and accessible to all Americans.'' It
is a noble and appropriate vision, and it will only take hold
with a long term commitment of resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my industry's views.
I am happy to answer any questions the Committee might have.
------
Testimony of Judy Beck, Commissioner, Glenview Park District; Past
President of the Illinois Association of Park Districts
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you
today about a program that is near and dear to my community . .
. a federal program that really works . . . a federal program
that has changed the landscape of my town and perhaps many in
America.
My name is Judy Beck, I have been an elected park
commissioner in Glenview, Illinois, for 18 years. I am one of
2,100 elected in our state who serve without compensation. I
have been president of our park district three times and am a
recent past president of our state organization, the Illinois
Association of Park Districts. As a local government official,
I would like to speak today on behalf of restoring funding for
the local grant portion of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. A commitment by Congress that is fundamental to the
protection of recreational opportunities for all Americans.
We at the local level are most certainly aware of the need
to contain spending. We face on a much smaller scale, the same
issue that you do. However, you should be aware that the local
need for parks and open space cannot be achieved without the
partnership of the federal government. A partnership that has
had a long history of success.
My objective this morning is to speak specifically to that
portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund which had been
devoted to enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities at the
local level for Americans since 1965. Unfortunately, it is also
the portion of the program which has been most drastically
eroded during the past decade.
The irony of this weakening federal commitment to the
stateside funding component of LWCF for ``close to home park
sites'' and recreational opportunities is that this is one of
the most efficient and effective of all federal grant programs.
Nationwide, since the program's inception, over $3.2 billion in
federal seed money has been matched for a total investment of
$6.4 billion to develop nearly 27,000 state, county and city
park and recreation facilities and acquire 2.3 million acres of
park land and open space.
In Illinois the state's existing public recreation lands
and facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of our 11.5
million people. Less than 4% of Illinois' land is in public
recreation and conservation use. Although Illinois is
recognized as a leader with regard to its recreation
distribution systems, intense competition for land brought
about by urban sprawl and an agricultural economy severely
limits the ability of local and state government to afford the
increasing demands for public open space and recreation lands.
Without increased and stable federal funding, opportunities to
protect quality outdoor recreation lands and pristine natural
areas in Illinois for future generations will be lost forever.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund program, as originally
set forth and funded through the late 60's and 70's,
accomplished significant results in Illinois as well as
throughout the country. More than 900 state and local park and
conservation projects totaling more than $290 million in value
were funded in Illinois. This year, communities are seeking $24
million in assistance to enable them to carry out much needed
projects. The needs . . . the demands . . . obviously are there
. . . but the money is not. Increased funding for the LWCF
stateside program is critical to meeting Illinois' close-to-
home park and recreational needs.
In Glenview, a suburb north of Chicago, we have been very
fortunate. We have just received reimbursement for (what I hope
is not one of the last) Land and Water Conservation Fund
projects in Illinois.
Let me briefly tell you about the Glenview Park District
and the ``Grove''. The Glenview Park Dlsttict is a separate
unit of local government authorized by state statute that
encompasses all of the Village of Glenview and parts of five
other surrounding villages and unincorporated Cook County, with
an approximate population of 50,000. We have independent taxing
capabilities for open space and recreation, the limits of which
have been ``capped'' by our state General Assembly. By design,
as much as 60% of our budgeted income is from fees and charges.
The challenge in Glenview, indeed in all of Northeastern
Illinois, is to provide for open space and recreation in a
highly populated area, with a strong economy driving up land
values. To illustrate that, undeveloped land is so expensive
that it is priced by the square foot, not by the acre.
I'd like to share with you the outstanding results of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Local Grant Program as
it has been applied in our community. ``The Grove'' is a 123
acre nature preserve and center, and national historic landmark
that was the home of Robert Kennicott, the western most natural
scientist for the Smithsonian Institution, the discoverer of
dozens of species, plants and animals (many of which remain on
this site today) and one of the early explorers of Alaska.
In 1975, LWCF money was used as a part of a million dollar
package to purchase 82 acres and Robert Kennicott's homestead.
Money from LWCF was leveraged with state and local public funds
as well as private contributions.
In 1995, LWCF dollars were again used with state, local and
private funds to add 41 adjacent acres owned by the John C. and
Catherine T. Mac Arthur Foundation. As a result of the LWCF
grant, our agency was able to reunite parcels that were once
part of the original Kennicott's Grove. LWCF, and Illinois
funding through its Open Space Land Acquisition and Development
(OSLAD) Grant Program each contributed $400,000 toward the
total purchase price of $2.275 million. The Mac Arthur
Foundation contributed $400,000, the Local Grove Support
Organization contributed $575,000, and the Glenview Park
District contributed $500,000 to reach the total. It was LWCF
and OSLAD's participation that leveraged the foundation and the
local support to help us meet our goal.
Today the Grove is a vital part of our community.
Approximately 75,000 school children visit the Grove, and total
annual attendance is about 500,000. This is a clear
measurement, but just one example, of the success of LWCF
spending.
I testify before you today because I believe in the value
that parks and recreation adds to the lives of all Americans. I
have seen the impact of suburban sprawl in the Chicago suburbs
and the tremendous brownscape problems in the city. I have also
seen firsthand that stateside LWCF funding is a stimulus to
acquiring additional monies for investment in our parks. This
funding does more than provide opportunities for fun and games,
it impacts youth at risk and crime prevention, health care cost
reductions, economic growth, urban revitalization, and promotes
a tremendous sense of family and community pride.
Today I'm asking for your assistance and commitment to
provide funding for the stateside component of LWCF. I assure
you that your commitment will be recognized by the unseen
future generations of Americans who will commend you for your
foresight.
Mr. Chairman, thank your for opportunity to bring the open
space concerns of Illinois to the members of the subcommittee.
------
Statement by Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify on one of the National Park
Service's important partnership programs, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) state grant-in-aid program.
As you travel across the country, in your State and in your
District, many of the park sites you visit, from the smallest
inner-city athletic field to the greatest expanses of
wilderness, have a common link: the LWCF program. Given
available resources, however, the Administration and Congress
have decided to focus LWCF funding on top-priority Federal
acquisitions for parks, forests, refuges and public lands. The
LWCF State grants assistance program was not funded for Fiscal
Years 1996 and 1997. In keeping with the Administration's
ongoing efforts to balance the budget, funding was not proposed
for FY 1998 nor are there plans to request any new grant
appropriations in the foreseeable future. Instead, the
Administration proposes funding for the most critical projects
needed to protect resources or improve management of authorized
parks and other areas.
The unique place of the LWCF in America's conservation and
recreation legacy can be better understood through a quick
review of its origins.
During the Eisenhower Administration, increasing
consciousness of public health and environmental issues and an
expanding need for recreational space resulted in the creation
of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC)
in 1958.
After three years of research, the bipartisan Commission
developed specific recommendations for a national recreation
program. The ORRRC report emphasized that State, local, and the
Federal governments and the private sector were key elements in
the total effort to make outdoor recreation opportunities
widely available.
Largely as a result of ORRRC's work, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act was passed and signed into law on
September 3, 1964, as Public Law 88-578. The Act established a
funding source for both Federal acquisition of park and
recreation lands and matching grants to state and local
governments for recreation planning, acquisition and
development. It set requirements for state planning and
provided a formula for apportioning annual LWCF appropriations
to the States and Territories.
The Act reflects two historic principles:
(1) to provide predictable annual funding for high priority
capital investments that help ensure conservation of our
nation's natural resources and our ability to meet recreation
needs, not only for the immediate present, but for future
generations as well; and
(2) to reinvest a significant portion of Federal returns
from exploitation of one key natural resource, the mineral
products removed from the Outer Continental Shelf areas, in
conservation of other key natural resources, namely public
parks, wildlife habitats and other recreation resources.
By incorporating these principles, the LWCF Act became a
model for resource conservation programs in many jurisdictions
around the country.
Several increases in the fund culminated with enactment of
P.L. 95-42 in June 1977, which raised the authorization level
of the Fund to $900 million for FY 1978 and subsequent years.
The increases in the Fund's authorization over the years
reflected Congress' understanding that the needs for the Fund
had expanded in three ways: the State grant program needed to
give more emphasis to urban parks and recreation areas; the
grant program should help acquire and develop recreation
facilities within urban areas; and the Federal side of the Fund
program needed to contribute to meeting close-to-home
recreation needs. The appropriations authority under the
original LWCF Act was extended through 2015 with the enactment
of P.L. 100-203.
Since 1965, funding for the grants program has averaged
approximately $105 million per year. Recently, the annual
appropriations have been below this average: The FY 1995
appropriation totalled $24.7 million, and in FY 1996 and 1997,
the appropriation for new grants was zero.
Initially, three sources of revenue to the fund were
designated: proceeds from sales of surplus Federal real
property, motorboat fuel taxes and fees for recreation use of
Federal lands. The level of funding from FY 1966 through FY
1968 reached about $100 million per year, which was far short
of Congress' expectations. To remedy this shortfall, it was
proposed that Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) mineral leasing
receipts be tapped. In 1968, P.L. 90-401 raised the Fund's
level to $200 million a year for five years making OCS revenues
available to cover the difference between this minimum level
and receipts from other sources.
LWCF Grant Process
Simply put, the LWCF grant program is a State-driven grant
program. Each State receives a share of each annual
appropriation called an ``apportionment''. This apportionment
is made by the Secretary and is based on a legislative formula.
Through a statewide planning process prescribed by the Act,
each State, in concert with its local jurisdictions and
subdivisions, establishes state priorities which serves to
target the expenditures where the recipients, not the federal
government, feel that it is needed most.
Grants are made on a matching basis of no more than 50
percent for the acquisition and development of public outdoor
recreation areas and facilities.
LWCF Program Accomplishments
For the LWCF State grants program, over $3.2 billion have
been appropriated to the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Northern Marianas for planning, acquisition and development of
outdoor recreation opportunities in the United States.
Through FY 1995, a total of 37,300 projects have been
approved to support the acquisition of open space for park
lands or the development of outdoor recreation facilities. The
Federal share of $3.2 billion has been matched by State and
local contributions, for a total LWCF grant investment of over
$6.5 billion. States have received about 8,200 grants and
counties some 4,800, while cities, towns and other local
agencies matched more than 24,000 grants.
Of the total number of projects, about 10,000 have helped
States and localities to acquire some 2.3 million acres of park
land. Almost 27,000 projects have been for the development of
outdoor recreation facilities. Seventy-five percent of the
total funds obligated have gone to locally sponsored projects
to provide close-to-home recreation opportunities that are
readily accessible to America's youth, adults, senior citizens
and the physically or mentally challenged.
These facilities are down the street, across town, in the
inner city, they're in virtually every nook and cranny of our
country and serve every segment of the public. Millions of
Americans and visitors to this country have walked, jogged,
picnicked, hiked, biked, fished, hunted golfed, or hit a ball
in at least one of these areas. These are the destination State
parks for families of campers and hikers; parks where kids
learn baseball and how to swim; parks where grade school
classes visit nature centers.
The Legacies of LWCF
From a historical perspective, the LWCF has contributed
significantly to the outdoor recreation estate over its 30
years of existence. With funding ranging from several thousand
dollars for picnic areas to millions for new national and state
park lands, conservation areas and recreation facilities, the
LWCF has had broad impact on outdoor America. Significant also
is that a considerable amount of the income going to the Fund
has come about through the leasing of offshore mineral rights,
thus recycling an important natural resource back to public
use. While one non-renewable resource is being used another is
being protected.
It is important to note that, in addition to the large
number of projects, LWCF grants have had substantial long-term
effects on our overall attitudes and policies toward outdoor
recreation. The first legacy of this kind is the notion, basic
to the LWCF Act, that States must assume a leadership role as
providers of recreation opportunities.
Today, there is clear evidence that the LWCF program has
resulted in States taking greater responsibility for the
protection and development of recreation resources at every
level. The results of State leadership extend beyond simple
increases in the size and number of recreation areas. Among
other things, they include State actions to establish scenic
river and recreational trail systems, to capitalize on the
value of recreation resources in stimulating tourism and other
economic opportunities, and to provide additional financial and
technical assistance to local recreation efforts through State
planning, grant, and loan programs.
Second, when the Fund was established, State recreation
planning was essentially non-existent. Statewide recreation
planning has given States and their citizens new tools to
analyze recreation needs and alternatives in a systematic and
responsive way. Indeed, many states now require that local
governments develop recreation plans as a condition for any
type of Federal or State recreation assistance.
The third legacy is our fiduciary responsibility. Section
6(f)(3) of the Act that requires all property acquired or
developed with LWCF assistance must be maintained perpetually
in public outdoor recreation use. Section 6(f)(3) is the
cornerstone of the local/State/Federal partnership and provides
assurance that, regardless of future funding levels, each one
of the sites receiving assistance under this program is
protected and will remain in public park and recreation use in
perpetuity. This provision has immeasurable impact on long-term
protection of recreation resources.
Section 6(f) is strong. This provision reduces the
temptation to use LWCF-assisted park lands as a ``cheap'' or
``convenient'' land-bank for strip mall or other non-recreation
developments. Section 6(f) is also flexible. It recognizes that
times and demographics change and that another use for the
Fund-assisted property might one day be more appropriate. In
these cases, converting the property to another use is called a
conversion and is allowed as long as it is replaced with other
property of at least equal fair market value and usefulness.
The protective language of the law has prevented a large
number of ``nuisance'' conversions. It has also worked in
hundreds of successful cases where conversions have been
approved. Here, the replacement lands have protected the
original public investment and either maintained or enhanced
the public recreation estate. The law has also withstood
testing in the courts and found to be strong.
Consistent oversight over the years has ensured permanency
of LWCF's contributions to the national recreation estate. The
most tangible evidence of the program in future years will be
the tens of thousands of recreation sites across the country
that will remain available for us and our children and our
grandchildren.
LWCF Program Status
The vision of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission in 1958 has been repeatedly reaffirmed. The
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors concluded in 1986
that a successor to the LWCF (due at that time, to expire in
1989) should be created and dedicated from the sale of
nonrenewable resources. In 1994 a committee established by the
National Park System Advisory Board recognized our national
failure to invest and reinvest in parks and recreation and
proposed an American Network of Parks and Open Space and the
revitalization of the LWCF and UPARR programs; and as recently
as this year, the Americans for our Heritage and Recreation
Coalition, consisting of a number of disparate groups which
banded together to seek a reliable funding source for America's
conservation and recreation needs, concluded that the LWCF is
``arguably the most important environmental program of this
century'' and that a reliable source of funding should be
restored.
We believe that it is essential to maintain the spirit and
intent of the LWCF Act as provided for under Section 6(f)(3).
In keeping with this direction, late last year, NPS established
a special team to develop plans to accomplish these objectives.
More specifically, the team has been charged with offering
recommendations to accomplish the following:
--expeditiously close-out the LWCF grants project
selection, approval, and reimbursement processes;
--establish an effective and efficient plan of action to
protect the legacy created through the 37,000+ funded projects.
The team has focused its initial energies on developing
actions to close-down grant project operations as soon as
possible. A draft plan of action was adopted and distributed at
a special business meeting of the National Association of State
Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers (NASORLO) in St. Louis on
February 8. No opposition was expressed to the proposal by
NASORLO. As of February 26, the following recommendations have
been implemented:
--the LWCF obligation process (which now uses unobligated
funds from prior years' appropriations to fund a handful of new
projects), will be terminated effective August 30, 1997;
--all active projects with unexpended balances will be
terminated effective September 30, 2000. (Ending dates for new
and amended projects are limited to that same date).
It should be noted that the Service, under the
Administration's reinvention and downsizing initiative, has
significantly reduced LWCF administrative costs, e.g., a 62
percent reduction in FTE's since FY 1993. Further reductions
are scheduled for FY 1998 which is in accord with the
Administration's budget request. It should be noted that the
lack of newly-appropriated funds for LWCF grant-in-aid
assistance does not translate to a lack of need for program
administrative support. In addition, the Secretary has
continuing fiduciary responsibilities regarding the protection
and stewardship for over 30,000 assisted sites as well as for
over 600 projects which have contractual expiration dates
extending into the end of year 2000.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be glad to
answer any questions you may have.
------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.015
<all>