acquiring many additional areas. Please note the enclosed inventory. We estimate that by 1980 Marin County will be the playground for nearly 7 million people residing in the nine-county bay area. You will note that when our watershed and conservation areas are included, they represent a tremendous potential for public works projects. If funds were available, we could utilize substantial numbers of workers in all of these areas, most especially in our water district lands. Specific projects which could be done would include hiking and riding trail construction, trail maintenance, stream clearance, both construction and installation of new signs, picnic area development, development of parking lots, development of camping facilities, everyday maintenance, new plantings including soil erosion and windbreak, fish restoration-the list is endless. It is impossible for me at this time to estimate the number of man-years of work which might be undertaken for we are limited only by a lack of supervision, equipment, and materials. Please refer to the enclosed report made to the board of supervisors relative to the work retraining program administered through our welfare department. I have also enclosed an outline of one of our conservation project proposals which could be affected immediately if funds were available. I noted recently that Multnomah County, Oreg., has undertaken a program which seeks to provide suitable outdoor employment for its youth to develop its park program. This recent summer program gave employment to over 200 high school boys at a cost of $87,000. In conclusion then, may I say that we certainly have the work to be done and there are many within our county, both unemployed and of teen age, who are seeking work. Our efforts to date have been inhibited by the funds necessary to solve our problems of supervision and equipment. If I can be of any further assistance to you at any time, please do not hesitate to ask. My every best wish to you for success in providing this needed legislation. KELVIN J. NELSON, Hon. Senator GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT, Riverside, Calif., July 1, 1964. MY DEAR SENATOR NELSON: We are in receipt of your letter of June 17, 1964, wherein you comment on conservation projects, park development, roadside improvement, etc., and the county's ability to utilize unemployed workers on projects of this kind if funds were available. The county of Riverside presently has some 5,000 acres of park lands distributed throughout its 7,072 square miles. These parks are being improved at a steady rate. The amount of capital improvement is not necessarily great, due primarily to lack of funds for major construction programs. Within each of the project areas, the department does erosion control, timber conservation, and natural resource conservation work of all types. We feel that the county of Riverside could use a substantial number of manyears of work, especially in a program of such similarity to that operated by the Federal Government many years ago in its Youth Conservation Corps program. We could not give you, at this time, an actual number of man-years necessary to do all of the work we feel should be done in this field without considerable study and, unfortunately, our staff is limited in numbers and time is not presently available. If we might comment, we feel that any program such as you are proposing would be one of the most beneficial programs of conservation of natural resources throughout our entire country, and we certainly hope that your efforts along these lines are successful. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to comment on the subject. Sincerely yours, EDWARD H. WALKER, Parks Superintendent. MERCED COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, Senator GAYLORD NELSON, DEAR SENATOR NELSON: In regard to your letter of June 17, 1964: Yes, the Merced County Parks and Recreation Department could and would make good use of unemployed workers in our county parks, of which we have 5 of the regional-type parks, plus some 20 community, school, and city-type parks. The work that we could do in this project would be more of the labor type; such as, the additional maintenance work that is needed in our parks and outdoor camp, along with the additional park development of park facilities that is needed each year, and could be done through a work project of this kind, if funds were available for such use. We could also make use of these workers for improvements of our roadsides, rivers, creeks, and irrigation canals leading to our county parks. In reference to the number of man-hours or years needed in Merced County, we could use 30 to 50 men tomorrow without any problem, as we have the organization to handle a work project of this size. My comments and recommendations on the work project: First of all, your legislation for the conservation-type work project is very good. The time has come when the Federal, State, county and city governments should be preparing work projects for our nonskilled or labor-type citizens who are finding it hard to get work because of automation and the development of machinery doing most of the labor which was once their source of livelihood. This workproject program should curtail and stop the giving away of moneys through welfare programs, and would assist the worker in being a good citizen by enabling him to earn his own living. Additional comments are as follows: (1) Legislation should be drafted without a lot of redtape, so that the counties would not be burdened to participate in this program and have to hire a large staff to administer it. (2) Agreements on this program should be with each county that has a park and recreation department. (3) Work-project employees should be paid by the hour and for only the time they work or by the work schedule set up for them, according to each county work schedule and pay plan. (4) Funds available should be turned over to each county, and payment of salaries should be done by the county auditor through the park department payroll. (5) Amounts of funds available for each year, to each county and for how long or for how many years this work project is set up for, should be clearly specified. (6) Specify how these funds will be available, whether on a matching basis or outright grants to each county. I hope that this information will be of some assistance to you. please say "Hello" to my good friend Senator Tommy Kuchel. Sincerely, Would you PAT COSENTINO, Superintendent, Merced County Parks and Recreation Department. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, PARKS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Visalia, Calif., June 25, 1964. U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. NELSON: Possibly your proposed legislation is the lesser of two evils; welfare or made work. I personally am opposed to both but favor the latter over welfare. Under the new welfare program, we worked the unemployed fathers. It was easy to see why they were unemployed. In answer to your specific questions: 1. Could we utilize substantial numbers of workers? We could very easily absorb 50 men and 2 women. 2. What specific kinds of projects? The two women employed would help in expanding and displaying the county historical museum. The men would be employed removing trees, installing new plantings and landscape projects, rock work, developing additional park areas, roadbuilding, and general maintenance. 3. The projects I have in mind would take this crew of men 2 years to complete and would require possibly 20 to maintain. Yours truly, MERLE F. HARP, Superintendent. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, Lodi, Calif., June 23, 1964. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In answer to your letter of inquiry as to the use of unemployed workers on conservation projects, such as park development, etc. If funds were made available we could utilize from 10 to 15 workers in further development of this park. This program sounds like it might be a replica of the old WPA program which worked out quite well in its intent. Very truly yours, JAMES E. FAHEY, MONTEREY COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL Senator GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: The district could utilize low-cost workers for litter cleanup on the lake shoreline, campgrounds, and roadways, and for brush control, clearing of new recreation land, and firefighting. I estimate that 10 men per year would be required for the above at our present recreation areas. Sincerely, KENT LIHME, Administrative Assistant. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, PARK DEPARTMENT, Santa Barbara, Calif., June 22, 1964. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In reply to your letter of June 17, 1964, we are hapy to submit the following information: At present the park system is composed of 22 parks, only 7 of which are developed to their ultimate. In addition to the parks within our department we are also responsible for maintaining and, in a few instances, improving the open spaces. We would be able to use men to build fences, construct roads, lay waterlines, trim trees, grub brush, plant turf, and install sprinkling systems. As you may know, the State of California will have a bond issue on their November ballot for $150 million for park acquisition and development. If this bond issue carries, and indications are that it will, then Santa Barbara County would receive some $615,000 for acquisition and development and certainly additional manpower would assist us greatly in meeting the ever-increasing demands for park facilities. If this information is not as complete as you would like, please let us know. Very truly yours, GEORGE H. ADAMS, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, U.S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. NELSON: Reference is made to your letter of May 15 requesting information on the possibilities associated with the use of unskilled and unemployed workers at various projects for the development of parks and playgrounds in our area. In cooperation with the Los Angeles County Bureau of Public Assistance, the department of parks and recreation is currently involved in an extensive study associated with the use of this type of labor force in the development and expansion of our parks system. Under the proposed program we have been advised that we may have as many as 1,100 men available for our use within the next fiscal year. You can realize our concern in exploring every possible phase of this program. Our preliminary investigation reveals that we can productively use an extensive labor force on minimum and primary improvements to major regional park facilities throughout our jurisdiction. We have, however, encountered certain basic restrictions and problems which must be resolved before the tremendous potential of this work force can be fully realized. These particular problems are centered around the provision of adequate transportation for these individuals from central work congregation points to the somewhat remote locations of our major park facilities. We are also contemplating problems in the provision of adequate and trained supervision to control these work forces in the productive accomplishment of the park development. A third problem currently being investigated is that of providing trained personnel for the provision of necessary minimum plans and specifications to guide these work forces in a logical and practical manner. It is also obvious that certain local responsibilities for the provision of materials and equipment will be required preparatory to inaugurating this program. Of particular concern to us at this time would be the possibility or feasibility of incorporating Federal legislation that would allow county use or acquisition of surplus governmental properties such as trucks and equipment which are necessary to perform these functions. The other responsibilities mentioned above are recognized as local obligations and steps are being taken to provide for them in our proposed program. I realize that this answer is somewhat sketchy at this time, however, we would appreciate the opportunity of sending you a copy of our total report which will list in detail the various problems that we can visualize associated with a program of this type. Your interest in this matter is certainly appreciated and we shall forward to you additional information as it becomes available. Very truly yours, N. S. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Sacramento, Calif., July 6, 1964. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Since the establishment of a park and recreation department in 1959, Sacramento County has been acquiring land and developing master plans for regional parks to serve the rapidly growing population in this community. The American River parkway plan, comprising approximately 5,000 acres through a heavily urbanized area, was adopted by the board of supervisors in 1962 as a portion of the recreation element of the general plan for Sacramento County. To date, approximately 2,000 acres have been acquired or committed to recreation use. Development lags on other regional parks in this country because of lack of funds. Land has been acquired for recreation in strategic locations of the county, but development must be postponed until funds become available. Yet, the pressure for facilities increases daily. The 1960 population was 502,778, an 81.4percent increase over the 1950 population. Predictions are that Sacramento County will have a population of 1 million well before 1980. The need for recreation places is great. We have utilized the manpower available to us through the compulsory work program for welfare recipients to good advantage. However, this is inadequate at best, and we have looked forward to such a program as you suggest. We have approximately 26 miles of stream clearance work, 500 acres of wooded natural area to be trimmed and made safe from fire, several miles of streams to clear, as well as bridges, retaining walls, etc. to build. With our present plans, we could utilize at least 75 man-years for the above projects. Sacramento County is well prepared to participate in a project such as you propose. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. POND, Director. COLORADO RESPONSES STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF GAME, FISH AND PARKS, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In my opinion, the southeast region alone could use 25 men, 5 days a week, year around to utilize unemployed workers on conservation projects such as parks development, roadside improvements, etc. I would say that statewide we could go as high as 500 men year around to help with roadside improvements, stream development and other recreational developments. We are very short on recreational areas, particularly in eastern Colorado, where we could construct campgrounds, picnic areas, boat ramps, make tree plantings and all other activities of this sort at recreational areas along the heavily populated eastern slope of Colorado. I am not really qualified to say much about the areas west of the Continental Divide, however, I am sure that they are badly in need of the same amount of work and as time goes on will need more. I would suggest that Federal funds be made available to employ people in all areas where they have economic difficulties to help with the development of all sorts of recreational areas that we have at present-also there are many that could be developed such as building of reservoirs and other recreational areas that have not even been considered before. In other words, there is no limit to the extent that we could go on this program as far as I am concerned. Very truly yours, HOWARD A. STIEHM, Senior Information Representative. Senator GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF COLORADO, DEAR SENATOR NELSON: It is difficult to give a simple yes or no answer to your letter of May 29 regarding the use of unemployed workers. You asked if we could use "substantial" numbers of workers and I believe I can safely say that we could not use a substantial number. We could use some workers without initiating any new programs, particularly if they had some specific skills. We could use garden workers, adobe workers, general maintenance people (such as painters), and basic construction workers; however, in some instances our ability to place people in jobs would relate directly to funds available for material. As an example; we plan to develop a mining interpretive area of quite sizable proportions on an appropriate site we already own. We could use a considerable |