 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
An Exclusive IPR Interview
Secretary Watt Gives Views
Editor's Note
GENERAL Q. What is your philosophy of parks and recreation? A. I believe public parks and recreation are valid products of government. They should be financed and provided by the level of government closest to the citizens who benefit. The Federal Government should administer natural, cultural and recreational areas of greatest significance to the entire Nation. The State and local governments should provide other park and recreation areas to the degree that the using public is able and willing to pay. As in most fields of endeavor, the private sector should be free to fund, develop and administer recreation pursuits that can turn a profit. Q. What benefits, if any, are derived by the individual, the economy and the society? A. I regard parks, recreation, and other public uses of the outdoors as healthy, productive facets of our society. Outdoor recreation occupies a growing portion of our individual lives and, as a result, the recreation industry claims an increasing portion of the Gross National Product each year. The public and private sectors are actively involved in providing recreation services. It is clear that the Federal government cannot and should not be expected to provide the financial support to meet all of the public needs. As with every public service provided by government, we must temper our programming so that it is reasonable and manageable under current funding and staffing restraints. NATIONAL POLICY Q. What is the current national policy for acquisition, development and preservation of our natural resources and park/recreation/historic areas? A. Generally we must administer for public use and preservation those lands and resources within our current ownership before we acquire additional land. The Department has recently adopted a "Land Protection Policy" protecting more resource values with less appropriated funds in a shorter period of time by using various alternatives to full fee title acquisition and a greater cooperation with landowners and other State, local and private groups. Under current economic stresses, available park and recreation funds will be used in the foreseeable future to maintain and operate existing areas and facilities. Emphasis is being placed in the National Park System on health and safety requirements, while providing adequate public access. Q. How does this policy differ from previous policies established under the Ford and Carter Administrations? A. Emphasis on acquisition of additional land has been shifted from adding to the Federal estate which is one-third of America to a cooperative program which involves all levels of government and the private sector. Consequently, funds for State and local acquisition and development and Federal land acquisition have been reduced from prior-year levels. Q. How is the Department of Interior seeking to create a balance between the conflicting uses of Federal lands (i.e., preservation and enhancement vs. conservation and multiple use of natural resources)? A. This Administration is focusing upon balanced multiple use of natural resources. Development and utilization of the Nation's resources are accorded consideration equal to that given to preservation except in areas designated by Congress for single use. Balanced management of resources can only be attained when all possible public uses are weighed. This has not always been done in the past. FUNDING Q. Recreation Fees. How much of the cost of recreation should the user pay? A. User fees and charges cannot and should not bear the full cost of managing national parks, recreation areas, monuments, and other sites. They should not be set so high that they would preclude use of areas and facilities by the public. Nevertheless, those using parks and recreation areas the most should contribute the most toward their operation and maintenance. The majority of visitors to major Illinois Parks and Recreation 16 November/December 1982 national parks and other sites are able to afford expensive travel, lodging, and other costs, so that reasonable entrance and user charges should create no particular hardship. In the case of areas near or accessible to urban populations, entrance and user charges either should not be levied or should be kept at minimum levels so all citizens can use the areas and facilities regardless of ability to pay. Q. To what extent does the public benefit justify subsidies? A. The Federal government is uniquely capable of acquiring, administering for nationwide public use, and preserving the areas and resources that have national significance. Revenues from these areas will never be large enough to pay the total costs. The people who use the park and recreation areas should, therefore, contribute to the costs associated with the continuation of such areas. However, national public benefit also justifies the additional funds necessary for the preservation and public use of national treasures, such as Yellowstone and Yosemite.
Q. What is the Federal role in providing financial and technical assistance to State and local governments? A. Significant Federal financial assistance to State and local governments for recreation purposes is not possible, given current economic conditions. Technical assistance will be provided as funding and personnel permit. Improved management techniques, more efficient methods, and new funding approaches will be made available to State, local and private recreation providers. Units of the National Park System should demonstrate techniques for ideal management and operations for State, local and private managers and the public. Q. Will block grants take the place of Land and Water Conservation Funds? A. There is no plan to convert the Land and Water Conservation Fund to a block grant program. Q. What are your primary objections to funding the state side portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund? A. Reducing Federal outlays, while painful at times, is an absolutely essential ingredient of the President's economic recovery program. Therefore, new funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program will not be proposed by the Administration during the current budget cycle. Q. If states are not retained as partners in the provision of park and recreation services, can the National Park Service afford to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for recreation services? A. State, local and private programs have been the principle providers of recreation services to the public in the past and it is expected that they will continue to be in the future. The National Park Service should not be expected to satisfy a greater share of the increasing demand for recreation services. The National Park Service will continue to practice its good neighbor policy with State, local and private groups and that policy should in no way be necessarily abrogated by increasing recreation needs. The National Park Service is being provided with significantly increased operating and maintenance funds to bring areas within the National Park System up to acceptable health and safety standards to provide a more enjoyable experience to visitors. Q. Please respond to the statement below.
— The total Federal investment of state side Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys represent an investment in parks and recreation which elicits afar greater return for the dollar by acting as a catalyst to bring out available local moneys and stimulate local economies. These Land and Water Conservation Fund projects are labor intensive at their inception and continue to be so after the project has been completed with youth being the primary recipients of these newly created positions. A. There is no question that the Land and Water Conservation Fund program has been effective. It has provided "seed" money to stimulate State and local recreation funding. It has stimulated construction and created jobs. Now that a significant base of public recreation has been provided for the State and local levels of government, we believe that future progress can and should be charted by the level of government closest to the citizens who benefit. Q. How are the funds previously appropriated for the Land and Water Conservation program currently being used? A. Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys totaling $454.9 million have been obligated for specific projects but not yet expended. These funds remain available to the States for their targeted purposes. This is a sizable Federal commitment that will enable many worthwhile recreational projects to go forward during this time of greater fiscal responsibility when all levels of government must choose the degree of support for each of its responsible activities. Q. For the past generation, the role of the Federal government has expanded in numerous ways, including recreation. The current Administration Illinois Parks and Recreation 17 November/December 1982 is defining a "new Federalism. " What does this mean for recreation? A. New Federalism calls for the Federal government to relinquish to State and local governments all functions which they can adequately and appropriately perform. Q. What is the future outlook? A. I believe the citizens of every State will pay for park and recreation programs if the need is strong enough. Q. Does not the history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program represent true Federalism in action, particularly with its components of Federal, State and local governments working in conjunction toward a common end? A. This Administration has not questioned the validity of assistance by the Federal government for good State and local programs. Current economic conditions have forced us to reduce or eliminate many good Federal-State-local partnerships. Funding and direction has been from the Federal to the State government in the past. The "New Federalism" will place the State and local governments in the lead for deciding their future direction for recreation and other public responsibilities. ILLINOIS-MICHIGAN CANAL Q. Are you supportive of the Illinois-Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor project as proposed by Congressman Corcoran and Senators Percy and Dixon? A. I support some appropriate designation to recognize and protect the cultural values there. However, there should be no Federal land acquisition involved and Federal administration of the areas would not be appropriate. Also, care must be taken to be sure there would be no adverse effects under current environmental laws. Q. If so, when would be the earliest date this project could be completed? (Senator Charles Percy has indicated that Governor James Thompson supports this project and it has been endorsed by the Illinois House and Senate.) A. The timing would depend entirely upon the action of Congress on proposals by the Congressional Delegation. PERSONAL — SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Q. As Secretary of the Interior you represent diverse ranges of special interests, with often conflicting views. How does this affect the policies and philosophy you are attempting to promote? A. I regard my job as one of seeking balance among the forces of development, preservation, and judicious public use. My philosophy and the policies now in place can be accurately labeled multiple use. Q. What would you consider to be your major successes, thus far, as Secretary of the Interior? A. During my reasonably brief tenure as Secretary, I believe we have made excellent progress in bringing change to the Department and instilling a "good neighbor" spirit into our relationship with State and local governments. Many specific areas of progress are detailed in Interior's recent annual report which interested readers can obtain by writing The Office of Public Affairs, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. Q. And, what have been the most difficult obstacles that you have had to overcome? A. My greatest disappointment has probably been the willingness of the national media to accept the distorted and alarmist descriptions of my policies fed them by the paid leadership of a few groups who have a political rather than natural resource agenda. Fortunately, this situation is improving and reporters here and especially outside of Washington are asking better questions and writing better balanced stories. Q. What are your favorite recreational pursuits? A. I enjoy fishing, hiking, boating, snowmobiling, skiing, tennis and horseback riding. Biography James G. Watt was nominated by President Reagan December 22, 1980 to be the 43rd U.S. Secretary of the Interior and was confirmed by the Senate on January 22, 1981. He was sworn into office at the White House on January 23, 1981. From July, 1977 to 1980, he was President and Chief Legal Officer of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a non-profit public interest law center dedicated to bringing balance to the courts in the defense of individual liberty and the private enterprise system. From November, 1975 to July, 1977 he was Commissioner of the Federal Power Commission and from January, 1977 to July, 1977 he was Vice Chairman of the FPC. During the period, 1972 to 1977 he was Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. He produced the first Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan. From May, 1969 to June, 1972, he served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Interior Department where he was responsible for water and power resource activities of the Department. Prior to that time he had served in other leadership positions in the Department. A native of Wyoming, he was born January 31, 1938 and graduated with Honors with a B.S. degree in 1960 from the University of Wyoming. In 1962 he was graduated from the University of Wyoming College of Law with a J.D. degree. Illinois Parks and Recreation 18 November/December 1982 |
|
|
