OCR Text |
Show ulvjh wi 1.1"- ' Feds want states to pay for ny collecting mineral revenue By Helene C. Monberg, Vernal Express, Washington Correspondent mtal A Washington The Reagan Administr, . on has proposed to Congress th; I, PC ayments under the payment-in-lieu-o ,es axes (PILT) program for public lar ounties remain the same, at $96 millioi 5 it has been during the past two year: But the Administration has also pr osed a change in the way that tr lineral pie is cut in the future betwee ,6l le states and Uncle Sam. In the 191 er adget appendix, the Administratic 10 lakes its pitch for the states to pick i 1 art of the cost of collecting revenue om mineral leases on public lands. 5 H5, "States receive at least 50 percent , j je revenues from mineral leases ( oJblic lands, but all of the costs of cc ' . ding these revenues are borne by tl 9-065 era government. In 1984 it is propo 1 that the cost of royalty manageme Hivities be deducted from federal o lore mineral leasing revenues befo: ,6 ese revenues are distributed.. It is al: jwicheS'oposed that amounts appropriated f atre lyments in lieu of taxes be deducted milar fashion." The same portion of the budget i lgg cated that the Administration expec 1 avails receive almost $2 billion from miner ' r7o eipts in 1984, and to make paymen 9J0 the states totalling $995,434,000 for t seal year beginning Oct. 1, 1983. T I deral payments to the states totall Ved 36,101,000 for 1982 fiscal year, and th e expected to total $556,534,000 for t 83 fiscal year from mineral receip If and when Congress goes along wi )f '.deduction, this correspondent aski ater wo' the Merior press briefing, what ha ns to the PILT payments? 'They come right off the top," the I InCi 'r briefing officer said. So even QiiDDly Tgress goes alon8 foe Administr I n request to charge the states f irner nerai receipt couectionS) sucri charg 3581 uld not cut into PILT payments, licated. Vnother press representative queri n Ever ' Interior briefing team about how ,uth 'lved at the estimated receipt tot: ' the current and 1984 fiscal years light of the reduction in cost of oil ar natural gas. The answer was vague, ar it indicated the figures for 1984, in pa ticular, might be on the high side. a" The budget special analysis indicate Jt the Administration expects feder; f- grant-in-aid outlays to states and loc 'd government to increase by a sma n percentages (about two percent) be s- ween 1983 and 1984. This, despite the hi o- and cry from the National League le Cities and the National Association m Counties about selected cutbacks. The i 34 creases from $88.2 billion spent on sta n and local grants in aid in 1982 are e ip pected to result in total outlays of $93 35 million in 1983 and $95.9 billion in 19f Virtually all of the increases will con of from the highway grants to repair a: )n upgrade primarily the interstate hig (i. way system and payments to i le dividuals, such as medicaid and nutriti s. aid. Other grants are expected to decli n a little, providing congress goes aloi n with the Administration 1984 budget pi re posal on grants. A battle royal is e so pected over the Administration loc or grants proposals, in The Mountain states of Colorado, UU Wyoming, Montana and the two Dakot got the greatest amount of per capita i from "the feds" in the nation outside ! , . the territories in 1972-$22 per capita. Tl lts .had risen to $411 per capita by 1982, t h now that area only stands fifth in the r h capita aid category behind the territor d of Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, N York and New Jersey, the rest of t ng Northeast and the Pacific Northwest ts eluding Alaska. |