diff --git "a/data/CHRG-105/CHRG-105hhrg40050.txt" "b/data/CHRG-105/CHRG-105hhrg40050.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-105/CHRG-105hhrg40050.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,2513 @@
+
+ - STATE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT
+
+[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
+[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
+
+
+
+
+ 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
+
+
+
+
+
+ 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
+
+
+