ure — but we estimated it a few years back at about $2 billion. Now 

 the estimates are as high as $4 billion. 



The point we are making is that — and it was on possessory inter- 

 est — as you gradually extinguish possessory interest as H.R. 773 

 and H.R. 721 propose, then at the end of that period of time in 

 which it is amortized and extinguished, the ownership of the facili- 

 ties would be turned over to the Federal Government. 



And what we are saying is that this would add to the mainte- 

 nance backlog. Now, either the Park Service would have to main- 

 tain those facilities if they needed maintenance, or they could nego- 

 tiate with the concessioner to do the maintenance. If the conces- 

 sioner is to maintain the facilities, I think it would be reasonable 

 again to expect that he gets something in return and that would 

 probably be paying less fees. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. My final question is I used to operate a ski 

 school and a ski shop, and I know that there needs to be flexibility 

 built in because of the weather patterns. In the last two weeks of 

 January, we often would stand and watch the rivulets of snow run 

 off the mountain and realize, "Gosh, there go the profits." And as 

 I analyze the bill, I really hope we can build in more flexibility for 

 weather. Thank you very much. 



Mr. DuFFUS. You are welcome. 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. En- 

 sign. 



Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, are 

 there set-asides for disabled or for minority preferences for the con- 

 cessions? 



Mr. DuFFUS. I don't think we know about the disabled. But it 

 seems to me that our earlier work — and it was in 1975 — pointed 

 out th^t there were no set-asides for concession contracts. That was 

 the situation in 1975, and I don't know what it is today. 



Mr. Ensign. I was under the impression at least at Hoover Dam 

 that I am familiar with some for the disabled out there, and that 

 is one of the issues to be dealt with and hopefully will. Is that 

 going to be dealt with, Mr. Chairman, within this particular bill? 



Mr. Hansen. Well, Mr. Hodapp tells me we can deal with the 

 context. We will look into it when we have time to review your 

 questions. It is a good question. I would like to know a little bit 

 more about it myself. 



Mr. Ensign. OK. Thank you. That is all I have. 



Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich. 



Mr. Radanovich. No questions. 



Mr. Hansen. No questions. Mr. Duffus, your testimony is very 

 interesting. Have you seen this chart comparing these different 

 pieces of legislation with the existing law, the Miller and Meyers 

 and Hansen legislation? Do you have that before you by any 

 chance? 



Mr. Duffus. No, we don't. 



Mr. Hansen. Well, then I can't ask you to respond to it, but I 

 will ask you a question. Your testimony seems to support the con- 

 cept of establishing a single policy to manage similar concession op- 

 erations on Federal land. Would you elaborate why you feel that 

 is better than having separate ones for everyone? 



Mr. Duffus. You mean to have one policy or one law 



