ATLANTA, GA., July 19, 1967. Hon. PHIL M. LANDRUM, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: An action has been initiated by the District Corps of Engineers in connection with the lakes in Georgia under their control which is totally unfair to the property owners whose land surrounds these waters. It is felt that you would want to look into this matter and take action to rectify the inequity. The enclosed letter was mailed to all persons who had floating docks on these lakes, announcing that it would be necessary to make application for a new dock permit within 60 days and pay a fee for the privilege of using the waters for this purpose. It was just last year that the Corps of Engineers issued what were called by them "PERMANENT PERMITS" for these docks which were to be valid without necessity of renewal as long as they complied with the standards set up by the Corps of Engineers. Now they tell us that these Permanent Permits will expire December 31, 1967. The fee imposed, in many cases, will amount to a greater sum that was originally charged by the Corps of Engineers for rental of the lots. Floating docks in coves on Lake Allatoona where my property is located are unusable for six months of the year due to fluctuation of the lake level. Either they are inaccessible due to Spring floods or they are grounded by excessive draw-down for power generation. This dock fee discriminates against the property owners, who pay taxes on their facilities, in favor of transients who are provided with camp sites, drinking water, tables, toilets, roads, and launching ramps without any cost to them, furnished and maintained by the Corps of Engineers. As a property owner on Lake Allatoona, I urgently request that you take such action as you can to have this unfair and discriminatory action of the Corps of Engineers rescinded. Sincerely yours, HERBERT L. REED. Mr. LANDRUM. Just one sentence from Mr. Martin's letter says: The fee charges have had a tremendously damaging effect on our business financially. Our sales for the month of July alone were damaged more than $35,000 and some $50,000 for the first six months of 1967. This is a small business trying to promote recreational business, tourism, making it possible for people to enjoy the lake facilities in more comfortable surroundings, working to build a business that makes him a contributing citizen, makes him a strong taxpayer-and yet an action of an agency of our Government, and I think unwisely imposing these user fees, is pushing this gentleman out of business. Another letter which goes to the opposite end of the pole from a retired schoolteacher, Mrs. T. A. Kitchens of Oakwood, Ga. again on Lake Lanier: We have built our retirement home on Lake Lanier after saving for 32 years while we worked at teaching and railroading. There are four other families in our neighborhood who are in the same predicament. We cannot find sales for what we have, and we cannot afford the fees. Then the secretary and treasurer of the citizens committee, which was formed in this area for the opposition of these fees, Mr. Boyd W. Smith, has written and drawn a comparison between the cost of these docking facilities and the ad valorem, county ad valorem taxes for residential facilities and for the same facilities. One example, which was given to me: A young man married with two children, he is in his middle thirties, a salesman for one of the automobile companies was fortunate enough to find a home out on the lake in the area that cost him about $10,000. The ad valorem assessment on that home in Hall County, State and county taxes, ran about $75.50. He built with his own hands, in his own labor, a boat dock for his boat so he and his children and family could enjoy it; and at the rates proposed, a $10 annual fee, which I think incidentally most people would agree to pay a flat fee of some reasonable nature, some $10 but the fee proposed by the Corps of Engineers on this young man's docking facility with a $10 base and 712 cents a square foot for all over the first 200 square feet would make the annual tax for this facility on the water, not using any land, not infringing upon any access or ingress that the Government might have whatever, just sitting on the water is $44. And the value of it is about $600. So the Corps of Engineers is about to levy a fee against a man who pays to the State and county ad valorem tax on residential property valued at more than $10,000, $70-odd per year, and he is going to pay $40-odd a year for a $600 boat dock simply to satisfy an arbitrary assessment by the Corps of Engineers. Now, I have other examples of the contrast and comparison between the ad valorem tax cost and the boat dock. With it are diagrams that I think clearly portray the unfairness, and I think the unwise action that the Corps of Engineers has taken. And I ask that these diagrams be included with these statements. Now, from a gentleman who has facilities over on Lake Allatoona, a portion of which is in the district represented by my young friend from Atlanta, Ga., Congressman Fletcher Thompson, says this about Lake Allatoona, and it is a point to be considered in all of the Corps of Engineers facilities that are built for multipurposes, that is flood control, electricity, and recreation, and we know that their water level fluctuates from time to time during the year, and we know that it is necessary that they are built for reservoir purposes and for the generation of electricity. We do not guarantee these people that get permits any water level. We cannot afford to. I do not think we ought to, and I do not think they ought to expect it. But if we put this user fee, which the corps proposes, on them, we are going to charge them for the use of water space or boat docking space on the water a substantial portion of the year that they cannot be using them. Listen to what Mr. Herbert L. Reid who has a place out on Allatoona in my district said: Floating docks in coves on Lake Allatoona where by property is located are unusable for 6 months of the year due to fluctuation of the lake level. Either they are inaccessible due to spring floods or they are grounded by excessive drawdown for power generation. He is stating a fact, he is not complaining. Now, in addition to all this documentary evidence that I have been speaking from, I want to ask the committee's indulgence while I read an editorial from one of the finest newspapers in the State of Georgia, the Gainesville Daily Times. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would the gentleman yield, because I think you have made a very significant point. I did not want you to get off this point before you read the editorial, that being the net effect of the user fee would be to charge something to someone for something you could not deliver, namely, the guarantee of a given water level. Mr. LANDRUM. Yes, sir; the gentleman is correct. Continuing with this editorial, entitled "Dock Fees Unreasonable," and this editorial written by a newspaperman who has done more to promote tourism in north Georgia and western North Carolina than a single individual that I can recall: "The imposition of fees on docks, roadways, and other more or less permanent private installations on Lake Lanier seems to us unreasonable. The Corps of Engineers, which built and maintains the Buford Reservoir, is following congressional doctrine in the matter, but this does not make the fees any wiser or more palatable. We have been penalized in the area already and have been denied some of the side benefits of the beautiful reservoir by Federal policies, some of which have change since the lake was filled. When the dam was first authorized, its stated purposes were flood control, power generation and navigation water storage. Recreation was not at that time permitted to count in whether the project would pay for itself. Since that time, recreation has become a part of the cost-benefit ratio calculations in determining whether a dam project is an economically sound venture by the Government. Reservoirs built in the recent past, therefore, receive considerably more funds for recreation development than does Lanier. Newer reservoirs are also eligible for recreation development grants and matching funds that Lake Lanier is not eligible for. As an aside, Congress certainly should consider including older reservoirs, such as ours, in the newer recreation development laws. We see the necessity for registering with the Engineers anything built on Federal property or on the waters themselves. A small registration and inspection fee ranging up to, say, $10 for large installation, would be reasonable. It would assure the public that individuals benefitting from proximity to the public's lake would build and maintain worthy structures that would not blow away and become hazards and that would not deteriorate and spoil the appearance of the shoreline. It would provide a method of control and this is certainly more important than the revenue. We do not think there would be strong public objections to this sort of a use and inspection fee. Under the regulations soon going into effect, however, a 20- by 30-foot boathouse accompanied by an open dock and gang-planks totaling the same square footage could command a fee of about $100 a year. Meanwhile, individuals from other areas may launch boats at a public site and pay no fee whatever. Since the use of the waters for recreation and possible tourist development are the only advantages to the people who live in the lake area, the basic purposes of Buford Dam being served downstream, we are particularly concerned about high charges for those uses. Now, the market for property on the lake, Lake Lanier specifically, and I think also Allatoona-Lake Allatoona, for property there also, is just dwindling away, disappearing. People are finding that they cannot afford $100 to $200 a year for these facilities there on the water. So they are finding some excuse to offer their property for sale-no takers. They do not want it. One individual here with a welding service developing a fine business is being put out of operation on account of these fees. It is my hope that the committee will see fit to report favorably the legislation to prohibit these fees, because I think they are exhorbitant and work hardships on the owners of the facilities. I think they are entirely unnecessary, and I think actually that the corps may be inviting an area of trying to raise revenue and convert it into the General Treasury at the expense of people who cannot afford it. We are about to let the corps do something if we allow this to happen, we are about to let the corps do something that will make it so that only the wealthy, the very rich can enjoy the facilities that all the people's money has provided. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Mr. Edmondson. Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like to compliment the gentleman on a very fine statement and express appreciation for the case histories and specific items. I think they are very helpful. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, sir. Mr. JONES. Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. I also would like to commend our colleague for an excellent statement and to associate myself fully with his remarks. Mr. JONES. Also this morning we are privileged to have before us our good friend from Texas, Mr. Cabell. STATEMENT OF HON. EARLE CABELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. There is very little that I can add to the very able testimony that has been presented already by our colleague Mr. Edmondson and by Mr. Landrum. However, I feel I can bring this possibly into a little bit sharper focus insofar as my own area and my own district is concerned. I was certainly happy to join with Mr. Edmondson and others in cosponsoring this legislation because there has been no act of the Government, no act of this Congress that has aroused more resentment among the people of my district than has the imposition of these fees, both entrance fees and these exhorbitant fees that have been set up for the dockage. There are four Engineer-controlled lakes in our immediate vicinity and which are accessible to the people of my district. In three of those the people of Dallas and Dallas County have a material stake in themselves. It is not a question as Mr. Edmondson brought out of double taxation, but in our case it is triple taxation. Because the city of Dallas has made tremendous, many millions of dollars of contribution toward the construction of these lakes, because they form a part of our water supply. So not only are those people who are being charged these fees paying for the Federal part of that construction through Federal taxes, but either by bond payments or on the cost of the water which they use they are amortizing that part of those lakes which is a part of their water supply. So actually they are undergoing a triple taxation by the imposition of these fees. There is not one of them, maybe with one or two exceptions, that would be opposed to any reasonable fee imposed for specialized services that were not available to all people. I have reference there to beaches, campsites, and so on as Mr. Edmondson mentioned. But as far as accessibility or availability or their use of picnic facilities there, people who are just out for an outing, where there is no particular extra cost involved, then they do resent it. And I concur in that resentment. I sincerely hope that in the wisdom of this committee and the wisdom of the Congress that we can put a stop to this matter of using public facilities for which the general public has already paid as an avenue of revenue for other purposes and other uses. Yes, I know that our State fish and game departments in several instances have encouraged this because there has been a certain allocation of those incomes for general use of the fish and game department. But I do not think that those people who want to do a little brim fishing, want to catch a few catfish, or a few freshwater bass should have to be charged for the creation of better fishing spots off the coast or for deepwater fishing and that sort of thing. Let each carry its own burden, rather than taking one class of sportsmen, one class of people who are seeking recreation, having them pay the cost of providing these facilities that they do not normally use. And so, gentlemen, I appreciate very much this opportunity of giving you this brief testimony and the opportunity of bringing into focus, as I said, the situation involving those people who have paid already for the creation of those facilities. Thank you very sincerely for your consideration. Mr. JONES. Mr. Roberts. Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to thank my distinguished colleague Congressman Cabell for the statement he has made, because the lakes, two or three of them, that he is talking about serve his district but are located in mine. One of them particularly, Lake Lavon, which he is referring to, has already had 412 million visitors this year. This is the source of water supply for 10 towns or cities in my district, and one or two in his district. We are repaying a loan at the rate of nearly $1 million a year. But if the Corps of Engineers collect fees, in substantial amounts, say that they just collect a dollar apiece from a fourth of those people, they would collect enough to equal the total payments on the cost of labor. This would be double payment. I appreciate my colleague bringing this into focus. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Cabell, do I recall correctly from your background that you were, at one time, mayor of Dallas? Mr. CABELL. That is correct. Mr. CLAUSEN. In light of this previous experience, you had an opportunity to observe the overall administration of these lakes and the facilities that were provided recreation purposes for people. The question I would like to ask is what health and sanitation problems did you find, was there a cost factor, was there a cost to the city of Dallas that was not being provided for? Health and sanitation problems require policing. Do you have the problems on your lakes? Mr. CABELL. Very definitely. There is and has to be some control of sanitation of feces, waste material that would be around there. There has to be some control of that. But that is not an insurmountable problem and one that is not too costly. Mr. CLAUSEN. Who provides the required dollars to administer this? Mr. CABELL. Well, in the case of where those lakes are a part of our water supply, we have been carrying-I say we, the city of Dallas, through its own department of public health, have policed much of that. Mr. CLAUSEN. They have no objection to the continued assumption of this responsibility? Mr. CABELL. No, because they would do it anyway. Any conscientious public health department that was depending upon any particular |