OCR Text |
Show Western Resources WRAP-UP Payment-in-lieu-of-taxes By Helene C. Monberg Vernal Express Washington Correspondent Washington The federal payment-in-i-of-taxes (PILT) program which pro-es pro-es annual payments from Uncle Sam public land counties is in serious able. he PILT program likely would be in hambles at this point if Chairman les A. McClure, R-Idaho, of the ate Appropriations Interior Subcom-tee Subcom-tee had not hung very tough in favor unding PILT for the past three years, ring that time the Carter Administra-l Administra-l requested nothing in the 1981 budget PILT and the Reagan Administration uested funding at less than half the il appropriations for the 1981-83 fiscal irs. The Reagan Administration has 3 requested that some drastic changes made in the program; its proposed inges are so drastic that Rep. Manuel jan, Jr., R-N.M., ranking Republican the House Interior Committee, has used to introduce the Administration iposal, even by request, in this lgress. - tongressional leaders are less than en-siastic en-siastic about the program, which lefits only about 1500 public land coun-, coun-, mainly isolated, mainly in the West, inly in low-populated areas. Chair-n Chair-n Sidney R. Yates, D-Ill., of the House erior Appropriations Subcommittee i fought the program for years and s successful in putting the 1982 In-ior In-ior Department funding bill thru the ' use without any funding at all for the LT program. in attempt by Reps. Lujan and Dan irriott, R-Utah, to restore $100 million the PILT program by floor amend-mt amend-mt in the House on July 21, 1981, fail-by fail-by a vote of 320-96. Yates successful-beat successful-beat back the Lujan-Marriott PILT lendment with the argument that the LT program is unnecessary and the LT payments are duplicative. Rep. seph M. McDate, R-Pa., ranking publican on the Yates Subcommittee, likewise cool to PILT as an un-cessary un-cessary program and has fought it. Marmed at the poor showing in the mse last year by the Lujan-Marriott . LT amendment, the National Associa-n Associa-n of Counties ( NACO) drafted a bill induced in-duced by Rep. Ray Kogovsek, D-lo., D-lo., to try to assure continuing funding nually for PILT. The Kogovsek bill R-5260) failed to clear the Environ-jnt Environ-jnt Subcommittee of the House In-ior In-ior Committee, both chaired by Rep. )rris K. Udall, D-Ariz., even tho the bill s introduced on Dec. 16, 1981 and hear-;s hear-;s were held on it on July 13, with jorous support from NACO and many :stern county officials. Jdall told Western Resources Wrap-up 'RW) on Dec. 21 he had not tried to )ve the Kogovsek bill "because it 5med like a losing proposition to me. iterior Secretary James G.) Watt and i Administration objected to it, it luld have faced rough going in the luse, and we had other legislation with ?her priority." Gerrie S. Greene of NACO reported in e September NACO Public Lands :wsletter the Kogovsek bill "is dead for e 97th Contress. . .The bill has not mov-mainly mov-mainly because PILT proponents on e (House Interior Committee are con-rned con-rned that PILT enemies may use HR 50 as an excuse to cripple the program ' amending it on the floor. They feel ch open exposure of the PILT program a generally hostile House may be the hide these opponents are looking for gut the program." The Kogovsek bill, which garnered 14 isponsors was a very simple measure, established a permanent trust fund iligating the remaining 10 percent of ineral leasing receipts, not presently iligated, to PILT payments. PILT lyments would continue to be subject appropriation, but if an appropriation ere not made by Congress in any fiscal !ar, the earmarked funds would remain mailable for appropriation in subse-lent subse-lent fiscal year or fiscal years. It would ake only a slight change in the 1920 ineral Leasing Act, and it would not mvert PILT into an entitlement pro-'am pro-'am (like social security, for example) ider which payments are mandated, 'gardless of the annual appropriations "ocess. Many Western members of Congress :lieve the PILT program would have n shelved by now it had not been for rategic help from McClure and Chair-an Chair-an Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., of the ?nate Appropriations Committee ishing yearly for its continuation. With e rise in the importance of the Congres-onal Congres-onal Budget Committees, at the ex-?nse ex-?nse of the Congressional Appropriates Appropria-tes Committees, it appears unlikely iat PILT can continue much longer ithout some change in the law, suppers sup-pers have told WRW. PILT was one of the recommendations the Public Land Law Review Commis-on Commis-on (PLLRC) in its report to Congress 1 1970. Many at the time doubted that ongress would approve of in-lieu lyments primarily to the "boonie" unties in the West to compensate them " their federal lands which are exempt m local taxes. But six years later, a ILT bill passed Congress and was sign-i sign-i into law as PL 94-595 by President rd. NACO has always been the driv ing force behind PILT. PILT authorizes minimum payments to counties and local governments to compensate them partially for the tax immunity of natural resource lands, including in-cluding national forests and grasslands, national parks, wilderness areas, lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and, also by later amendment, amend-ment, fish and wildlife refuges and inactive inac-tive army reserve lands. More than 1500 counties receive payments as determined by a formula of acreage, population, and a deduction for mineral, timber and other federal payments actually received by the respective counties. On a national average, counties receive about 15 cents per acre for the 709 million acres of federal lands for which they are eligible to receive PILT payments, according to NACO. NACO did a random survey in 1980 to determine what the public land counties did with their PILT payments. For the years 1977-1978, the first two years that PILT payments were made, it found the funds were used, in this order: for law enforcement and courts, road maintenance, county administration, capital projects, such as the construction of buildings, health, social and recreation programs, fire protection and "other" purposes. Jim Evans, former NACO Western region representative now with the Northwest Nor-thwest Colorado Council of Governments, noted in testimony before the Udall Subcommittee Sub-committee last July that PILT was a key recommendation of PLLRC which was not only enacted into the PILT law in 1976 but also included in the Federal Land Planning and Management Act of 1976 as a Congressional policy statement. PROBLEMS MULTIPLY Even so, PILT ran into problems early. ear-ly. A 1979 General Accounting Office report highly critical of PILT was used by the House Appropriations Committee to cut PILT money in 1980-81. The Office of Management and Budget opposition to PILT showed up in 1981, when the Carter Administration recommended no funding fun-ding at all for the program, and in 1982-83 budgets, when the Reagan Administration Administra-tion has recommended drastic cuts. ' "The uncertainty of the annual PILT appropriation ap-propriation is a serious problem for public land counties with large holdings of tax-exempt federal lands," Evans said. The public land counties need assured, continuous funding early enough in their budget cycle to make adequate use of the funds that they do receive under PILT, Evans and other PILT supporters said. Opposition to the PILT program in the House Appropriations Committee and in the Office of Management and Budget in the past several years has come at a time when public land counties are reeling from major economic setbacks. Famous old mining operations are either closed down entirely or have cut back on workers drastically in many Western mountain counties and in the copper areas of the Southvest. Particularly hard-hit have been the Couer d'Alene area in Northern Idaho and Lake County, Colo., whose tax bases have been sharply sharp-ly eroded by mine closings. McClure told a PILT rally to save the 1982 PILT funding, "If there ever was a time that justified PILT, that time is now, with a downturn in housing, the Western counties need taxes paid (ie., PILT payments) on timber lands. ..The federal budget is tight and getting tighter. But, so is yours," he told the county officials from the West at the rally. ral-ly. Mineral Leasing Act receipts are up, but only four states share such receipts with the producing counties Oregon, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Ms. Greene told WRW on Dec. 22. This is an exceedingly sore point with Yates, who claims the states are welshing on their reponsibilities to their mineral-producing mineral-producing counties, including some states which cut back the shared amount with counties after the passage of PILT. INTERNAL BICKERING The annual battle over PILT funds and the non-movement of the Kogovsek PILT trust fund bill have led to a lot of internal inter-nal bickering even among Westerners. A provision which Yates included in the 1983 Interior Department funding bill provided that $171,790,000 from the Mineral Leasing Act receipts be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury to pay for the administrative costs, including royalty management, regulation and audits, of the Mineral Leasing Act," along with an off-set to PILT payments." This was legislation in a funding bill, but it only got killed in the Senate-House conference of the Interior funding bill after clearing the Yates Subcommittee, Sub-committee, the House Appropriations Committee and the House. Privately, Western M.C.'s are asking each other how Yates could have steamrolled such an anti-PILT nongermane provision so far without real opposition. Gov. Ed Herschler, D-Wyo., sent a blistering letter to McClure on Sept. 1 because McClure had sponsored by request re-quest of the Administration a bill (S 1281) which would, the governor claimed, "reduce PILT funding by more than 50 percent and deduct various federalstate shared receipts whether the money goes to local governments or not," Herschler said he appreciated McClure's efforts on behalf of PILT; but he added that the Administration's Ad-ministration's latest PILT proposals are "an abrogation" of the Administration's good neighbor policy, "short-sighted and poor public policy." Herschler advised McClure to introduce a companion bill to the Kogovsek PILT trust fund bill. McClure ignored Herschler's advice. Meanwhile, Kogovsek told WRW on Dec. 21 he was tired of being Mr. Nice Guy on PILT in the House Interior Committee. Com-mittee. He plans to move a head on the PILT trust bill, which he will introduce again in the new Congress, and to be "more independent in my dealings with Mo Udall, as I have served my apprenticeship appren-ticeship now. I feel that he was a problem on PILT and that he could have moved faster on the PILT bill this year." Udall told WRW on Dec. 21 he planned "more hearings and another look at the PILT problems next year. I think that we may have to try a different approach, but I am hoping we can report out a (PILT) bill next year" from the House Interior Committee, Udall said. |