went to the local level, the government could not get the approval for the acquisition of these lands.

Now, the gentlemen from North Dakota and South Dakota, and I presume maybe a member from Minnesota, if they were here, they place great stress upon the necessity of compensating the landowner for that proportionate part of the bonded indebtedness of that particular land that you are attempting to acquire.

Can you tell us now whether or not in your judgment, if we leave out any reference to compensation of that proportionate part of the bonded indebtedness in this bill, if you will get the cooperation of the people at the local level that you must have before you can acquire these wet lands? That is what I am interested in knowing.

Mr. JANZEN. I would like to say first of all, that the problem, the real problem that we have is getting the approval of the Governor and the only reason that the Governor has withheld approvalMr. LENNON. You say you have the Governor's approval.

Mr. JANZEN. No, you see, under the law, we have to have the Governor's approval and the Governors have been turning us down because the counties have been objecting based on the tax problem.

Mr. LENNON. That is right.

Mr. JANZEN. And he feels this was a legitimate reason for turning it down.

Mr. LENNON. That is right. Now, what I am trying to find out, if we enact this legislation but leave out that provision for compensation based on the pro rata share of the bonded indebtedness, will then the Government be able to get the acquiesence and cooperation of these people at the local level?

We have to know that before we consider this bill in executive session. I think we have.

Mr. McBROOM. I would think so, Mr. Lennon. Our main problem here is one of taxation. As we have explained, we believe that under our formula, the payments to the counties, and I am talking about the whole country now, will go into effect into their tax receipt funds and will be used in part to reduce this bonded indebtedness.

Mr. THOMPSON. Would it be agreeable to the gentleman from North Carolina if the answer was given officially before the subcommittee tomorrow?

Mr. LENNON. Yes, I hope it will be.

Mr. THOMPSON. At this point in the record that answer should be inserted. If you will give it, Mr. Janzen, or an answer from the Department.

(The information mentioned follows:)

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY DANIEL H. JANZEN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE

We have been asked for our frank view on whether the passage of this legislation without provision for paying off a pro rata share of county bonded indebtedness when lands are acquired will accomplish one of the main purposes of the bill, which is to remove opposition by local governments to land acquisition.

We are reasonably sure that enactment of legislation in the form of our proposed bill will remove most of the reason for refusal by Governors of the Dakotas to approve our acquisitions. Our figures indicate that, on a nationwide basis, the payments to counties under the three-fourths of 1 percent of adjusted cost formula will result in the counties receiving approximately 90 percent of the revenues they would have received had the lands remained on the tax rolls.

Since county revenues from all sources are used, in part, to pay off bonded indebtedness, we believe the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife will carry its fair share of this burden.

The funds to pay off bonded indebtedness are levied by the counties in annual segments incorporated in the annual tax bills. The indebtedness is not a lien on private property until the annual installment on account of the indebtedness is levied in the form of taxes. Annual payments by the Bureau, as contemplated. will keep payments on our share current.

We believe that the Governors and the county commissioners will also recognize that the counties will obtain substantial financial and other economic benefits from our land purchase program. Areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System involve a payroll of some size, both for permanent employees and temporary workers. Also, they are a tourist attraction of some note. Furthermore, they provide substantial opportunities for outdoor recreation including fishing, hunting, and picnicking which stimulate business in the local communities.

It should be noted that the demand for legislation to pay off bonded indebtedness comes from only the two Dakotas. If written into law, we would also have to pay off these debts everywhere else in the Nation where we are acquiring land under the accelerated program sponsored by this committee. We have no idea as to the extra cost of this provision on a national basis, but it could be tremendous. Additional funds paid to the counties out of refuge revenue receipts must be made up out of additional appropriations from the general fund of the Federal Treasury and borne by the general taxpayer. This is so because additional funds paid to the counties would have to be offset by appropriations to the Bureau for refuge operation and maintenance and for law enforcement. These activities are financed in part by these revenues at the present time. Consequently, in effect, paying off bonded indebtedness would mean an additional demand on the U.S. Treasury of an indeterminately large amount on the basis of requests from only two States.

Finally, the matter of a possible undesirable precedent should be brought out. Making the liquidation of bonded indebtedness a prerequisite for Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife land purchases would establish a precedent for the Federal Government as a whole. Undoubtedly, counties where the acquisition programs of other agencies of Government, like the Forest Service, Corps of Engineers, and the Military Establishment, would demand the same treatment. The cost of the U.S. Treasury of this precedent might well be enormous. We know of no other Federal agency which now pays off a pro rata share of bonded indebtedness in its acquisition program.

As a matter of fact, we know of no State agency which makes these payments when buying land for public purposes. Testimony at the hearings of this committee on similar legislation on July 11 and 12, 1962, brought out the fact that no North Dakota State agency makes such payment in its land acquisition program. The North Dakota State Highway Department makes no payment whatsoever to the counties in the form of shared revenues or in-lieu-of-tax payments. During the last 5 years, that Department has expended an average of $1,111,000 annually on land acquisition for the Federal aid highway system alone. Presumably most of this was spent in rural areas.

In the same hearing, it was brought out that no State agency in Minnesota pays off local bonded indebtedness when it buys land.

In South Dakota, the State game, fish and parks department is also engaged in a land acquisition program, much of it wetlands for waterfowl. In recent years, before 1963, they spent about one-quarter of a million dollars annually on land acquisition. In 1963, they purchased about 21,000 acres of land at a cost several times that of the previous annual expenditure level. The South Dakota Legislature has enacted laws which require the South Dakota Game. Fish. and Parks Department to pay the counties the full amount of taxes on its land as though the land were privately owned; however, the law does not require that department to pay off county bonded indebtedness in its land acquisition. The South Dakota department paid an average of 52 cents an acre to the counties in lieu of taxes in 1963. If our proposal on revenue-sharing legislation had been law in 1963, we would have paid the counties in South Dakota an average of 51 cents an acre on lands of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Mr. THOMPSON. Any further questions?

Mr. MORTON. Let me ask, if you acquire this program as it is outlined, what percentage of the production habitat would you have in North Dakota?

Mr. JANZEN. I think we have that figure here. Let me see if we can give you that figure right now.

Our aim is to get into public ownership all the best production habitat we believe would be lost to civilization, agriculture, and for other purposes. This is our stated aim.

Mr. MORTON. In the questions both Mr. Dingell and Mr. Lennon raised, we came up with sort of a final figure which was based on this final plan that you have for the acquisition of this land. My concern is that are we really dealing with a large enough percent of the production habitat to consider this program in final form?

Mr. JANZEN. Yes, we are. The thing we must keep in mind is that we are acquiring perpetual easements from farmers to not burn, fill or drain, and that will be the bulk of this acreage he mentioned.

Mr. MORTON. I understood that. When you get all of the land bought, how big a slice have you got?

Mr. McBROOM. About 1,600,000 acres in the prairie production area, Mr. Morton.

Mr. MORTON. Which is what percent of it?

Mr. McBROOM. I don't know that we can tell you what percent. We believe this to be substantially all of the best waterfowl production habitat in the prairies which is susceptible to drainage; some of it is

not.

Mr. MORTON. In other words, the production area you plan to acquire would then support that portion of the ducks which are now produced in North Dakota, Minnesota, and the area we are talking about?

Mr. McBROOM. I believe this is right. It was brought out here this morning that there is a substantial area of waterfowl land which would be purchased under the Garrison diversion project. That will be added.

Mr. MORTON. Thank you.

Mr. LENNON. I would say this, I want to correct my statement. It was Secretary Udall who used this language:

The Governors of North and South Dakota have made their approval contingent upon the approval of the county board of supervisors.

I knew someone had testified to that. He is the one.

Mr. JANZEN. That is correct. I have information, and the Governors may be here to testify on this, indicating that disapproval by a county might not necessarily mean that the Governor would disapprove it, but that he might feel that the objection based on this tax complaint would be a justified reason for turning it down.

Mr. LENNON. I do think it is important for you to give this committee in writing your honest opinion as to whether or not if we left out this proposal of the North and South Dakota Congressmen particularly, that you will, in your judgment, get the cooperation of the Governors of those States and the county supervisors and the people involved, otherwise, we are sort of walking up the hill and down. Mr. McBROOM. May I say five words on this, Mr. Chairman? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. McBROOM. As I recall, at a previous hearing of this committee on the same subject, one of the questions asked of a North Dakota witness was whether or not the State highway department which

acquires land for its function pays off bonded indebtedness and the answer was that it does not.

So for public purposes of the State agency, it does not have to pay off bonded indebtedness. So we are dealing here with a precedent that is countywide, and it is important.

Mr. THOMPSON. If you could, have those answers in writing tomorrow. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Janzen, I would appreciate it if you or some of your staff would be here tomorrow if questions arise.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions here raised by

Mr. THOMPSON. May I just interject this in the meantime. In order not to inconvenience some of the witnesses who would have appeared if we had time here this morning, Mr. Callison of the Audubon Society, Mr. Gutermuth with the Wildlife Management Institute, and Mr. Clapper with the National Wildlife Federation-if any of you gentlemen would like to submit your statement for the record, if coming back tomorrow would inconvenience you, I ask unanimous consent that your statements will be included, if the committee will agree with that.

Otherwise, you may appear here tomorrow.

Mr. CALLISON. Mr. Chairman, I am Charles Callison and I would be happy to submit my statement for the record. My statement regards the burden necessary for action on this legislation. I believe the subcommittee is aware of that, but we did want to say we were interested in that, also.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY CHARLES H. CALLISON, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman, the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Refuge System had their beginnings about the same time. The first units of the refuge system were carved out of public lands by Executive order of President Theodore Roosevelt. He signed the first, history-making Executive orders, beginning in 1903, as a result of field investigations and recommendations made by the National Committee of Audubon Societies. This committee included within its membership such famous figures in American ornithology and conservation history as Dr. William Dutcher, Dr. T. S. Palmer, Frank Bond, and T. Gilbert Pearson. These were the same men who, in 1905, secured the incorporation of the National Association of Audubon Societies, which is now called more simply, the National Audubon Society.

I relate this bit of history to establish for the record the fact that our society has more than a cursory or ad hoc interest in the pending legislation. We view the national wildlife refuges as central to the whole national effort to conserve and perpetuate our migratory bird resources.

We probably would not have the whooping crane and the trumpeter swan among our living wildlife today had it not been for the Aransas and Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuges. And were it not for the refuges, we venture to suggest, there might well be a number of extinct species to make black marks on the American conservation record and still others clinging to existence as precariously as the whooping crane.

What is the essential, the irreplaceable function performed by the refuges? They preserve choice areas of habitat for waterfowl, for cranes, and for other species without which the birds would be unwelcome visitors on agricultural lands in most places where they would try to stop and feed along their migration routes. They would be unwelcome guests in many areas where they must spend the winter.

We do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the stocks of wild ducks and geese can be maintained at levels to permit waterfowl hunting in the future unless the present refuge system is not only maintained, but expanded-expanded to include substantial areas of nesting, resting, and wintering habitat that are not now protected, and which inevitably will be lost to drainage and development unless we act soon to save them.

For all these reasons, the National Audubon Society strongly endorsed and supported the crash program of wetlands acquisition that was authorized by Congress in 1961 when it passed Public Law 87-383. This is the law that proposed to spend $105 million over 7 years, the money to be repaid the Treasury out of future duck stamp revenues. We actually urged a 10-year program and acquisition funds totaling $150 million, a figure we thought would preserve enough wetlands to safeguard the resource. But Congress in its wisdom reduced these figures, and we have been further disappointed that appropriations to date have fallen far short of the 7-year goal. The reason given for the reductions has been the resistance to the program caused by the local tax problem. The legislation under consideration today would solve that problem, and allow us to get on with the highly important task of saving enough wetlands to save our migratory birds.

We respectfully urge the subcommittee to report one of these bills promptly. We think the allocation to the counties of an amount equal to three-fourths of 1 percent of the adjusted cost of the acquired lands is sufficient for the purpose. However, we do not think the difference between three-fourths of 1 percent and 1 percent is nearly as critical as the importance of getting the bill passed. We thank you for this opportunity to present our views.

Mr. CLAPPER. I am Louis Clapper, of the National Wildlife Federation, and I would also like to file the statement, sir, with the same sense of urgency that we hope you can act on this suddenly.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Clapper.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY LOUIS S. CLAPPER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE

FEDERATION

Mr. Chairman, I am Louis S. Clapper, chief of the Division of Conservation Education, National Wildlife Federation, which has its headquarters here in Washington, D.C. I appreciate the invitation to appear here today.

The National Wildlife Federation, a private, nonprofit organization, is dedicated to the attainment of conservation goals through educational means. Independent affiliated conservation organizations are located in all States. These affiliates are made up of individuals who, when considered along with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2 million persons.

We regard enactment of a wildlife refuge revenue sharing plan, proposed in several bills before the committee, as imperative for the success of the emergency waterfowl wetlands acquisition program authorized in 1961. As members of this subcommittee recall, this program encompassed an advance loan of $105 million over a 7-year period. Now, it appears that 4 of the 7 years will have passed with only $25 million being appropriated. The primary difficulty has been in obtaining permission to acquire wetlands in North and South Dakota. This, we understand, can be alleviated by a plan whereby the counties will share more equitably in revenues from the refuges.

Under the present system, 25 percent of the net proceeds from acquired refuges go to the counties in which they are located. Some few counties receive windfalls. The system more often, however, results in no income at all for those counties which have refuges that produce little or no revenue. A more equitable distribution, therefore, appears justified.

The subcommittee has several different proposals to consider with respect to H.R. 2393, H.R. 1004, H.R. 1127, and H.R. 5995. We will touch on only what are regarded as the most important.

The National Wildlife Federation believes that the payment of three-fourths of 1 percent of the adjusted cost to the counties is fair and approximates what the taxes might be if the land was in private ownership. Refuge lands, of course, require fewer local services, such as roads and schools for which the funds presently are dedicated, than if in private ownership. This fact should be taken into consideration in arriving at an appropriate formula for payment.

33-441-64--5