MAINE DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND GAME, Hon. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, DEAR MARGARET: I have just received an urgent request from the chairman of the legislative committee of the International Association of Game, Fish & Conservation Commissioners concerning the outdoor recreation bills in Congress. S. 3117 (H.R. 11165) is very much to our liking, with this suggested amendment: Section 203 of the bill now reads: "(a) In determining the adequacy of any planning program submitted by a State for approval under this title, the Secretary shall consider whether such program "(1) designates a State agency (hereinafter referred to as the 'State agency' to administer the planning program;". We suggest that (1) be amended to read: "(1) Designates a State agency or agencies (hereinafter referred to as the 'State agency or agencies') to administer the planning program, such agency or agencies to represent the major outdoor recreation interests of the State." This amendment would insure that fish and game interests are represented in the planning. And, further, S. 3118 (H.R. 11172) is a followup establishing a $500 million loan to implement S. 3117, providing money to follow up the planning program. In this second bill (S. 3118) we are advised that the Secretary of the Interior has agreed to withdraw the portion imposing a boat use tax, and it has been suggested that a 5-percent or 10-percent excise tax on boats, motors, and accessories, at the manufacturers' level, be substituted, and that funds raised by this tax be earmarked for distribution to the States for acquisition and development of facilities for water-based recreation. Perhaps S. 3118 should be amended to provide approximately half of the $500 million to be used for a Federal grant program to the States, on a matching basis, similar to the current Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs. I understand that Representative Rutherford, of Texas, is the House chairman, and that a hearing is set for Tuesday, July 10, by the Subcommittee on National Parks of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. I hope you may be willing to give us support at that meeting, as well as Chairman Aspinall's hearing on S. 3118 (H.R. 11172) on Wednesday, July 11, before the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. If I may be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know. With all good wishes, I am, ROLAND H. COBB, Commissioner. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN E. MOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit for the committee's consideration a statement by Hon. Edmund G. Brown, Governor of the State of California, in support of the bill now under study, H.R. 11165, to promote coordination and development of effective Federal and State outdoor recreation programs and to provide financial assistance to the States for such recreational planning. As the Governor points out, California, soon to become the most populous State in the Union, has an exceptionally high interest in the field of outdoor recreation. The State's tremendous geographical diversity-including its many miles of seashores, several mountain ranges, numerous rivers and small streams, plentiful parklands and forests-combined with recent man-made lakes and reservoirs, and its fine climate that greatly encourages outdoor living, provides California with a singularly impressive amount and variety of recreation re sources. Of course, not only Californians benefit from these resources but Americans from all parts of the Nation come to the Golden State to enjoy their leisure. The Governor's statement spells out some of the progressive actions taken in the past and planned for the future by the State in this increasingly important area. In my opinion, the legislation now before the committee would encourage and, I am sure, even improve such planning efforts in a manner most necessary if future recreational demands are going to be met. I wholeheartedly join with Governor Brown in urging that the committee favorably consider this bill. Mr. Chairman, permit me to thank you and the other members of the committee for the customary courteous treatment extended me by providing this opportunity for me to present the Governor's statement and to express my own views on the bill. STATEMENT OF HON. EDMUND G. BROWN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to express to the committee the strong interest and support of the State of California for the bill now under consideration, H.R. 11165, to promote the coordination and development of Federal and State outdoor recreation programs, and to provide financial assistance to States for outdoor recreation planning. If enacted, H.R. 11165 would materially enhance the opportunities of all of the Nation's citizens to engage in proper use of growing leisure through outdoor recreation. The State emphatically endorses the purposes of the bill, and urges that legislation along these lines be enacted. Recreation is a growing national problem because of the growth in population, the increase in leisure, availability of more discretionary income, and increased mobility. California is adding to the Nation's recreation problem, and is likewise contributing toward a solution of that problem. There is a large national interest in California's recreation resources by the people of the Nation and, because California, in the next few months, will become the most populous State, Californians have a great interest in the recreation resources of other States. Intrastate and interstate travel, for social and recreational purposes, recently has been documented as one of the Nation's largest industries, which strengthens the economy of the Nation. California's growth has created the most enormous recreation problems of any State. Within the next 20 years, California's population will increase 100 percent and, conservatively, recreation demand by Californians and nonCalifornians will increase more than 400 percent. Today, California deficiencies amount to approximately 35 percent in recreation areas, facilities, and services, and the growing imbalance of demand over supply is developing a crisis on the recreation scene. Because of the high mobility of the recreation public, demand does not correspond to political boundaries, and more coordinated planning between levels of government is needed so that each level and agency can assume its logical responsibilities in meeting total needs with minimum overlaps and gaps in jurisdictions. This need is expressly recognized in section 203 (a) (2) of the bill. We have previously complimented President John F. Kennedy for recognizing the growing need for better planning and coordination in the recreation field. The provisions of the bill designating the proper functions of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation which the President has created, responsive to the recommendation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, can effectively translate that recognition into necessary action. We are in the process of establishing an advance planning and coordinating function to carry out a newly adopted park and recreation policy. The unit involved will be placed in the resources agency of California, department of parks and recreation. The department of parks and recreation will also serve as the proper State department to administer a recreation planning grant program to California, as set forth in the bill. Upon enactment of H.R. 11165, or comparable legislation, we intend to recommend that approval for planning grants by the Secretary of the Interior be utilized for-but not be limited to the following recreation planning projects: 1. To carry the work of the California public outdoor recreation plan to its next logical step: To define and designate specific new recreation and park proj ects which should be acquired, developed, and administered by all recreation agencies in California. 2. Use of a planning grant by the Department of Parks and Recreation for developing, in collaboration with the State planning office, the recreation element of a statewide land-use and development plan which we are starting. In this regard, we wish to state that we approve the scope and intent of H.R. 11165, and particularly section 101 (f), which takes account of the dynamic nature of outdoor recreation needs and demands. 3. Insure adequate planning for development of a major park and recreation bond program, to be voted by the people of California in late 1963 or in 1964. Such a bond proposal will be in the approximate amount of $150 million, and will be primarily for acquisition of scarcity lands as well as for facilities for public use. A substantial planning grant for determining priorities of need to be spelled out in the bond issue would be very helpful and would match a great effort on the part of California to meet her own problem. A Federal contribution to planning for California's park and recreation bond program would make sure that the national tourist interest in California will be provided for. The planning funds and recreation coordinating influences of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, as set forth in the bills, would facilitate adequate planning for utilization of California's bond funds as follows: (a) Sound analyses of quantity and quality of scenery, importance of historic areas, and designation of specific sites for inclusion in the State Park System; (b) Preparation of 15 major regional recreation plans for regional recreation in and near the major metropolitan areas of California. This important planning process is necessary to assure, on a crash basis, that adequate open space and greenbelt areas are preserved for regional use; (c) Provide special planning funds to insure adequate planning for meeting recreational needs in connection with the recently authorized $1.75 billion State water plan. In addition to using planning funds for recreational studies in connection with the State water project, California would welcome planning funds to assure coordination of recreation efforts to meet recreation needs surrounding major Federal water projects in California; (d) Help finance more than 20 already-defined planning projects centered about major intergovernmental recreation problems as recognized by the California Legislature. We are concerned that section 203, as presently written, does not clearly provide for coordination between a State agency empowered to do recreation planning in the single-purpose sense, and one charged with preparing a comprehensive statewide development plan of which the recreation plan would be an element or integral subunit. As now stated, the bill does not recognize the desirability of first preparing a development plan, a step which logically should precede preparation of single elements. Since emphasis of the major Federal planning assistance program administered pursuant to section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, is increasingly being placed upon a comprehensive planning framework and program, it is important that any new assistance program properly recognize this emphasis; otherwise, a State agency might well find itself impeded or precluded from maintaining the most effective planning program because of conflicting Federal aid eligibility requirements. The foregoing observation indicates that the coordination of a statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan with a comprehensive statewide development plan might be more precisely defined in the bill in terms of the desirable sequence suggested and with respect to other elements which are integral parts of such a development plan, to the extent possible, without impeding formulation of recreation plans. In summary, California's documentation of its recreation problems is among the greatest of any State. It also recognizes the need for coordinated planning because of California's interest in recreation resources of other States and the overwhelming nationwide interest in California's recreation resources. California's studies confirm the need for coordinated planning, which can be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of H.R. 11165. We strongly recommend the enactment of H.R. 11165 in the national interest and in the interest of all Californians. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 12, 1962. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: I understand that the hearings are about to be printed on the various recreation bills, including H.R. 11165, which you introduced. I would appreciate it if you would arrange to place in the hearings the following statement contained in a wire to me from the Governor of Missouri as follows: "H.R. 11165 *** is a significant step in helping States planning to meet park and recreation development responsibility.-JOHN M. DALTON." Sincerely yours, LEONOR K. (Mrs. JOHN B.) SULLIVAN, STATEMENT OF LAURANCE S. ROCKEFELLER, CHAIRMAN, OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEW COMMISSION I am Laurance S. Rockefeller, Chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. I am very happy to be able to urge passage of H.R. 11165 and related bills. In its specific provisions, H.R. 11165 gives force to the Commission's belief that outdoor recreation should be a full-time, integral part of the machinery of government. But what is most impressive about the bill is its ringing affirmation of the place of outdoor recreation in our national life. The Congress finds and declares that the general welfare of the Nation requires that all Americans of present and future generations shall be assured the availability of outdoor recreation resources. In The spirit in which this need has been recognized is most encouraging. submitting its report the Commission asked for action on a broad front, and it urged a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation as the most feasible way of stimulating that action. Secretary Udall has established a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Department of the Interior, and the President has established a Cabinetlevel Advisory Council. And now your committee is considering major legislation to strengthen the Bureau and give it new tools for getting on with the job. On economic grounds alone, the Bureau is very much needed. There are over 20 different Federal agencies whose activities affect outdoor recreation. The various Federal departments are spending about $200 million a year directly on outdoor recreation. Yet there has been no focal point for all this activity, no machinery for getting the maximum return on the public investment. Also, there are many other programs that could make a significant contribution. We are spending billions for new highways, billions for new public works, such as reservoirs. Surely ways can be found to develop more of the recreation potential inherent in these and other programs. Certainly the Bureau cannot solve all our recreation problems, but with good will and cooperation, it can accomplish a great deal, and in the immediate future. This is why its brief history has been so encouraging. Not only was it set up promptly, it was set up with a notable spirit of cooperation. To head the Bureau, Secretary Udall got together with Secretary of Agriculture Freeman and picked Dr. Edward Crafts of the Forest Service. He is a fine choice, and he will have a fine deputy: Interior's Larry Stevens, who did such an excellent job as the Commission's director of studies. H.R. 11165 is in itself a most constructive step. It is not simply that it is a good bill. Like the Commission's original recommendation, it represents a strong consensus, and it is most heartening to note how many members of both parties have joined with your distinguished chairman in supporting it. Theyinclude four colleagues of mine on the Commission who worked so effectivelyRepresentatives Saylor, Pfost, Rivers, and Kyl. With this kind of a start, there is sound reason for optimism. The word. "start" is important. In considering the resources available for outdoor recreation, the most immediate challenge is to make better use of what we already have. This does not mean that what we have is enough; the Commission emphasized that more land and more facilities are going to be needed if our future outdoor recreation needs of a growing population are going to be met. This will take time, however, and while we are pondering the future, it would be most appropriate to do more with what is at hand. Here is where the Bureau can help greatly. Of the many ways, let me cite just three. First, it can set up a system for classifying our land and water resources for recreation. In effect this would be recreation zoning, with the land classified according to the use it is best suited for. There is a lot of unnecessary argument between conservationists and recreation leaders, and part of the trouble is that many people have been talking a different language. There is a job of land management to be done. Some areas should be managed to provide high density recreation. Others should be left in their primeval state. But which? A classification system by itself won't resolve all these problems, but it will furnish a common framework for tackling them. Second, the Bureal can provide a clearing house. It is staggering to contemplate the scores of programs that are important to recreation. Unless such review is a full-time responsibility, it doesn't get done, and the many lessons and opportunities for dovetailing programs, get lost in the shuffle. By bringing together the facts, the Bureau can help the different agencies, and this in turn can help Congress in its consideration of new legislation. In its report the Commission recommended that the Bureau review recreation developments connected with Federal lands and programs and that its written comments accompany plans of other agencies submitted to the Executive Office and to the Congress. This responsibility would strengthen the Bureau, and I would like to urge that the recommendation of the Commission also be adequately provided for in this legislation. Third, the Bureau can stimulate State and local action. The spirit of H.R. 11165 is quite clear; by the kind of technical assistance and planning aid it proposes, the Bureau is to explore the ways it can best help, not dominate, the outdoor recreation programs of States and towns and counties. The States will play the pivotal role. Several have already launched largescale park acquisition programs, and the enthusiasm is catching. The planning grants proposed in H.R. 11165 can accelerate this movement, and they can help make it more effective. In effect, they ask the State agency to think of all the recreation needs of the State. The planning grants should multiply the investment many times over in more outdoor recreation opportunities-and in the economies of proceeding in an orderly way rather than by sporadic, unplanned efforts. The sliding scale feature of the proposed planning grants makes it possible to get off to a fast start. To insure a strong followup, Congress will undoubtedly find it essential in subsequent legislation to add matching grants for acquisition and development, as recommended by the Commission. These grants-in-aid could have great leverage in stimulating new approaches. The really exciting opportunity is not simply to develop more parks and playgrounds, much as they are needed; it is to create an environment in which recreation is built in, as a regular part of everyday life. This is where seed money grants can go far. Can more hiking trails be provided over private land through maintenance grants? Could communities contract with highway departments for excess acquisition to provide cycle paths and walkways? There are many, many such ideas to be explored, and studies alone are inconclusive; some community has to take the initiative and try it out on the ground. Wherever there are such communities, a relatively small grant can reap great dividends, and for all of us. In closing, let me again salute the purpose of this bill. The specific provisions are important, but more important yet is the direction that is being set. This bill may be a landmark-the beginning of a national effort to assure the wisest use of our resources for outdoor recreation-and it could have a profound effect on the quality of American life for generations to come. THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STATE PARKS, INC., Hon. J. T. RUTHERFORD, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. RUTHERFORD: On behalf of the officers and board of directors of the National Conference on State Parks I wish to go on record in favor of the enactment of H.R. 11165. |