Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1535121
label
1976/03/31 - Grazing Fees Meeting
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1535121
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1976/03/31 - Grazing Fees Meeting
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Meetings Files
subjects
Livestock
Mines and mineral resources
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1535121
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-03-31
month
3
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-03-01
month
3
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
317199ca8de8330d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 57, folder "1976/03/31 - Grazing Fees Meeting"
of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 57 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
March 30, 1976
MEETING TO DISCUSS GRAZING FEES
Wednesday, March 31, 1976
2:30 p.m. (45 minutes)
The Cabinet Room
From: James M. Cannon
I.
PURPOSE
Senators and Representatives from the Western States
want to discuss with you the increase in grazing fees
on public lands.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS AND PRESS PLAN
A. Background
In January, the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior announced the grazing fees to be
charged on Federal lands for the 1976 grazing
season. The fees were increased about 50 percent
(TAB A). This was in accord with your budget
decision and consistent with the recommendation of
the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.
The setting of fees always has been very contro-
versial. The ranchers and their representatives
say the fee is too high (Congressman Santini's
letter, TAB B). Others say it is too low compared
to rates charged for private lands.
The present system for determining grazing fees
on national forests (Agriculture) and public
domain rangelands (Interior) was implemented in
1969 after a long study and battle with grazing
interests. The fees are based on fair market
value (FMV), calculated annually using private
R.
FORD
GERALD
- 2 -
lease rates as a reference point and an agreed
upon formula. Instead of immediately going to
FMV, however, the difference between the lower
fees prevailing before 1969 and the FMV was to
be closed in ten annual increments. FMV would
be reached by 1980. The 1980 fee would still
be less than private lease rates, recognizing
that the permit holder is responsible for fence
maintenance, etc., and assuming poorer forage
on public lands.
The annual increase was foregone in 1970 and the
increase was limited to 3 percent in 1972. You
decided to forego the 1975 increase because of
the then economic condition of ranchers.
Congress has already addressed this issue. An
amendment to the BLM Organic Act sponsored by
Senator Hansen to establish a new formula for
setting the grazing fee was defeated in floor
action. However, a subcommittee of Senate
Interior Committee has scheduled hearings on
April 30 to discuss S. 3071, a bill containing
the Hansen formula. OMB believes that the proposed
formula bears no relationship to fair market value
and therefore is conceptionally wrong. An Admin-
istration position has not been finalized on S. 3071.
In the House, a subcommittee is considering whether
to include a grazing formula prior to clearing
its version of the BLM Organic Act.
The Congressmen have already taken their arguments
to the Departments and have been told that any
reversal of the current decision must come from
you.
Attached at TAB C are tables comparing grazing
fees with private lease rates. TAB D provides
trends of beef and calf prices and farm costs.
B. Participants: See list attached at TAB E.
C. Press Plan: To be announced.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
- 3 -
III. TALKING POINTS
1. I understand that the increase in grazing
fees may be compounding the problems of
some of the stock operators.
2. I recognize that production costs are going
up while the cattle prices are going down.
3. As you know, I decided last year to forego the
increment for a year, and this year's rate is
not as high as the original formula called for.
GWH/pt 3-30-76
cc:WH files
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Fee per Animal Unit Month * (AUM)
($ millions)
Fiscal Year
Forest Service Bureau of Land Management
Total Receipts
1969
$ .60
$ .44
9
1974
$1.11
$1.00
18
1975 Formula
$1.60
$1.51
27
1975 Actual
$1.11
$1.00
18
@
1976 Fair
Market Value $1.94
$1.94
35
1976 Announced
Rate
$1.60
$1.51
27
*Animal unit month - a grazing unit comprised of one COW and its calf
or the equivalent (5 sheep, etc.) foraging for one month
GERALD
tab A
LIBRATA 0809
CARICE
2-1
1403 LONGUCHTH House OFFICE Building
WATER NO Please Reduces
Congress of the United States
Puace Linds
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20513
MINES AND
TELEPHONE (202) 223-3963
House of Representatives
INTERSTATE AND
C.STRICT CAFICES:
FOREIGN COMMERCE
SUITE -323 Frotenal EUILDING
Washington, D.C. 20515
SUBCOMMATEZ3,
SCO 3 VESA3 BOULEVAND SOUTH
THANSPORTATION COMMERCE
3 Vegas, NEVADA 89101
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
TELEPHONE: (702) 383-6573
February 19, 1976
SUITE 2024 FEDERAL BUILDING
SELECT COMMITTEE Crs AGING
3:0 BOOTH STREET
RIV, NEVADA 89302
TELEPHONE: (702) 734-5637
TAB
FE
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to request a meeting with you on a matter of the greatest
concern to ourselves and our States.
Recently, the Department of Interior compounded the already serious
economic problems of America's stock operators by announcing a 51% increase in
the fee charged for stock grazing on the public lands. If fully implemented,
this new policy will cost Western cattlemen and wool growers more than Five
Million additional dollars in 1976. Given current economic conditions - cost.
of agriculture production up 25% since 1973, selling price of Western cattle
down nearly 20% since 1973 - this proposed increase in grazing fees will be
a fatal blow to many Western stock operators.
America 's consumers will also suffer as a direct consequence of this
grazing fee increase. Consumers will eventually absorb the increased grazing
cost and may additionally be confronted with a dwindling supply of meat.
Therefore, from both consumer's and producer's perspectives, the increased
grazing fee is untimely, ill-advised, and will impair your Administration's
success in controlling inflation.
Furthermore, because recent court decisions raise the imminent possibility
of reductions in grazing allotments and because the West is in the grip of a
severe drought, the proposed 51% grazing fee increase is especially burdensome
this year. A partial rollback of this fee increase would, under these cir-
curstances, be particularly welcome and appropriate.
As representatives of Western states, we have sought support within the
Department of Interior for a partial rollback of this fee increase. In meeting
with Secretary Kleppe and with the Bureau of Land Management Director, Curt
Burklund, we were advised that you alone could reverse or revise the 1976
fee schedule. We, therefore, request the opportunity to discuss with you the
1976 fee, as well as proposals for a revised fee formula.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
February 19, 1976
Page Two
It is our hope that a formula can be agreed upon by the Administration,
the Congress and the livestock industry that will assure a future grazing
fee that is related to costs of production. The basic concept was agreed to
in 1974 by both the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Only through
such a formula can we provide the opportunity for our vital family ranches
to survive.
we would hope to meet with you at your earliest converience.
AS the grazing fee increase is scheduled to take effect on March 1, 1976, //
With best regards, I am,
Sincerely,
s
NAMES D. SANTINI
Member of Congress
JDS:sq
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
February 1976
Page
allen Thee 19, IT. Howe Heared Runnel
Steve Symme
May Baueus May Haum
Ted Gunn 7m Kay
Ten Rreelin
San Seiger
JhB Carlan
Fame Lakars
Kany foldwater
FORD : GERALD LIBRARY
February 19, 1976
Page Four
Joseph in Montoya
Customs P.H.
Mineion R
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
Private Lease Rates, Fair Market Value,
Scheduled Fees, and Actual Fees
(Dollars per AUM)
Private
Fair
Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
Lease
Market
Original
Original
Year
Rate
Value
Schedule
Actual
Schedule
Actual
1968
3.74
-
-
-
-
.33
1969
3.82
1.25
.60
.60
.44
.44
1970
4.05
1.29
.71
.60
.57
.44
1971
4.06
1.36
.86
.78
.73
.64
1972
4.17
1:37
.94
.80
.83
.66
1973
4.57
1.41
1.05
.91
.96
.78
1974
5.82
1.54
1.25
1.11
1.18
1.00
1975
5.75
1.96
1.74
1.11
1.69
1.00
1976
NA
1.94
1.80 1/
1.60
1.76 1/
1.51
Because of slippage in the schedule this is now calculated to be $1.65 for
Forest Service and $1.58 for Bureau of Land Management.
GERALD
R.
FORD
LIBRARY
Western Beef and Calf Prices
and Farm and Ranch Costs
Western Beef Prices
Western Calf Prices
Farm and Ranch Costs
$ per 100 wt.
$ per 100 wt.
of Production Index
1968
$24.50
$28.12
104
1969
27.40
31.60
109
1970
27.90
34.34
114
1971
30.30
36.33
120
1972
34.40
44.49
127
J
1973
44.13
55.36
145
1974
37.90
34.66
168
1975
36.80
28.56
185
GERALD
LIBRARY FORD
3-30-76
Participants
The President
Secretary Kleppe
Secretary Butz
Jack Marsh
Dick Cheney
Max Friedersdorf
Jim Cannon
Bill Kendall
Jim Cavanaugh
Charles Leppert
Royston Hughes
George Humphreys
House
Senate
Max Baucus
Howard Cannon
John Conlan
Pete Domenici
Thomas Foley
Jake Garn
George Hansen
Clifford Hansen
Allan Howe
Paul Laxalt
Manuel Lujan
James McClure
Gunn McKay
Gale McGee
Teno Roncalio
Mike Mansfield
Harold Runnels
Joseph Montoya
Jim Santini
Frank Moss
Joe Skubitz
Sam Steiger
Steven Symms
Curt Berklund, Director, Bureau of Land Management
Jack Horton, Assistant Secretary for Land & Water Resources
Regrets
Congressman James Haley
Congressman Theodore Risenhoover
Congressman Al Ullman
Congressman William Wampler
Senator Dewey Bartlett
Senator Henry Bellmon
Senator Frank Church
Senator Robert Dole
Senator Paul Fannin
Senator Barry Goldwater
Senator Lee Metcalf
Senator Herman Talmadge
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
REQUEST
March 31, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY
SUBJECT:
Grazing Fees
Attached is a copy of my recent letter to Governor O'Callaghan
discussing the Administration's position on grazing fees.
This memorandum was reviewed by OMB and seen by George
Humphreys. If you would like to discuss this issue before
the 2:30 meeting, I will be available.
Attachment
Newda
GURALD
March 25, 1976
Dear Governor O'Callaghan:
This is in response to our earlier communications on the
recent increase in grazing fees on Federal lands.
The President fully appreciated your position on this
matter as indicated last year when he declared a one
year moratorium on any fee increase. However, the
Administration continues to believe that grasing fees
on Federal lands should be based on the fatt-market
value and that the present formula for determining the
value is logical and equitable.
As you know, the fee seating system established in 1969
is in fact an incremental process to reach fair-market
value by 1980. This gives ranchers advance knowledge of
the approximate fee for adjustment purposes. Because of
previous fee moratoriums, we are lagging behind the
original schedule even with the recent increase. This
year's increase is the increase scheduled for last year.
After considerable review, we feel that the proposed
increase should be retained.
In response to your suggestion of phasing the increase,
we believe such action would complicate further the system
of grazing fees on Federal land. Since most billings are
sent out before use begins, we estimate that 40% of the
fees will already be paid by April 1.
We do realise that the increase will affect the economic
status of some ranchers. However, there are Federal
assistance programs aimed at minimizing this impact. The
Emergency Livestock Credit Act provides for guaranteed
loans to ranchers who otherwise could not qualify for a
loan. In addition, a second Farmers Home Administration
program provides similar assistance to smaller operations.
I hope that these programs are brought to the attention of
the impacted ranchers.
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
- 2 -
Finally, the Administration believes that the additional
range improvement funds raised through equitable grazing
fees will increase the benefits of Federal land not only
for gecreased grazing capacity but also in erosion con-
trol and wildlife habitat.
I hope this letter clarifies our position in grazing
fees. If you have any additional questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Stephen G. McConahey
Special Assistant to the President
for Intergovernmental Affairs
The Honorable Mike O'Callaghan
Governor of Nevada
Executive Chambers
Carson City, Nevada 89701
SGMcC:MMB:jz Z
BERALD R FORD LIBRARY
THE STATE OF NEVADA
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER
CARSON CITY, NEVADA
MIKE O'CALLAGHAN
February 10, 1976
GOVERNOR
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
I had looked forward to accepting the
invitation extended by you and Mrs. Ford to the
governors of the states and territories to join
you at dinner on February 23. However, I now
find that pressing obligations here in Nevada
will prevent me from attending the annual Mid-
Winter meeting of the National Governors' Con-
ference in Washington. Thus, I must regretfully
decline.
On another matter, I would like to call to
your attention a matter of serious concern to the
livestock industry of Nevada. The subject is the
grazing fee levied on ranchers who use the public
land under the provisions of the Taylor Grazing
Act.
On December 31, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, Department of Interior, announced it will
increase grazing fees fifty-one percent as of
March 1, 1976. At that time, BLM spokesman said
you had not allowed the Bureau to increase grazing
fees in 1975 "because of difficult economic factors
facing the western livestock industry". I do not
believe the economic factors cited have changed
to the extent that a fifty-one percent increase
is now justified.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
The President
2-10-76 - page 2.
I know you are aware that few businesses
in our economic spectrum are capable of absorbing
such a burden as part of overhead operating ex-
penses during a single year. We can anticipate
many ranchers will sell off large portions of their
herds in order to survive this sudden and drastic
economic blow. The ultimate result, for some at
least, may be bankruptcy and, in any event, it may
be many years before the American livestock industry
recovers from such a blow.
I am not suggesting that an increase in
grazing fees is unwarranted. Rather, it is my con-
viction that this kind of arbitrary adjustment will
work extreme hardship on a great many western live-
stock producers. Accordingly, I respectfully urge
you to take executive action to reduce the percentage
of increase to be imposed this year and thereby
assure the continued economic stability of one of
America's most essential industries.
Again, please accept my warm appreciation
for your invitation. You have my warm good wishes.
Sincerely,
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY
8m
SUBJECT:
Increase on Grazing
Fees on Federal Lands
Attached is a memorandum to Jim Cannon regarding grazing
fees. I would appreciate receiving from you your reaction.
Attachment
LISSAUX GERALD FORD
Fee per Animal Unit Month (AUM)
($ millions)
Fiscal Year
Forest Service Bureau of Land Management
Total Receipts
1969
$ .60
$ .44
9
1974
$1.11
$1.00
18
1975 Formula
$1.60
$1.51
27
1975 Actual
$1.11
$1.00
18
1976 Fair
Market Value $1.94
$1.94
35
1976 Announced
Rate
$1.60
$1.51
27
GERALD
R.
FORD
2-12-76
Feb. 12, 1976
Grazing Fees on Federal Lands
Background Paper
In January, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior announced the grazing
fees to be charged on Federal lands for the 1976 grazing season. The fees were
increased about 50% (see attached table).
The setting of fees always has been very controversial. Some say the fee is too
high, and others say it is too low compared to rates charged for private lands.
The present system for determining grazing fees on national forests (Agriculture)
and public domain rangelends (Interior) was implemented in 1969 after a long study
and battle with grazing interests. The fees are based on fair-market value (FMV),
calculated annually using private lease rates as a reference point and an agreed upon
formula. Instead of immediately going to FMV, however, the difference between the
lower fees prevailing before 1969 and the FMV was to be closed in ten annual increments.
FMV would be reached by 1980. The annual increase was foregone in 1970 and the increase
was limited to 3 percent in 1972. President Ford decided to forego the 1975 increase
because of the then economic condition of ranchers.
The Congress is also interested in this issue. The Report by the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee on the 1976 appropriations bill recommended the 1976
grazing fees be $1.60 per animal unit month (AUM) for the Forest Service and $1.51
per AUM for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This is the fee level recommended
by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and approved by the President.
It was announced on January 2, 1976, and is effective for the grazing year beginning
GERALD
March 1. The Committee report reaffirmed the Federal intention to achieve FMV by 1980.
LISTATY
Animal unit month - a grazing unit comprised of one COW and its calf or the
equivalent (5 sheep, etc.) foraging for one month.
January 29, 1976
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
The President has asked me to thank you for your telegram
of January 23, 1976, requesting a moratorium on raising
the 1976 grazing fee to $1.51 per animal unit month. As
you know, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
have announced the increases that you anticipated.
While the increase may appear large in percentage terms,
we do not balieve it is unreasonable in view of several
factors. First, the reason the increase appears large
this year is that the President agreed to forego an increase
last year. Second, the fee is still at least $.50 below the
fair market value for Federal lands, which is significantly
below the rate on private lands. Any rate below the fair
market value discriminates in favor of those livestock
operations which have Federal permits. Third, approximately
half of the BLM increase will be available for making range
improvement investments which in the long run should help
the permittees. Fourth, the Emergency Livestock Credit
Act makes available $1.1 billion in the FY 1976-1977 period
for ranchers who need financial assistance, which is more
equitable than providing subsidies to all ranchers through
lower grazing fees.
We appreciate receiving your views on this subject.
Sincerely,
Grorge W hays
George H. Tumphreys
Associate Director
Domestic Council
The Honorable Robert List
Attorney General
State of Nevada
Carson City, Nevada
GWH/pt 1/28/76
Oc:WH files
gen
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
7
3
5
GH
The Thite House
Mashington
WHD029 730P EST JAN 23 76
WAB218(1911) (2-043925E023)P 01/23/76
ICS IPMBNGZ CSP
1976 JAN 23 PM 9 06
7028321890 TDBN CARSON CITY NV 256 01-23, 0315P PST
PMS HONORABLE GERALD R FORD, PRESIDENT OF US
PJAN 24 AM 9 07
MAIL ROOM
WHITE HOUSE
WHITE HOUSE OFFICE 1600 PENSYLVANIA AVE
10
WASHINGTON DC 20500
n
DEAR MR PRESIDENT
ON JAN 21, 1976 THE NEVADA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS WITH
14
THE APPROVAL OF THEIR WASHINGTON SUPERIORS ANNOUNCED THE ADOPTION OF
IS
15
A NEW INTENSIVE RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA IT
17
CALLS FOR A CLOSING OF 90 PERCENT OF ALL PUBLIC OWNED RANGELAND IN
13
19
THE STATE OF NEVADA FOR A CRITICAL 2 AND 1/2 MONTH PERIOD
20
ON A REVIEW OF THE SITUATION IT IS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT THE
21
22 A NNOUNCEMENT OF THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN MADE PREMATURELY WITHOUT
23
ADEQUATE STUDY BEING DONE INTO THE SEVERE ECONOMIC IMPACT THIS
24
25
PROGRAM WILL HAVE ON THE CITIZENS IN THE STATE OF NEVADA AND THE
26
&
FORD
2
3
4
5
LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY WITHIN THE STATE AND NATIONWIDE IN AN EVER
INCREASING INFLATIONARY ECONOMY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SEEK TO AID
IT'S CITIZENS RATHER TO INCREASE THE OVERALL BURDEN ON THEM THIS
10
ANNOUNCED PROGRAM HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT A THOUROUGH AND EXTENSIVE
11
STUDY INTO THE NEEDS FOR IT'S ADOPTION IN ALL PARTS OF THE STATE OF
12
13
NEVADA
14
FURTHER IF THERE HAS BEEN DAMAGE TO PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC RANGE IN
15
16
THE STATE OF NEAVDA I SUBMIT THAT IT IS PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE ACTS
17
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ITS MANAGEMENT OF THESE LANDS
18
19
THEREFORE I URGE THAT PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROPOSED
B
PROGRAM A MORE COMPLETE STUDY TO BE DONE AS TO THE ECONOMIC IMPACT
r.
=
IT WILL HAVE THE NEED FOR SUCH AN EXTENSIVE PROGRAM AND THE
w
DEVELOPMENT OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES WHICH THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY
"
X
CAN LIVE WITH I INVITE YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR INTERVENTION IN THIS
15
4 ? 3 5 s
1
**
2
3
4
s
IMPORTANT MATTER
6
Z
BEST REGARDS
8
ROBERT LIST ATTORNEY GENERA OF NEVADA
9
10
NNNN
11
12
13
595
14
15
15
it
17
13
19
20
21
22
V
23
24
25
25
i
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
INFORMATION
March 31, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNOL Jan
SUBJECT:
Mineral Leasing Receipts
Dick Cheney thinks that the subject of State's
share in mineral leasing receipts may come up
in your meeting today with the Western Congressmen.
The attached background paper may be useful to you
in case the subject does arise.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
SHARING FEDERAL
MINERAL LEASE RECEIPTS WITH STATES
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, provides
that States receive 37-1/2 percent of Federal mineral
leasing receipts except for Alaska which receives 90 per-
cent. Fifty-two and one-half percent is designated for
the Reclamation Fund for use in the construction of
irrigation and other water projects by the Department of
the Interior except in Alaska where the Reclamation program
does not operate. Ten percent of the receipts are deposited
as miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.
Since the cost of the Reclamation program exceeds these
monies, it is necessary to use appropriations from the
General Fund for the Reclamation program.
In addition to the Mineral Leasing Act, there are a variety
of other acts that provide for the sharing of Federal grazing,
timber and geothermal receipts with States and in some cases
with counties.
Several bills have been introduced in Congress that would
raise the State share (summary of bills - TAB A). The
Administration has opposed any alteration of the formula
on the grounds that all the proposals are arbitrary and bear
no relationship in amount or timing to problems of social
and economic impacts generated by mineral development on
Federal lands.
To meet the problem, the Administration proposed legislation--
H. R.11792 and S.3007--on February 4, 1976. To date, there
have been no hearings scheduled.
The proposed legislation was designed to implement the
following principles:
Assistance should be available only where
impacts actually occur.
Assistance should be available at the time of
need, which is primarily at the front end, and
it should end after it is no longer needed.
Assistance should be tied to all Federal energy
resources and it should be available to all juris-
dictions in need regardless of geographic location.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
SUMMARY OF BILLS
The following bills would alter the existing State share
of mineral leasing receipts:
1.
H.R. 6721 (Mink) Coal leasing -- passed House --
would increase State share to 50 percent. Adminis-
tration has supported coal leasing bill but without
changing payments to States.
2.
S.391 (Metcalf) Coal leasing and surface mining --
passed Senate -- would increase State share to 60 per-
cent.
3.
S.507 (Haskell) Bureau of Land Management Organic Act --
passed Senate -- would increase State's share of
receipts to 60 percent and would provide 3 percent
loans for impact aid. Administration proposed similar
BLM Organic Act but without these provisions.
4.
H.R. 9717 (Evans) Payments to States based on acreage
of Federal lands -- may be reported shortly. Would
permit State and county to elect to receive either
$.75 per acre or their current share of Federal
receipts under several existing laws including mineral
leasing.
5.
S.521 (Jackson) amends OCS Act -- passed Senate. Would
increase payment to States under Mineral Leasing Act
to 60 percent and provide impact aid program.
6.
S.586 (Hollings) Amends the Coastal Zone Management
Act -- passed Senate. Would increase payments to
States under the Mineral Leasing Act to 60 percent.
Companion bill, H.R. 3981, which has passed House,
does not amend Mineral Leasing Act.
While no conference action has been scheduled for either
the coal leasing (H.R. 6721 and S. 391) or the Coastal
Zone Management legislation (S. 586 and H.R. 3981), such
action is very likely this spring.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRAST
- 2 -
Assistance should not stimulate over building
and should not replace State and local tax effort.
The program should be administratively simple and
provide maximum discretion to the States in deter-
mining the types and location of public facilities.
The end users of energy and the population which
benefit from the economic development should bear
the financial responsibility of providing public
facilities except in cases where the energy activity
does not materialize as projected due to circum-
stances beyond the control of the States and
localities.
It provides for a $1 billion revolving fund for loans, loan
guarantees, and planning grants. Assistance would be
available according to a formula based upon population in-
creases resulting or expected from Federal energy resource
development. The governors of affected States would have
broad discretion to determine the form and distribution of
assistance within their States. Loans would be forgiven
under certain circumstances when the Federal energy develop-
ment and related activities failed to occur as expected and
therefore would not support repayment.
&
FORD
GERALD