Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. In 1963, the gross receipts from oil and gas were $1,171,148; from forest products, $494,413; from grazing, $521,005; from trapping, $24,988; from haying, $62,483; from concessions, $13,950; from the sale of surplus animals, $91,218; from sand and gravel, $11,685; from other operations, $74,951. The total gross receipts-$2,465,841. The expenses of the Department connected with these receipts$115,000. The net receipts were $2,350,841. Mr. THOMPSON. In your considered opinion and experience and pursuing Congressman Morton's question, do you consider this to be a norm or level at which this income will stay, or do you think it will increase or is there a possibility of it decreasing? Mr. McBROOM. We believe that the operations presently carried on, on the Delta refuge on oil and gas from conservation viewpoint, we would expect that the income from that source would continue indefinitely assuming that the Mr. THOMPSON. Exclusive of the oil income which may be under question, what about the norm on the other income other than minerals? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. One of the big items in the other income is forest product. The Bureau is improving its forestry program steadily, and we have shown good results in generally improving forestry income from better forest management in the last few years. I would expect that a large percentage of the increase that we anticipate would come from forestry resources. Mr. DINGELL. You also anticipate that your other income like haying, and sand and gravel and shell and so forth, will increase somewhat, do you not, in the future, as opposed to decreasing? Mr. McBROOM. That is correct, sir. Take grazing. In 1959, the income from grazing was $355,000, and the figure I gave for 1963 was $521,000. We see no reason that that should decline. On the contrary, we would expect that to increase. In 1959, the gross income from concessions was somewhat less than $4,000. In 1963, it was almost $14,000. We would expect that to grow rather sharply, especially in view of the added interest by people in visiting our refuge system for recreation purposes. That will be facilitated by a law on refuge recreation which this committee sponsored and passed a couple of years ago. Mr. THOMPSON. How about the Department's policies of allowing recreational facilities to be expanded and relaxed? Mr. McBROOM. The policies are set in accordance with the act which this committee passed, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of years ago, that gave us authority to do that. We have been very careful, however, in carrying out our recreation responsibilities under that act to make sure that the refuges are protected for their primary purposes. Mr. THOMPSON. I might ask just for the record, Mr. Janzen, do you concur in the statements made? Mr. JANZEN. Yes, sir. Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, may I pursue that? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mr. MORTON. Do you have in the analysis the potential income, or the income you expect from the new lands which would fall under the formula prescribed in H.R. 11008, that would bear out your assumption that we will have plenty of money to pay out of these requirements to the counties? Mr. McBROOM. Mr. Morton, I assume you are directing this question to the figure I gave of $650,000? Mr. MORTON. That is correct. Mr. McBROOM. We believe that this is a reasonable figure. It is. in fact, a conservative figure, bearing in mind that our base amount, the net receipts in 1963 that we are talking about here is $2.350,000. To add receipts from almost a million and a half acres, we think, will almost certainly equal that much. That is a conservative estimate. We think these funds will come mostly from grazing, from haying, and from timber sales with a limited amount of agricultural use fees. As I mentioned, returns from timber sales will increase every year from our refuge system until each one receives a sustained yield basis and then it will level off. Mr. PELLY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. Yes. Mr. PELLY. I would like to inquire as to whether or not the optional feature that is in H.R. 11008, might not substantially decrease the amount of revenue because of the fact that 25 percent of the revenue would go to a county. In the case or gas or oil it would be very much more perhaps than under the three-quarters of 1 percent that is in the other bills. Mr. McBROOM. Well, Mr. Pelly, the 25 percent of net revenue goes now to the county. In other words, for this county in Louisiana that has such a fine production record, 25 percent of our net from there goes now to the county. So I do not believe that the optional figure would change it considerably. The figures which I have read and one of the tables which I will insert into the record at the chairman's direction, includes the analysis of county payments in connection with the 25-percent option and also with the income based on that. Mr. PELLY. Then, do I understand from what you say that 25 percent of the net receipts, such as is the arrangement at present, is not less than three-quarters of 1 percent of the cost of the area if you acquired it as in the original bills that were discussed yesterday? Mr. McBROOM. I have some figures on that. Perhaps I can bring them out at this point. The cost of the three-quarters percent with the option over the present system would be somewhat less than a half million dollars. I am not sure I am answering your question, but I thought these figures might be helpful. The cost of the three-quarters percent with the option over just the plain three-quarters percent would be $341,000. Mr. PELLY. No, but this is on lands that are owned in fee and under the original bill as introduced by Mr. Dingell there would be a payment of three-quarters of 1 percent. Mr. McBROOM. That is right. Mr. PELLY. Under the Thompson bill there would be an option which it would be either three-quarters of 1 percent or 25 percent of the net receipts. Mr. McBROOM. Whichever is the greater. Mr. PELLY. Greater. Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. Mr. PELLY. In your opinion the difference between these optional plans would in no way endanger the amount of revenue as to payments to these various counties? Mr. McBROOM. No, sir. The figure I gave of $3 million is computed on the basis of that option. Mr. MORTON. I do not understand this thing now. I thought that the 25 percent of the net revenue produced in any one county goes back to that county under the present setup. Mr. THOMPSON. Under existing law. Mr. MORTON. Under existing law. Is it not correct that this same 25 percent under this bill, your bill, Mr. Chairman, spreads this money out over all the counties? Mr. THOMPSON. They were given the option of the county retaining its existing current 25 percent payment or accepting three-fourths of 1 percent payment, whichever is greater. In other words, this is the old-age, grandfather clause. Mr. MORTON. Í understand that, but this means, take Dare County, N.C., where there is no revenue, let us assume, from the Pea Island Reservation there is no revenue; therefore, their only option under this would be to take the three-quarters of 1 percent; is that correct? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mr. MORTON. And another county, like a county in your district, that is producing something like oil, mineral, grazing, or whatever is there, they take whatever is most favorable to them. But there is no movement of taking the 25 percent out of one State and putting it in another. Mr. THOMPSON. It does not absolutely penalize any one State. Mr. MORTON. Getting back to Mr. Lennon's point, I agree with him, that this money is not really more than adequately covered. I do not see any big safety factor in this. Mr. LENNON. Will the gentleman yield to me, if you have the floor? Mr. KEYES. Mr. Swain indicated two instances in North Carolina where the formula would jump in one instance from $19 to $1,300, and from $400 to $20,000. Now, let us talk about your State, let us take the one refuge in Becker County that you mention in your statement of 32,439 acres. You are getting now $102 on an annual basis, which is 25 percent of your earned income from that refuge. Now, under the formula of three-quarters of 1 percent of the current valuation or updated acquisition costs currently evaluated, the difference between $102 which you are getting now on that one reservation in that one single county Mr. KEYES. The figures I am going to give you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, are contained in a letter to me dated January 22, 1964, from Mr. Nelson, who is in the Department of the Interior in Minneapolis and is identified as the Chief of the Division of Wildlife. These are the figures given me in this letter. This is a Tamarac Reservation in Becker County consisting of 32,000 acres referred to in my statement. The anticipated revenue under the three-quarters of 1 percent, $6,560. Mr. LENNON. $6,000 in round figures. Mr. KEYES. $6,500 would be a closer round figure. Mr. LENNON. $6,500 as compared with $102. Now, how many other parts of the system do you have in Minnesota? You just picked out one and indicated what it would mean-it would mean the difference between $102 a year on an annual basis and $6,500on an annual basis. How many other refuge or parts of this system which were acquired in fee that would be subject to this new formula of three-quarters of 1 percent of the acquisition costs if they are currently updated? Mr. KEYES. Sir, I have been just a little bit disturbed. My colleague on my right was trying to tell me something to answer this question. You are asking are there other refuges in our State, and what would be the income? Mr. LENNON. Yes, sir. Mr. KEYES. I am informed from materials we have at our disposal supplied by the Department some time back, that there are some six refuges in the State of Minnesota. They anticipate acquiring seven wetland areas. Their total holdings then will be around 123,000 acres, and under the present law we are receiving $2,112 Mr. LENNON. $2,112? Mr. KEYES. This is in the shared revenue feature in the current law. Mr. LENNON. All right, what would you receive under the threequarters of 1 percent? Mr. KEYES. That will jump to $21,280. Mr. THOMPSON. May I ask at this point-you mentioned the anticipated new lands they are going to acquire. Does this figure include those? I think for comparative purposes, you should restrict the new income under the three-quarters of 1 percent to the existing lands. Mr. KEYES. Fair enough. I have those figures available. Let me supply them to you. The comparisons are these: Under the present law, an even $1,000. Mr. LENNON. You are receiving an even $1,000? Mr. DINGELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LENNON. Let him answer the question, then I will be glad to yield. Mr. KEYES. The direction of my figure was incorrect. Let me back off just a moment. Perhaps Mr. McBroom is going to supply the figures. Mr. BONNER. Do you have a list of all the land proposed to be acquired in conjunction with the lands you have in fee simple now, and what the table would show? Mr. McBROOM. I do not have that, Mr. Bonner, but I do have a list here that I would suggest to the chairman, respectfully, he might want for the record, of all of our holdings throughout the United States where acquired land is involved showing what we paid under the present law and what we would pay under the proposed legislation. Every county that is involved in this legislation is on this table. My thought was that the committee might find this useful in its record to have it. Mr. THOMPSON. That should answer the question. |