Act interfere with State game laws insofar as they do not permit what is forbidden by Federal law.**' 

 When the State makes provision by legislation adequately to enforce the provisions of the Act and its 

 regulations, the State may cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior in the enforcement of the Act 

 and its regulations.* ' The States share 25 per cent of the revenues derived from the sale of surplus 

 wildUfe, timber, hay, grass, etc., and from concessions and other privileges, the money to be paid to the 

 counties in which the refuge is situated and to be expended for the public schools and roads of those 

 counties.* ^ In addition, the counties receive 3/4 of 1 per cent of the adjusted cost of the areas, exclusive 

 of improvements subsequent to Federal acquisition, or 25 per cent of the net receipts collected from 

 such acquired lands within the counties, whichever is greater.*^ 



There are no regulatory or management functions performed by the Commission; its responsi- 

 bilities are to consider and pass upon the land acquisition program for conservation of migratory birds of 

 the Secretary of the Interior. The program is financed from the sale of "Duck Stamps" and by 

 appropriations from Congress. "Duck Stamp" sales presently account for approximately $5,000,000 in 

 annual revenue. In 1961 the Congress authorized appropriation of $105,000,000 over a seven-year 

 period, on condition that at the end of the period, the appropriations would be repaid to the U.S. 

 Treasury at the rate of three-quarters of the annual "Duck Stamp" receipts. Without increasing the 

 authorization, the Congress has extended the term to 1976, upon the same repayment conditions. 



3. Water Resoiurces Council Survey 



The Marine Fisheries Commissions, the Migratory Bird Treaty, and the Migratory Bird Conservation 

 Act, represent but a small portion of the number of institutional arrangements that can be established 

 for promoting Federal, State, and local interests in living resources. Many methods exist for 

 accomplishing interstate, intrafederal cooperation, ranging in degree of legal effect and formality. 

 Among others these include reciprocal laws, uniform State laws, grants-in-aid, tax credits, administrative 

 agreements, interstate compacts, and judicial settlement of interstate disputes.*^ The Water Resources 

 Council has made a useful study of eight different institutional arrangements that reflect a wide range of 

 powers and functions. That study included consideration of (a) interstate compacts, (b) Federal- 

 interstate compacts (Delaware River Basin Commission), (c) river basin commissions (Potomac River 

 Basin Commission, etc.), (d) basin inter-agency committees, (e) regional Federal-State commissions 

 (Appalachian Regional Commission), (f) intrastate special districts, (g) the Federal regional agency 

 (TV A), and (h) the single Federal administrator (Colorado River). While directed toward the problems of 

 river basin management, nevertheless study of the various institutional arrangements provides interesting 

 and useful analogies to the problems confronting Federal, State, and local governments in management of 

 the United States fisheries. In summary form we have set out below some of the saUent characteristics of 

 five of the institutional arrangements as they might apply to fisheries. 



a. Interstate Compacts A wide range of powers, functions, and flexibihty can be built into interstate 

 compacts. They vary from the purely advisory functions of the marine fisheries commissions to 

 operational control of extensive and highly complex areas, such as the Port of New York Authority. The 



*''l6U.S.C. 715h. 



** 16 U.S.C. 715p, 50 C.F.R. 253. 



*^16 U.S.C. 715s(c)(l), 50 C.F.R. 34.4(a), 34.5. 



*^16 U.S.C. 715s(c) (2), 50 C.F.R. 34.4(b). 



"The Interstate Compact Since 1925," by Frederick L. Zimmermann and Mitchell Wendell, Council of State 

 Governments, Chicago, 1951, contains an excellent discussion of the evolution of interstate compacts, their legal effect, 

 problems of enforcement, and national participation, compacts with foreign powers, and the place of compacts in 

 American federalism. For another report summarizing various forms of interstate and Federal cooperation, see 

 "Selected Materials on Federal-State Cooperation in the Atomic Energy Field," Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 

 86th Cong., 1st Sess., March 1959, and the paper therein prepared by the Council of State Governments, entitled 

 "Intergovernmental Relationships in Fields Other Than Atomic Energy." 



VII-82 



