Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Bonner, we have one more witness. Mr. BONNER. I am a soil conservationist. I want to do something to create more ducks, more wildlife and so forth, but I do not want to get into a problem here that will have to come back not only to this. subcommittee, but my full committee. Mr. McBROOM. Right, sir. We will be glad to furnish you with that. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. We have another witness. I thank you for coming. We do appreciate your testimony. We have Mr. Daniel Poole from the Wildlife Management Institute this morning. Is Mr. Poole here? Mr. POOLE. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Poole, the subcommittee must go into executive session shortly. STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. POOLE, SECRETARY, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE Mr. POOLE. I would request the committee's permission to submit my statement as if read. I am Daniel Poole, Secretary of the Wildlife Management Institute. In our statement we set forth the biological reasons why we think the enactment of a bill of this kind is essential. I have some information I think has not been put into the record, Mr. Chairman, and with your permission, I would like to submit it for your consideration. This table shows the wetland acquisition goals in the breeding grounds, migration grounds and wintering grounds under this 7-year program. By looking at the totals you can easily see that the program is lagging in the breeding grounds, the Dakotas and in western Minnesota, where waterfowl nesting grounds should be acquired if we are going to really help the resource. your permission, I would submit it for the record. Mr. THOMPSON. Without objection it is so ordered. (The information referred to follows:) With STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. POOLE, SECRETARY, WILDLIFE Management InSTITUTE Mr. Chairman, I am Daniel A. Poole, secretary of the Wildlife Management Institute. The institute is one of the older national conservation organizations, and its program has been dedicated to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in the public interest for more than 50 years. Conservationists are gratified that the committee has scheduled this hearing on H.R. 1004 and other bills that seek to increase the participation by counties in revenues received from the sale or lease of timber, forage, minerals, and similar products of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The record of operating experience in wetlands acquisition, since the enactment of Public Law 87-383, shows that the basic authority for sharing refuge revenues with the counties is in need of a fundamental change. Public Law 87-383, enacted in 1961, authorizes the appropriation of $105 million during a 7-year period for the accelerated acquisition and leasing of suitable wet lands to help preserve the continental waterfowl resource. Prior to the enactment of that emergency measure, wetlands purchases were financed with funds obtained from the yearly sale of duck stamps to sportsmen. Experience shows, however, that the duck stamp funds are entirely inadequate to support a vigorous wetlands acquisition and leasing program of the magnitude recommended by the State wildlife agencies and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Wetlands destruction is proceeding at a faster rate than wetlands preservation. Much of it is being accomplished with Federal financial and technical assistance. Waterfowl are endangered, and the $105 million authorization is meant to provide sufficient money to finance a largescale, short-term wetlands preservation program. The advance appropriations are to be repaid from the annual duck stamp receipts at the end of the program. Congress has failed so far to appropriate sufficient funds for the orderly expansion and execution of that emergency program. Encouraging progress has been made, however, in obtaining good wetlands acreages along the waterfowl migration routes and in the wintering grounds. Wetlands preservation is lagging in the vital nesting grounds. This unfortunate situation has arisen because the Bureau has been encountering opposition, particularly in the Dakotas, where much of the land required for waterfowl nesting in the continental United States would be purchased and leased. The accelerated wetlands program requires that all land purchases be approved by the Governor of the State or by his designee. County governments in those two States are dissatisfied with the wetlands program because it removes private lands from the tax rolls without definite assurance of comparable amounts being received under the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife's existing wildlife refuge revenue-sharing program. The Bureau has been obliged to use most of the available funds to buy lands along the waterfowl migration routes and in the wintering grounds, as a result. This situation has not created a serious imbalance in program emphasis as yet. But it soon will, if the law is not changed to facilitate the purchase of wet lands in key areas of the Dakotas. Because of their migratory nature, waterfowl need habitat at the southern and northern extremities of their flight range as well as in between to accommodate their movements from wintering grounds to breeding grounds and return. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has worked with the State wildlife agencies to develop a schedule for wetlands preservation to meet the needs of the birds. Priorities have been established and acreage goals carefully assigned in the breeding, migration, and winter zones so that available funds will be used most beneficially. This wetlands preservation schedule must be followed closely if all the habitat needs of the waterfowl are to be met. The rapidity with which wetlands nesting areas have been destroyed in the North Central States makes the enactment of corrective legislation imperative. Farm drainage has destroyed tremendous acreages of marshes, potholes, and other wet lands that provided nesting habitat for ducks. Drainage of this kind has been most damaging in the Dakotas and western Minnesota where the millions of water-bearing depressions formed by glaciers have been used heavily by nesting waterfowl since earliest times. It has been estimated that the tristate area of the Dakotas and Minnesota provide up to 80 percent of the young waterfowl that are reared each year in the 48 contiguous States. Experts agree that the waterfowl resource cannot withstand further destruction and loss of wet lands in that north-central area. A means must be found to encourage wetlands preservation. The bills before the committee are responsive to that objective. Each proposes, with some variation, to authorize a means of offsetting tax losses to county governments on private lands taken for the wetlands preservation program. In previous testimony before this committee and in the Senate, spokesmen from the Dakotas have not disagreed with the purposes of the wetlands preservation program. Their concern centers on the taking of private lands without assurance that county governments would receive comparable returns under existing authority for sharing revenues obtained from the wildlife refuges. A hearing held earlier this year by the Senate Committee on Commerce on S. 1363 and similar bills resulted in what many conservationists believe to be a realistic and attainable suggestion for revision of pending revenue-sharing proposals. The suggestion is that each county be given the option of selecting to have its revenue shared based on 25 percent of refuge receipts or on threequarters of 1 percent of the adjusted value of acquired lands. The threequarters-of-1-percent figure, according to testimony at the Senate hearing, closely approximates the amount counties would expect to receive from taxes on private lands. It takes into account the lessened responsibilities of counties to provide Federal lands with roads and other services. It is believed that the option offers the most practical suggestion for overcoming objections to the payment formula. A few counties would be required to take a lesser annual revenue share under the terms of bills which differentiate between wildlife refuges withdrawn from the public domain and refuges established on acquired lands. The reduction would be substantial in the case of one county. Under the county option suggestion, no county would be required to accept a smaller payment than it now receives. Many would receive more, particularly those counties in which are located refuges that produce little or no revenues from the sale or lease of natural products. It has been estimated by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife that the option formula, had it been in effect during 1963, would have resulted in total revenue-sharing payments of approximately $1,100,000 to the counties. The amount actually paid to the counties that year under existing law was $587,710, which is about $480,000 less than the amount that would have been paid under the option formula. Payments to counties in 1963 strictly on the basis of 25 percent from reserved public domain lands and three-quarters of 1 percent for acquired lands would have amounted to about $737,000, which is about $150,000 more than currently paid and approximately $330,000 less than the option formula. The larger amount that would be paid under the option formula, estimated at $1.1 million in 1963, is well within the $2.3 million receipts received from the disposal of refuge products that year. Conservationists are hopeful that early agreement can be reached on a bill, Mr. Chairman. The Nation's waterfowl resources are too valuable to permit their decimation by default. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife— the agency charged with this country's responsibilities under the migratory bird treaties-and the State wildlife agencies know that the welfare of the resource depends on devising a means of treating all counties more equitably. Much favor has been expressed for a bill that offers counties an option of selecting either 25 percent of the refuge receipts or three-quarters of 1 percent of the adjusted value of private lands taken for waterfowl preservation purposes. Disbursements to the counties would be limited to annual receipts, which are ample to cover the land acquisition program that is contemplated. It is hoped that the committee can report a bill favorably, and that it will be approved during the current session. For NOTE. For fiscal year 1962, none of the money authorized by Public Law 87-383 was appropriated. fiscal year 1963, the Congress appropriated $7 million and for 1964, $10 million. That act authorized the appropriation of $105 million over a 7-year period for wetlands acquisition. 33-441-648 Mr. POOLE. Finally, since the submission of the Metcalf optional plan before the Senate, and with the introduction of H.R. 11008 yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we favor it. Although I know of no formal resolutions at present in this regard, I know through my personal contacts with commissions, State fish and game groups, conservation groups, and organizations such as ours, that there is very strong favor for this option plan. Mr. THOMPSON. Will you state for the record just what the Wildlife Management Institute is, in order to make the record clear, Mr. Poole. Mr. POOLE. It is a private national conservation organization dedicated to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in the public interest. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Poole. Thank you, gentlemen. The subcommittee has received various communications in association with this hearing, and if there is no objection, the materal will be placed in the record at this point. The subcommittee will meet at an early date when the other information is received in order that we can have action as quickly as possible. The subcommittee will now go into executive session to consider two matters. (The material mentioned above follows:) THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., Re H.R. 1004, H.R. 1127, H.R. 2393, H.R. 5996, H.R. 9030. Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Izaak Walton League is a nationwide organization of citizens dedicated to the wise and proper management and use of America's natural resources. We wish to express our support for legislation to increase county participation in revenues from the National Wildlife Refuge System. From its inception, the league has been deeply concerned with the conservation of waterfowl. Some of the league's earliest efforts led to restortation of Horicon Marsh in Wisconsin and to creation of the Upper Missippi Refugeindeed, to establishment of the entire National Wildlife Refuge System. Our past efforts have not concentrated only on Federal action. We have worked also at State and local levels. And individual league chapters, particularly in Minnesota, have themselves raised the funds necessary to acquire valuable wetland areas. The league was greatly interested in enactment of Public Law 87-383, signed by President Kennedy on October 4, 1961. At the time, we believed that the 7-year, $105 million wetland acquisition program which that act authorized would stabilize the deteriorating waterfowl situation. We knew that it was planned to provide means of acquiring 3 million of the 4 million wetland acres judged crucial to the waterfowl conservation program. Mr. Chairman, the so-called accelerated wetland acquisition program is today far behind schedule in the crucial pothole regions. We understand that the basic stumbling block is that certain counties feel they are not realizing fair financial returns from wetlands owned by the Federal Government, and therefore oppose further acquisition. We understand that the Department of the Interior agrees that the present system of refuge revenue distribution is not equitable. We understand, too, that the legislation now before you would solve these revenue-sharing problems. The Izaak Walton League wants to see the wetland acquisition program operate on schedule. We certainly agree that widely recognized revenuesharing inequities should be resolved. The bills now being considered by your committee would apparently accomplish both objectives. Differences among them fall generally into the area of fiscal policy-an area largely outside the league's sphere of competence. Therefore, we do not attempt to judge which of these bills is best. However, we do respectfully ask that your committee carefully examine proposed language which would require the Federal Government to pay outstanding bonded indebtedness on lands to be acquired in fee title. To us, such a requirement would appear inequitable and might further impede the acquisition program. Also, the Department of the Interior has stated its belief that a revenuesharing level of 0.75 percent of land value would most closely approximate, on the average, tax revenues which counties might normally expect to receive from the lands involved. Again, it would appear to us inequitable to require the Federal Government to pay more than would a private owner of the same property, though we recognize that some leeway might be desirable in particular cases. Mr. Chairman, we hope that Congress would enact revenue-sharing legislation during 1964. And we would appreciate having our position made part of the hearing record. Respectfully yours, ROBERT T. DENNIS, Assistant Conservation Director, IWLA. COASTAL HOME IMPROVEMENT CO., INC., Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR SIR: It has come to my attention through the National Wildlife Federation that your committee is in the process of reviewing some proposals that would provide for revenue sharing for wild refuges. It is my sincere belief that the passage of such legislation would help the wetlands acquisition program in Minnesota and the Dakotas. I sincerely feel that this particular legislation would be a tremendous benefit, to the increase in our waterfowl population while providing economic benefits for the country. As a devout hunter and conservationist, I have through the years watched an abundant wildlife population decrease and almost disappear. It is my personal wish that you and your committee will look with favor on any legislation that would benefit us on the Atlantic flyway also. I think that the Department of Agriculture should refrain from the draining and reclaiming wetlands for agricultural products not needed. I also feel that there should be a Federal subsidiary on the present duck stamp program in the form of Federal loans. Also, action should be taken to reach agreement with Canadian authorities to exercise control of duck and goose shooting-to improve wildlife breeding conditions and also to particpate in the program to preserve wetlands. Yours truly, MICHAEL BACH. PIONEER-PETENTLER INSURANCE & BONDING Co., Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. BONNER: Concerning "A bill to increase the participation by counties in revenues from the national wildlife refuge system by amending the act of June 15, 1935, relating to such participation, and for other purposes. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 401 of the act of June 15, 1935, as amended (49 Stat. 378, 383; 16 U.S.C. 7158), relating to the participa |