program for conservation and recreational development along 265 miles of the Lower Colorado River. In 1964, after two years of intensive study, the Committee plan was published and cooperative steps are being taken to implement the plan. We believe that implementation of the plan will substantially benefit wildlife.

The action mentioned in Mr. Pautzke's letter was one of the steps to adjust land use in accordance with the plan. The modification of Executive Order No. 8685 removes refuge status from 11,545.06 acres of land in Arizona and 6,703.73 acres of land in California. The land is to be used for park and recreational areas and will still make about the same contributions to wildlife. The areas that make a major contribution to wildlife have been retained in refuge status.

As was mentioned in Mr. Pautzke's letter, the Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan also provides for setting aside 18,000 acres of public lands to be added to the Havasu Lake Refuge and the establishment of the Cibola Refuge on 16,000 acres of public lands and lands being purchased by the Bureau of Reclamation. We hope this will clarify the action taken in regard to adjusting the boundaries of the Imperial Refuge.

Sincerely yours,

(Sgd) ABRAM V. TUNISON, Deputy Director. Mr. EVERETT. Dr. Cain, with respect to the $1 permit, in your statement on page 5 you make no mention of an age limitation except on page 6 you do say, "Regardless of age, this permit shall be required." Do you have any minimum age requirement that you propose?

Dr. CAIN. Anybody who hunts these birds would need the permit. He would also need a State license. If there is a lower age limit or an upper age limit or any other limit, this would be determined by the individual States.

Wait a minute. They tell me I am wrong.

Mr. FINNEGAN. The bill does not contain an age limit. Whatever the person's age is, he must have a $1 permit.

Mr. DINGELL. Regardless of whether a State license is required. Is that the rule with regard to duck stamps?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. The general philosophy is that if the individual is old enough to go hunting afield with a gun, then he has the responsibility to contribute to the program through the purchase of a permit. He has to have a State license to hunt in any event unless there are exceptions like landowners hunting on their own property, but there is no lower age limit in our draft of the proposal for the $1 migratory game birds permit.

Mr. DINGELL. There is not, but there is an exemption under the Duck Stamp Act.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. There is a 16-year limit under the duck stamp legislation. I think this reflects a growing recognition that anyone who is responsible enough to go hunting afield with a gun to profit from the program ought to be in a position to contribute.

I think that there are many States that feel this is very sound, although it has not been possible for all of them to put such legislation on the books.

Mr. EVERETT. Dr. Cain, with respect to the removal, under the proposed bill, of the requirement of the consent of the Governor of the area to be acquired, what effect would 16 U.S.C. 715f have on the proposed bill of the administration?

That is the section that requires, also, the State consent to

conveyances.

Mr. FINNEGAN. We are not affecting that section.

Mr. EVERETT. I understand that, but if you could provide them for the record or if you are prepared to speak on it now, what land does 715f cover in general?

Mr. FINNEGAN. Lands acquired with duck stamp money from the migratory bird conservation fund.

Mr. DINGELL. If counsel will yield, I think this is a very important point to the committee dealing with this question of the Governors' veto. What you are saying is that historically the Governors' veto privilege was inserted by the Senate of the United States. This was in addition to a fundamental and general requirement. Before the Federal Government could conduct any refugee acquisition program within the boundaries of the States that the State had to afford, through its legislature, permission to the Federal Government to initiate such a refuge program in the State, am I correct? Answer this for the record, yes or no, gentlemen.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. And this has been done, I believe, in all but one State, am I correct? Wasn't there one State?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No, I think the number is actually three; and the types of enabling legislation vary somewhat, but all States except three have some type of enabling legislation authorizing the initiation and carrying forward of the program authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Duck Stamp Act.

Mr. DINGELL. So, effectively this imposes a second veto upon the program, am I correct?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Essentially, sir, it could be construed to be a third. Mr. DINGELL. A third veto?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Since in the constitution of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission the State government is represented for any refuge acquisitions within that State by a direct representative; namely, the head of the fish and game agency or his delegated representative.

Mr. DINGELL. So it would be a third veto that is imposed, the one being the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. First there needs to be the enabling legislation of the State; secondly, there is the representative of the State fish and game agency, and then, of course, the specific requirement for the Governor's approval is the third, so that there is a redundancy in approvals.

Mr. DINGELL. Has this program by the Governor been exercised in any State during the last year or so?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I think that the only State where this has been exercised in a sort of an indirect way in the last 2 or 3 years was in the State of Indiana where the Governor asked us to delay our approval or asked the Commission to delay its approval of a refuge in that State. This was later worked out and an alternate site selected, but the point is that the Governor's veto applies to all types of acquisitions, not only those involving approvals by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission which is the procedure followed in the acquisition of lands for refuges generally across the country, but it also applies to waterfowl production areas which are not approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Mr. DINGELL. These would be leaseholds of small wetland areas?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. And some actual acquisition of fee title also. That program consists of two types of acquisitions, easements, and fee purchases, and it is confined to areas where there is high waterfowl productivity, and essentially this means in the three prairie pothole States. We do have some waterfowl production area potential in some other States and it may be that we will have this program spreading out into other States, but it was primarily focused at this prairie complex and in this area the formal routine of the commission does not apply. Mr. DINGELL. I see.

Mr. Everett.

Mr. EVERETT. With respect to your acquisition goal, last year you submitted figures for the record. I would like to have another chart submitted this year, if you would, to bring it up to date. Through March 31, 1966, you had acquired 683,000 of a goal of 22 million acres. Do you have figures to indicate how many acres have been acquired through March 31, 1967? I would like to know also what was the ratio of easements to fee.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Would you like to have this for the record, Counsel?

Mr. DINGELL. If you please. (The information follows:)