Mr. PELLY. Mr. Short, I join with the others in welcoming you here. You referred in your testimony to the difference between H.R. 1127 and H.R. 9030 which are similar bills, and as between the language of the bill introduced by a member of this committee, my good friend Mr. Dingell, H.R. 2393. As I have read through the bills, as I understand, your version for the first 10 years, it would provide for payments which would be more than under Mr. Dingell's bill because of the fact that Mr. Dingell's bill would reserve 50 percent of the revenues for the first 10 years to go into the migratory bird hunting stamp conservation fund. I am trying to clarify my own mind.

Mr. SHORT. I believe you misunderstood me. I was referring to the legislation, the draft legislation that has been offered by the Department of the Interior. I did not make any comment on this provision in Mr. Dingell's bill.

Mr. PELLY. Did I understand what you said was that the draft recommended by the Department is similar to Mr. Dingell's bill? Mr. SHORT. I do not believe it includes that provision.

Mr. PELLY. It does not include the 50 percent?

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield. My bill only provides for payment of three-fourths of 1 percent. In that regard it is similar to the legislation sent up by the Department of the Interior. My bill would not diminish aside from that revenues to counties from these refuge receipts and the provision putting the money into land acquisition from refuge receipts would not in any way impair the grants to the counties in lieu of taxes below the three-fourths of 1 percent of the assessed value at any time, either during the first 10 years or succeeding.

Mr. PELLY. I was anxious to clear up my confusion on that very score, but in your bill Mr. Dingell, you do reserve 50 percent of the net revenues annually for 10 years to go into that conservation fund whereas the other bills do not have that.

Mr. DINGELL. That provision would take somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of refuge receipts. Payments to the counties at the level of three-fourths of 1 percent would take about 20 to 40 percent of refuge receipts, and the function of my proposal is simply to see that the balance, or as nearly as possible, the balance would go into land acquisition to speed up the acquisition of refuges, and it would not in any way impair payments to the counties at any time.

Mr. PELLY. I would be hopeful that the record would show exactly the difference in revenues that the counties in North Dakota could expect to receive under the respective provisions because it would seem to me that where you are taking that 50 percent out it would reduce the balance that would be available.

Mr. DINGELL. No, it would not. It would not in any way impair or reduce payments to counties. The only difference in payments to counties under my bill and under the bill sponsored by our good witness here, would be that the level of payments would be three-fourths of 1 percent under my bill than what it would be under the gentleman's bill, because mine are based on three-fourths of a percent of the assessed value.

Mr. PELLY. I think you have cleared that

up.

Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to say that the chairman has promised the Secretary that he could be away by 11:30 for an appointment. We

do have another Member of Congress to be heard. Unless there are any specific questions that have not been asked already of Congressman Andrews, I would hope that we could proceed as expeditiously as possible.

Any further questions?

Mr. DOWNING. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Morton?

Mr. MORTON. No questions.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you for coming. North Dakota will be given every consideration in this legislation by its representation. Mr. SHORT. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. THOMPSON. Is Congressman Ostertag here?

Mr. OSTERTAG. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. We are glad to have you here this morning, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD C. OSTERTAG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. OSTERTAG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall be very brief. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee today and I wish to commend you for turning your attention to this problem of the serious financial side effects developing from the establishment of natural wildlife refuges in some of our home areas.

This situation of inequitable sharing in the revenue from these wildlife refuges is creating concern about the program and I have introduced a bill, H.R. 5996 in an effort to improve this situation. The Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife of the Department of Interior approved the creation of the Oak Orchard National Wildlife Refuge 6 years ago in the congressional district I represent in western New York. It lies within two counties; namely, Genesee and Orleans. Since that time the Bureau has been acquiring the necessary land and today it is my understaning that about 6,824 acres have been acquired for the refuge, the ultimate goal being 11,174

acres.

I am also informed that the value of the land acquired to date is approximately $568,338. Now, as the members of this committee well know, this land is all taken off the local tax rolls when it is acquired by the Federal Government. At present we have a system for reimbursing the local county governments in lieu of taxes in the amount of 25 percent of the revenues realized from the operation of the refuge within their own borders.

Under these terms the two counties in my area received, believe it or not, a mere $275 last year for the more than 6,000 acres they gave up for the wildlife refuge. At this point I want to make it clear that I am very much in accord with the program, I believe that it is essential and doing a tremendous job, but clearly this sum is not designed to encourage local acceptance and cooperation in projects of this kind and, as you know, these meager payments have resulted in outright opposition to the Federal refuges in some areas. As a result, my bill, H.R. 5996, would provide a change in the system of payments. It would provide for reimbursement to the local govern

ments in the amount equal to 1 percent of the value of the land acquired for the refuge.

I believe this would be equitable for all parties concerned. The funds would still come from revenues earned by the refuge system but the amount received by the county governments in my area would have been close to $4,000 instead of the $275, or 15 times greater than under the present system.

Most other participating areas would also benefit more than they do today. Now, I am aware that certain other counties in other States are far more fortunate under the present system and have no desire to change it. But I believe the system must be revised in all fairness to all areas such as mine and I hope that the committee will devise a formula which would take into account the best interests of all the participants in the program.

There is no need to penalize some areas in the operation of this program, and I believe correction of these inequities would result in greater support and greater success of the refuge system and the program generally.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before your committee and I shall be glad to answer any questions that you may propound to me.

Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman, I might just venture to say this, that we have been gratified that one of the ideas of one of the great U.S. Senators from Louisiana, the late Huey P. Long, has finally reached some areas and the share-the-wealth program is being accepted. You made a very fine statement, Congressman, and I will not delay you by further questions. Mr. Lennon?

Mr. LENNON. No questions.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Pelly?

Mr. PELLY. I would like to ask one question. What would the reimbursement of the particular acreage to which you referred amount to, $4,000?

Mr. OSTERTAG. $4,000.

Mr. PELLY. And you are only getting $275?

Mr. OSTERTAG. $275 seems to be the record of what they were reimbursed last year on the more than 6,000 acres. Now, if they acquire the additional 5,000 acres, the refuge would have a total value estimated at $1 million.

Mr. PELLY. What was the tax on that property prior to the time that it was acquired as against the $4,000 which this 1 percent would be?

Mr. OSTERTAG. Frankly, I must confess that I do not have a record or the information but certainly you can well imagine that the property tax for schools and local government purposes would amount to several thousands of dollars as compared to the $275 that constitutes the payment as of today.

Mr. THOMPSON. Would that information be available to you for insertion into the record?

Mr. OSTERTAG. Yes; I shall be glad to insert that information in the record if you will give me that permission.

Mr. THOMPSON. It would be interesting to have it.

(The information referred to follows:)

INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MR. OSTERTAG AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHAIR

The treasurers of Genesee County and Orleans County, N.Y., report that the county and town governments in the two counties would have received a total of $8,173 in taxes in 1963 from the lands purchased by the Federal Government for the Oak Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. The total for Genesee County would have been $4,913 and for Orleans County, $3,260.

This compares with the sum of $275 paid to the counties in 1963 by the Department of Interior from the proceeds of the refuge.

Mr. OSTERTAG. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you Congressman, for being with us. We have with us this morning, the Secretary of the Interior, our former colleague. We are honored to have you with us. I do want to state that this subcommittee is cognizant of the great patience you have shown and the great problems you have had since you have been in the office and that the type of cooperation you have given us has inpired us to work with you as best we may.

You may have anyone with you, Mr. Secretary, you would like, in order to expedite the hearings.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary UDALL. What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is file my statement, summarize its highlights, and let my associates make a followup statement on the details, if I may.

Mr. THOMPSON. Fine, Mr. Secretary. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

One of the finest conservation measures that the Congress approved in the last 3 years was the Accelerated Wetlands Acquisition Act, signed by President Kennedy on October 4, 1961. This measure had wide support among the conservationists of the Nation. It authorized appropriation of $105 million for wetlands acquisition over the 7-year period beginning in fiscal year 1962 through fiscal year 1968. These wetlands are needed for the protection and conservation of waterfowl, a responsibility of this Department under Federal law and international treaties. Waterfowl are constantly faced with loss of habitat due to the desires of mankind to use these same wetlands for agricultural, industrial, and residential purposes.

For 15 years, prior to the passage of the 1961 act, these lands were acquired almost entirely with funds from the sale of migratory bird hunting stamps, commonly known as duck stamps. The revenues from sale of these stamps, which are required under Federal law to be purchased by hunters of ducks and geese, have varied between a high of $5 million and a low of $3 million in recent years. At this rate, it was estimated that it would take some 130 years to acquire the needed wetlands. In that period of time, the needed wetlands would be either destroyed by draining or filling for other purposes, or would have increased in price beyond reach of a reasonable Federal program.

Consequently, the Congress wisely provided for the acceleration of the program through the use of direct appropriations for this purpose so that the bulk of the needed land acquisition could be accomplished in the 7-year period I have mentioned. The Congress also provided, in the 1961 act, that the appropriation of the $105 million would be in the form of a loan to the migratory bird conservation fund. This is the fund into which all duck stamp receipts are placed and out of which all expenditures for land acquisition are paid. Beginning in fiscal year 1969, 75 percent of the duck stamp receipts are to be used to repay the funds appropriated in the preceding 7 years until all of the loan is repaid.

I am glad to report to you that all of the funds appropriated by the Congress pursuant to this authorization have been efficiently and usefully expended by our Department in the acquisition of needed waterfowl habitat. Of the $105 million authorized to be appropriated by the Congress, there have been appropriated $17 million during the first 3 years of the program. In addition, annual receipts from duck stamp sales totaling some $11.5 million in that period have been utilized. We have geared up our acquisition program three- and four-fold. As of today, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission has approved the acquisition of some $23 million worth of land acquisition under the program which remains unfunded. Thus, there is a sizable, authorized backlog of worthy land acquisition projects.

I regret to inform you, however, that probably the most important segment of the land acquisition program envisioned by the Congress and our Department in 1961 has been handicapped and stunted by a serious problem which the legislation before you is designed to solve. The first priority in the accelerated wetland acquisition program is the purchase of substantial areas of waterfowl production habitat in the Dakotas and Minnesota. This is the key to the success of the entire program. In the prairie potholes are found the most productive breeding and nesting grounds of the conterminous United States. There, an acre of wetlands purchased pays the biggest dividends in terms of contributing additional waterfowl to the flyways. It is in this area that many of the waterfowl harvested by hunters in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and some 38 or more other States to the south, east, and west are produced; waterfowl production, of course, is the key to adequate waterfowl populations everywhere in the Nation. Consequently, waterfowl enthusiasts in other parts of the Nation have or should have a close interest in the success of our program in the production areas and in the passage of this legislation to remove roadblocks from that program. The northern prairies are aptly called the duck factory of the Nation.

The acquisition program has been stymied in the Dakotas because of concern by local authorities over loss of county revenue resulting from Federal acquisition. The 1961 act authorizing the accelerated wetlands acquisition program provided that the Governor of the State or an appropriate State agency would first have to approve any acquisition in the State before land purchases could be consummated. The Governors of North and South Dakota have made their approval contingent upon the approval of the county boards of supervisors. They, and the Governors, have generally denied approval. This has meant that our Department has generally been unable to purchase the vitally needed wetlands in these States.

Loss of revenues to local governments is a legitimate concern with which I can sympathize. Under existing law, enacted in 1935, the counties in which our refuges are located receive 25 percent of the net revenue from operations on national wildlife refuges, such as oil production, grazing, timber harvest, and the like. Nationwide, these net revenues amount to the substantial sum of $24 million annually. The payment to the counties each year has thus been something in excess of one-half million dollars. The 25 percent share of the revenues is paid to the counties where the revenue is earned. Unfortunately for the success of this program, these payments are badly out of balance. In many of the important wetland areas of the northern prairies, the refuge revenues are nil or close to it. Twenty-five percent of nothing is nothing. Consequently, some counties of the northern prairies, where acquisition of production habitat is so important, receive little or nothing in the way of payments from refuge revenues. The county commissioners and the Governors in those areas, where national wildlife refuge holdings are already substantial, are reluctant to see more and more land go off the tax rolls without an adequate compensating provision to help sustain the county revenue base.

On the other hand, some counties in other parts of the Nation are reaping extensive benefits from outsized payments under the 1935 law.

In the national interest, in the interest of conservation, and in the interest of equity, this out-of-balance situation should be corrected. We believe that the success of this vital conservation program depends on it.

If H.R. 2393 is enacted in the form suggested by this Department, all of the revenues from refuge operations on acquired lands would be placed in a pool for equitable sharing by all the counties in which we have units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These revenues would be shared annually with the counties on the basis of three-quarters of 1 percent of the current estimated value of acquired lands. As to the reserved public lands within the system, there would be no change in the present payment of 25 percent of net receipts from such lands.