23 



Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here rather 

 amused. Being a freshman in Congress, I find the term "fair mar- 

 ket value" easily used. And until this Congress and the agencies 

 really understand the d5mamics of the marketplace as laid out in 

 the entire book of Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, Mainspring 

 of Human Progress by Grady Weaver, the Federalist Papers or the 

 AntiFederalist Papers, we are just throwing terms around that 

 really by force are constraining the dynamics of the marketplace. 



And whether it is this Congress, this majority, or whether it is 

 the agencies, I really resent having the terms used so loosely be- 

 cause the dynamics of the marketplace mean a laissez-faire, a mar- 

 ketplace that is not constrained by government constraints. And I 

 know that I worked with the Corps of Engineers up on the 

 Dworshak Reservoir and tried to work with them on a marina, and 

 we had a 2-percent limitation on profit. And there is just no way 

 that you can use the term "fair market value". 



An3rway, after I get through with that, I do want to ask Mr. 

 Frankel, the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and the 

 Federal Water Projects Recreation Act, where in that Act did that 

 allow you to buy property for recreation purposes that were not al- 

 ready on or adjacent to Corps projects? 



Mr. Frankel. Well, the Water Resources Development Act of 

 1986 didn't give us the authority to acquire lands not adjacent to 

 the project. The 16 USC 460[d] — that gave us the basic authority 

 to buy or use land for recreation purposes. The Water Resources 

 Development Act of 1986 also talked to the cost-sharing issue. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, would you repeat which Act gave you 

 the authority to buy land that was not adjacent to a project? 



Mr. Frankel. Not adjacent? 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Not adjacent to a project operated by the 

 Corps. 



Mr. Frankel. I don't think we have generic authority for that 

 purpose under section 926 of WRDA 1986. 



[A letter of correction was sent by Mr. Frankel to Mrs. 

 Chenoweth and a copy also sent to Chairman Hansen. The contents 

 are stated below.] 



In response to your question as to under what act we could acquire lands not al- 

 ready on or adjacent to Corps projects, I stated that I did not think we had generic 

 authority to acquire for recreation purposes. I have since reviewed our land acquisi- 

 tion authorities and conclude that, under Section 926 of the Water Resources Devel- 

 opment Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, we can acquire lands for recreation pur- 

 poses even though they are not contiguous to the principal part of the project. 



I apologize for any erroneous impression I may have given you on this question. 

 For your use and information, I have enclosed Section 926 of PubUc Law 99-662. 



[Section 926 of Public Law 99-662 can be found at the end of the 

 hearing on page 280.] 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Good. OK. I am glad you stated that for the 

 record. You also stated on page three of your testimony that there 

 was a Memorandum of Understanding recently signed by the Na- 

 tional Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

 Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, and Depart- 

 ment of the Army creating an interagency task force to look at con- 

 cessions management. 



Mr. Frankel. Yes, ma'am. 



