PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes):
Somewhat Simplified
M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
July 27, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL31392
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Summary
Under federal law, local governments (usually counties) are compensated through various
programs for reductions to their property tax bases due to the presence of most federally owned
land. Federal lands cannot be taxed but may create a demand for services such as fire protection,
police cooperation, or longer roads to skirt the federal property. Some compensation programs are
run by a specific agency and apply only to that agency’s land. This report addresses only the most
widely applicable program, which is called Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT; 31 U.S.C. §§6901-
6907) and is administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI). Under the statute, eligible
lands consist of those in the National Park System (NPS), National Forest System (NFS), or
Bureau of Land Management (BLM); lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) if
they are withdrawn from the public domain; lands dedicated to the use of federal water resources
development projects; dredge disposal areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; lands located in the vicinity of Purgatory River Canyon and Piñon Canyon, Colorado,
that were acquired after December 31, 1981, to expand the Fort Carson military reservation; lands
on which are located semi-active or inactive Army installations used for mobilization and for
reserve component training; and certain lands acquired by DOI or the Department of Agriculture
under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (P.L. 105-263).
The authorized level of PILT payments is calculated using a complex formula. No precise dollar
figure can be given in advance for each year’s PILT authorized level. Five factors affect the
calculation of a payment to a given county: (1) the number of acres eligible for PILT payments,
(2) the county’s population, (3) payments in prior years from other specified federal land payment
programs, (4) state laws directing payments to a particular government purpose, and (5) the
Consumer Price Index as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Before 2008, annual appropriations were necessary to fund PILT. However, beginning with the
FY2008 payment and continuing through FY2012, a provision in the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343) for mandatory spending ensured that all counties would
receive 100% of the authorized payment. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(P.L. 112-141) extended mandatory spending to FY2013, although there was a later sequestration
of 5.1% for that year. PILT’s mandatory spending was renewed for another year in the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79), resulting in an FY2014 payment of $436.9 million.
For FY2015, Congress approved $372 million in discretionary funding for PILT in the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) and $33 million in
mandatory spending in the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291). (The latter measure also included another
$37 million in mandatory spending to be made available on October 1, 2015—the start of
FY2016.) For the past several years, PILT payments have been made in June. The total of $405
million provided in the last two bills resulted in payments that were 89.6% of the $451.5 million
that would be required for full funding.
Over the next few years, the broader debate for Congress might be summarized as four decisions.
Congress may decide whether to (1) approve PILT funding through future extensions of
mandatory spending (either temporary or permanent); (2) fund PILT through annual
appropriations bills; (3) provide full funding or reduce the payments, perhaps through the annual
appropriations process or by changing the PILT formula; and (4) add or subtract any lands to the
list of those now eligible for PILT payments.
Congressional Research Service
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Since the creation of PILT in 1976, various other changes in the law have been proposed. One
proposal has been to include additional lands under the PILT program, particularly Indian lands.
Other lands also have been mentioned for inclusion, such as those of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Some
counties would like to revisit the compensation formula to emphasize a payment rate more similar
to property tax rates. Finally, some have argued that all lands in the NWRS should be eligible for
PILT, rather than limiting PILT payments to lands reserved from the public domain while
excluding acquired lands from PILT payments.
Congressional Research Service
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
PILT Legislation: The 110th to 113th Congresses ............................................................................. 4
PILT Legislation: The FY2014 Appropriations Cycle ..................................................................... 5
PILT Legislation: FY2015 ............................................................................................................... 5
PILT Legislation: FY2016 ............................................................................................................... 6
How PILT Works: Five Steps to Calculate Payment ....................................................................... 6
Step 1. How Many Acres of Eligible Lands Are There? ........................................................... 7
Step 2. What Is the Population of the County? .......................................................................... 8
Step 3. Are There Prior-Year Payments from Other Federal Agencies? .................................... 9
Step 4. Does the State Have Pass-Through Laws? .................................................................. 10
Step 5. What Is This Year’s Consumer Price Index? ............................................................... 11
Putting It All Together: Calculating a County’s Payment .............................................................. 12
National Totals ......................................................................................................................... 14
Current Issues ................................................................................................................................ 14
Inclusion of Indian Lands ........................................................................................................ 15
Inclusion of Urban Lands and Tax Equivalency ...................................................................... 16
National Wildlife Refuge System Lands ................................................................................. 17
County Uncertainty and Fiscal Effects on Counties ................................................................ 17
Figures
Figure 1. Total PILT Payments, FY1993-FY2015: Appropriations in Current and
Inflation-Adjusted 2014 Dollars ................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Total PILT Payments, FY1993-FY2015 Authorized Amount and Appropriation ............ 4
Figure 3. Ceiling Payments Based on County Population Level, FY2015 ...................................... 9
Figure 4. PILT Payment Level as a Function of Specific Prior Payments (FY2015) .................... 10
Figure 5. Steps in Calculating PILT for Eligible Federal Lands .................................................... 13
Tables
Table 1. Authorized PILT Payments to Selected Urban Counties, FY2015 ................................... 16
Table 2. NWRS Acres Eligible for PILT in Selected States, FY2014 ............................................ 17
Table A-1. Total PILT Payments, FY1993-FY2015: Appropriations in Current and
Inflation-Adjusted 2014 Dollars ................................................................................................. 19
Table A-2. Total PILT Payments, FY1993-FY2015: Authorized Amount and
Appropriation .............................................................................................................................. 20
Table A-3. Prior-Year Payment Laws That Are Offset Under Next PILT Payment ....................... 21
Congressional Research Service
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Appendixes
Appendix. PILT Data Tables .......................................................................................................... 19
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Introduction
Generally, federal lands may not be taxed by state or local governments unless the governments
are authorized to do so by Congress. Because local governments often are financed by property or
sales taxes, this inability to tax the property values or products derived from the federal lands may
affect local tax bases, sometimes significantly. If the federal government controls a significant
share of a county’s property, then the revenue-raising capacity of that county may be
compromised. Instead of authorizing taxation, Congress usually has chosen to create various
payment programs designed to compensate for lost tax revenue. These programs take various
forms. Many pertain to the lands of a particular agency (e.g., the National Forest System or the
National Wildlife Refuge System).1 The most wide-ranging payment program is called Payments
in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).2 It is administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and affects
most acreage under federal ownership. Exceptions include most military lands; lands under the
Department of Energy, which have their own smaller payment program; and lands of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.3 In FY2015,
the PILT program covered 607.0 million acres, or about 94% of all federal land.
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-565, as amended; 31 U.S.C. §§6901-6907)
was passed at a time when U.S. policy was shifting from one of disposal of federal lands to one of
retention. The policy meant the retained lands would no longer be expected to enter the local tax
base at some later date. Because of that shift, Congress agreed with recommendations of a federal
commission that if these federal lands were never to become part of the local tax base, some
compensation should be offered to local governments (generally counties) to make up for the
presence of nontaxable land within their jurisdictions.4 Moreover, there was a long-standing
concern that some federal lands produced large revenues for local governments, whereas other
federal lands produced little or none. Many Members, especially those from western states with a
high percentage of federal lands, felt the imbalance needed to be addressed. The resulting law
authorizes federal PILT payments to local governments. The payments may be used for any
governmental purpose.
1 For more information on some of these agency-specific payment programs, see CRS Report RL30335, Federal Land
Management Agencies’ Mandatory Spending Authorities, by M. Lynne Corn and Carol Hardy Vincent; and CRS
Report R41303, Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, by Katie
Hoover. The program under the Department of Energy (DOE) is described in U.S. General Accounting Office [now
Government Accountability Office], Energy Management: Payments in Lieu of Taxes for DOE Property May Need to
Be Reassessed, GAO/RCED-94-204, July 18, 1994.
2 County-by-county Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments are shown in U.S. Department of the Interior, Office
of Budget, Payments in Lieu of Taxes: National Summary Fiscal Year 2015, 2015; hereinafter referred to as National
Summary. A similar document is issued every year; each contains tables for payments and acreage by state and county.
To query data from the most recent fiscal year, see http://www.doi.gov/pilt/.
3 A program, commonly referred to as Impact Aid, supports local schools based on the presence of children of federal
employees, including military dependents. It provides some support to local governments, and to some extent it
compensates for lost property tax revenue when military families live on federally owned land. For more information,
see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act: A Primer, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
4 Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation’s Land: A Report to the President and to the
Congress, June 1970, pp. 235-241.
Congressional Research Service
1
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Critics of PILT cite examples of what they view as its idiosyncrasies:
• Although there is no distinction between acquired and public domain lands5 for
other categories of eligible lands, acquired lands of the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) are not eligible for PILT. This provision works to the detriment of many
counties in the East and Midwest, where nearly all FWS lands are acquired lands.
• Payments under the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program6 require an offset in the
following year’s PILT payment for certain lands under the jurisdiction of the
Forest Service (FS). However, if the eligible lands are under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), there is no reduction in the next year’s
PILT payment.7
• Certain BLM lands (called the Oregon and California Grant Lands) receive
payments that do not require an offset in the following year’s PILT payment.8
• Some of the “units of general local government” (counties)9 that receive large
payments have other substantial sources of revenue, and some of the counties
that receive small payments are relatively poor.
• A few counties that receive very large payments from other federal revenue-
sharing programs (because of valuable timber, mining, recreation, and other land
uses) also are authorized to receive a minimum payment ($0.37 per acre)10 from
PILT, thus somewhat canceling out the goal of evening payments across counties.
• In some counties the PILT payment greatly exceeds the amount the county would
receive if the land were taxed at fair market value, whereas in others it is much
less.
Given such issues, and the complexity of federal land management policies, consensus on
substantive change in the PILT law has been elusive, particularly when Congress has a stated goal
of reducing federal expenditures.
5 Acquired lands are those that the United States obtained from a state or individual. Public domain lands generally are
those that the United States obtained from a sovereign nation.
6 See CRS Report R41303, Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, by
Katie Hoover. Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L.
106-393) as a temporary, optional program of payments based on historic, rather than current, revenues.
7 All the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands eligible for SRS payments are in Oregon.
8 These lands once were granted to a private company for construction of a railroad. When the company violated the
contract, the land reverted back to the federal government. For more on these lands, see CRS Report R42951, The
Oregon and California Railroad Lands (O&C Lands): Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover.
9 Unit of general local government is defined in the law (31 U.S.C. §6901(2)) as “a county (or parish), township,
borough, or city where the city is independent of any other unit of general local government, that (i) is within the class
or classes of such political subdivisions in a State that the Secretary of the Interior, in his discretion, determines to be
the principal provider or providers of governmental services within the State; and (ii) is a unit of general government as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior on the basis of the same principles as were used on January 1, 1983, by the
Secretary of Commerce for general statistical purposes” plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
Virgin Islands. For simplicity, the word county will be used in the rest of this report to refer to a unit of general local
government, and county must be understood here to be equivalent to the above definition. This shorthand is often used
by the Department of the Interior (DOI).
10 This and subsequent references to payment rates and ceilings are based on FY2015 figures unless otherwise noted.
Congressional Research Service
2
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Figure 1. Total PILT Payments, FY1993-FY2015:
Appropriations in Current and Inflation-Adjusted 2014 Dollars
($ in millions)
Sources: Current dollars from the annual Payments in Lieu of Taxes: National Summary reports of the U.S.
Department of the Interior’s Office of Budget (hereinafter referred to as National Summary). Inflation adjustment
is based on chain-type price index. Adjustment for FY2015 is based on the index for the first quarter of the year.
Notes: For the same data in tabular format, see Table A-1. PILT = Payments in Lieu of Taxes.
Many of the broader issues of federal compensation to counties that were addressed when PILT
was created reemerged over the years. One such issue is the appropriate payment level, which is
complicated by erosion of the payments’ purchasing power due to inflation. Until about 1994, the
full amount authorized under the law’s formula generally had been appropriated, with a few
exceptions such as sequestration under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (Title II of P.L. 99-
177). For many of PILT’s first 15 years, counties held that payments effectively were declining
because of inflation. A 1994 amendment (P.L. 103-397) focused on increasing the total payments,
building in inflation protection, and making certain additional categories of land eligible.11 The
authorized payment level continued to be subject to annual appropriations. Figure 1 shows a
major increase in both the actual and the inflation-adjusted dollars appropriated for PILT from
FY1993 to FY2015.12 The increase in the authorization from the 1990s to the 2000s was not
accompanied by a commensurate increase in appropriations. (See Figure 2.) The growing
discrepancy between appropriations and the rising authorization levels led to even greater levels
of frustration among many local governments and prompted intense interest among some
Members in increasing appropriations.
11 Other important issues in 1994 were the question of the equity of the payments and the balance struck in the payment
formula between (1) heavily and sparsely populated communities; (2) those with federal lands generating large
revenues and those with lands generating little or no revenue; and (3) the amounts paid under PILT and the amounts
that would be paid if the lands were simply taxed at fair market value. But these issues were not addressed in the 1994
amendments and scarcely have been mentioned in the debate since then.
12 Inflation adjustments in this report use the implicit price deflator for the Gross Domestic Product, with a base year of
2014. Data for FY2015 use the implicit price deflator for the first quarter of the year. See U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, “National Income and Product Accounts,” available at http://www.bea.gov//
national/nipaweb/DownSS2.asp. (To reach the relevant table, select desired format; select Section 1; select tab
10109Ann for Table 1.1.9. For additional information on methods, contact author.)
Congressional Research Service
3
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Figure 2. Total PILT Payments, FY1993-FY2015
Authorized Amount and Appropriation
($ in millions)
Sources: Relevant annual National Summary reports.
Note: For the same data in tabular format, see Table A-2.
PILT Legislation: The 110th to 113th Congresses
The 110th Congress enacted several changes in PILT funding. First, the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329), provided funding at the FY2008 level ($228.9 million)
through March 6, 2009. This figure would have constituted roughly 61% of the figure estimated
for full payment of the FY2009 authorized level. Subsequently, Section 601(c) of Title VI of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343) provided for mandatory spending
of the full authorized level for five years—FY2008-FY2012. (See Figure 2.)
Next, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141, §100111) extended
mandatory spending for PILT to FY2013, without making any other changes to the law. Under the
Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25), PILT was categorized as a nonexempt, nondefense mandatory
spending program. As such, it was subject to a 5.1% sequestration of the payments scheduled for
FY2013, or $21.5 million from an authorized payment of $421.7 million.13
13 A 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report gave a slightly smaller initial estimate, based on a lower
projected authorized level. See OMB, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal
Year 2013, March 1, 2013, p. 36, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/
fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
PILT Legislation: The FY2014 Appropriations Cycle
For the FY2014 appropriations cycle, Congress faced two basic choices for FY2104 funding:
• continue the program through an appropriations act, which is constrained by
procedural and statutory limits on discretionary spending; or
• provide funding through some measure other than an appropriations act, which
would be treated as mandatory spending. With this choice, funding would be
subject to certain budget rules that generally require such spending to be offset.
In either case, failure to find an offset would lead to certain procedural hurdles, such as points of
order, although Congress sometimes sets aside or waives such points of order.14
The option for funding through an appropriations act was rejected when PILT funding was not
included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), although the Appropriations
Committee members expressed support for the program in general.15 Instead, funding for the
program was included in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79, §12312; H.Rept. 113-333;
also called the 2014 farm bill), which extended mandatory spending for one year.16 The bill was a
net reduction in mandatory spending and therefore offset the increase due to PILT payments. The
PILT provision provided county governments with the full formula amount in summer 2014.
PILT Legislation: FY2015
The FY2015 payment, following the tradition of the last several years, was paid in June 2015. By
statute, it must be paid before the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2015. The Carl Levin and
Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; P.L. 113-291) included
a provision (§3096) for $70 million in mandatory spending for PILT. Of this amount, $33 million
was made available in FY2015; the remaining $37 million will be made available after the start of
FY2016 on October 1, 2015, leaving some doubt as to whether the amount should be considered a
late payment for FY2015 or an early payment for FY2016. In addition, the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235, §11), provided $372 million in
discretionary spending. Together, the two provisions allotted $405 million, an amount that is
89.6% of the authorized level. The additional $37 million to be provided under P.L. 113-291 in
14 For more on procedural matters raised in an appropriations or budget context, see CRS Report 97-865, Points of
Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by James V. Saturno.
15 The Joint Explanatory Statement on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, states that “the Committees have
been given assurances that PILT payments for fiscal year 2014 will be addressed expeditiously by the appropriate
authorizing committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate.” See Rep. Rogers, “Explanatory Statement submitted
by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations Regarding the House Amendment to
the Senate Amendment on H.R. 3547, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014,” Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 160, no. 9 (January 15, 2014), pp. H475-H1215. See also http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-
HR3547-JSOM-G-I.pdf.
16 For House consideration, H.Res. 465 waived all points of order that might have been brought up and thus no
objection could be raised against extension of mandatory spending. Broad waivers of points of order have become
increasingly common in recent years.
Congressional Research Service
5
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
October 2015, if applied to the FY2015 payment cycle, would bring the FY2015 total to 97.8% of
the full formula amount.
PILT Legislation: FY2016
The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
(H.R. 2822), was reported to the House on June 18, 2015. It included $452 million for PILT, an
amount that would have been sufficient for full payment in FY2015. Given the inflation
protection in the PILT statute, the amount specified may be a bit less than the full formula amount
for FY2016.17 Senate floor action is pending on S. 1645. The bill allows limited adjustments to
funding for PILT in FY2016 by balancing past over- or underpayments. It states that “the amount
needed to correct a prior year underpayment to an individual county shall be paid from any
reductions for overpayments to other counties and the amount necessary to cover any remaining
underpayment is hereby appropriated and shall be paid to individual counties.” However, the
Senate version does not provide any new funds for the FY2016 payment.
How PILT Works: Five Steps to Calculate Payment
Calculating a particular county’s PILT payment first requires answering several questions:
• How many acres of eligible lands are in the county?
• What is the population of the county?
• What were the previous year’s payments, if any, for all of the eligible lands under
the other payment programs of federal agencies?18
• Does the state have any laws requiring the payments from other federal agencies
to be passed through to other local government entities, such as school districts,
rather than staying with the county government?
• What was the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the 12 months ending the
preceding June 30?
Each of these questions is discussed below, and the following section describes how the questions
are used in the computation of each county’s payment.
17 Amendments concerning display of the Confederate flag were raised in floor debate, and proceedings on the bill
were halted. Until agreement has been reached on the Confederate flag issue, no further action is anticipated.
18 Regardless of how many agencies have jurisdiction over eligible lands in a county, all of the payments specified in
31 U.S.C. §6903(a)(1) are added together and deducted from the following year’s single PILT payment. Any other
federal lands payments the county may get that are not specified in that provision are not deducted. The formula in 31
U.S.C. §6903 puts a ceiling on the total PILT payment for all of the eligible land in the county.
Congressional Research Service
6
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Step 1. How Many Acres of Eligible Lands Are There?
Nine categories of federal lands are identified in the law as eligible for PILT payments:19
1. Lands in the National Park System
2. Lands in the National Forest System
3. Lands administered by BLM
4. Lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) that are withdrawn from
the public domain
5. Lands dedicated to the use of federal water resources development projects20
6. Dredge disposal areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7. Lands located in the vicinity of Purgatory River Canyon and Piñon Canyon,
Colorado, that were acquired after December 31, 1981, to expand the Fort Carson
military reservation
8. Lands on which are located semi-active or inactive Army installations used for
mobilization and for reserve component training
9. Certain lands acquired by DOI or the Department of Agriculture under the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (P.L. 105-263)
Section 6904/6905 Payments
Two sections of the PILT law (31 U.S.C. §6904 and §6905) provide special payments for limited categories of land, for
limited periods. These are described in the FY2015 National Summary (p. 12) as follows:
Section 6904 of the Act authorizes payments for lands or interests therein, which were acquired after
December 31, 1970, as additions to the National Park System or National Forest Wilderness Areas. To
receive a payment, these lands must have been subject to local real property taxes within the five year
period preceding acquisition by the Federal government. Payments under this section are made in addition
to payments under Section 6902. They are based on one percent of the fair market value of the lands at the
time of acquisition, but may not exceed the amount of real property taxes assessed and levied on the
property during the last full fiscal year before the fiscal year in which [they were] acquired. Section 6904
payments for each acquisition are to be made annual y for five years fol owing acquisition, unless otherwise
mandated by law....
Section 6905 of the Act authorizes payments for any lands or interests in land owned by the Government in
the Redwood National Park or acquired in the Lake Tahoe Basin under the Act of December 23, 1980 (P.L.
96-586, 94 Stat. 3383). Section 6905 payments continue until the total amount paid equals 5 percent of the
fair market value of the lands at the time of acquisition. However, the payment for each year cannot exceed
the actual property taxes assessed and levied on the property during the last ful fiscal year before the fiscal
year in which the property was acquired by the Federal government.
In FY2015, the Section 6904/6905 payments totaled $620,340, or 0.14% of the total program. California counties
received the largest amount ($110,610). Fourteen states and three territories had no counties receiving payments
under these two sections in FY2015. The states were Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the territories were Guam,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The payments under Section 6904 cease five years after acquired land is incorporated into a national park unit or a
National Forest Wilderness Area. As a result, some counties experience a sudden drop in their PILT payment after
five years.
19 See 31 U.S.C. §6901. The law refers to these nine categories of lands as “entitlement lands,” and the term is used
throughout the act. However, because entitlement is a word that is used in a very different, and potentially confusing,
context in the congressional budget process, this report will refer to these lands as eligible lands.
20 These lands are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, for the most part.
Congressional Research Service
7
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
In addition, if any lands in the above categories were exempt from real estate taxes at the time
they were acquired by the United States, those lands are not eligible for PILT, except in three
circumstances:
1. Lands received by the state or county from a private party for donation to the
federal government within eight years of the original donation
2. Lands acquired by the state or county in exchange for land that was eligible for
PILT
3. Lands in Utah acquired by the United States if the lands were eligible for a
payment in lieu of taxes program from the state of Utah
Only the nine categories of lands (plus the three exceptions) on this list are eligible for PILT
payments; other federal lands—such as military bases, post offices, federal office buildings, and
the like—are not eligible for payments under this statute. The exclusion of lands in the NWRS
that are acquired is an interesting anomaly, and it may reflect nothing more than the fact that the
House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over most federal lands did not have jurisdiction
over the NWRS as a whole at the time P.L. 94-565 was enacted.21
Step 2. What Is the Population of the County?
The law restricts the payment that a county may receive based on population by establishing a
ceiling payment that rises with increasing population. (See Figure 3.) Under the schedule
provided in Title 31, Section 6903, of the United States Code, counties are paid at a rate that
varies with population; counties with low populations are paid at a higher rate per person and
populous counties are paid less per person. For example, for FY2015, a county with a population
of 1,000 people could not receive a PILT payment of more than $176,670 ($176.67 per person); a
jurisdiction with a population of 30,000 could not receive a payment over $2.6 million (30,000
people × $88.36 per person). And no county can be credited with a population of more than
50,000. Consequently, in FY2015, at the authorized payment level of $70.67 per person, no
county could receive a PILT payment over $3.5 million (50,000 people × $70.67 per person),
regardless of population. Figure 3 shows the relationship between the population of a county and
the maximum PILT payment.
21 At the time, jurisdiction over the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) generally was in one committee, while
jurisdiction over public domain lands was within the jurisdiction of different committees. This was true in both the
House and Senate. The committees considering PILT had no jurisdiction over the acquired lands within the NWRS.
Congressional Research Service
8
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Figure 3. Ceiling Payments Based on County Population Level, FY2015
Source: Calculations based on the FY2015 National Summary, p. 14.
Note: With the ceiling limit, no county, regardless of population size, could receive more than $3.53 million for
FY2015.
Step 3. Are There Prior-Year Payments from Other
Federal Agencies?
Federal land varies greatly in revenue production. Some lands have a large volume of timber sales
or recreation concessions such as ski resorts, and others generate no revenue at all. Some federal
lands have payment programs for state or local governments, and these payments may vary
markedly from year to year. To even out the payments among counties and prevent grossly
disparate payments, Congress provided that the previous year’s payments on eligible federal
lands from specific payment programs to counties would be subtracted from the PILT payment of
the following year. So for a hypothetical county with three categories of eligible federal land, one
paying the county $1,000, the second $2,000, and the third $3,000, then $6,000 would be
subtracted from the following year’s PILT payment. Most counties are paid under this offset
provision, which is called the standard rate. In Figure 4, the standard rate is shown by the
sloping portion of the line, indicating that as the sum of the payment rates from other agencies
increases, the PILT payment rate declines on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
Congressional Research Service
9
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Figure 4. PILT Payment Level as a Function of Specific Prior Payments (FY2015)
Source: Calculations based on payment levels cited in the FY2015 National Summary.
Note: With the minimum payment provision, no county, however large the prior-year payment, could receive
less than $0.37/acre from PILT for FY2015.
At the same time, Congress wanted to ensure that each county with eligible lands got some PILT
payment, however small, even if the eligible lands produced a substantial county payment from
other agencies. If the county had payments from three federal payment programs of $1,000,
$2,000, and $1 million, for instance, subtracting $1.003 million from a small PILT payment
would produce a negative number—meaning no PILT payment to the county at all. In that case, a
minimum rate applies, which does not deduct the other agencies’ payments. In Figure 4, the flat
portion to the right shows that, after the other agencies’ payments reach a certain level ($2.25 per
acre in FY2015), the rate of the PILT payment remains fixed (at $0.37 per acre in FY2015).
The payments made in prior years that count against future PILT payments are specified in law
(16 U.S.C. §6903(a)(1)). Any other payment programs beyond those specified would not affect
later PILT payments. These specified payments are shown in Table A-3. Eligible lands under
some agencies (e.g., National Park Service and Army Corps of Engineers) have no payment
programs that affect later PILT payments.
Step 4. Does the State Have Pass-Through Laws?
Counties may receive payments above the calculated amount described above, depending on state
law. Specifically, states may require that the payments from federal land agencies pass through
the county government to some other entity (typically a local school district) rather than accrue to
the county government itself. When counties in a pass-through state are paid under the formula
that deducts their prior-year payments from other agencies (e.g., from the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund [RRSF; 16 U.S.C. §715s] of FWS or the Forest Service [FS] Payments to States
program [16 U.S.C. §500]),22 the amount paid to the other entity is not deducted from the
county’s PILT payments in the following year. According to DOI:
22 Under 16 U.S.C. §500, these payments are made to the states or territories and must be used for schools or roads in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Only the amount of Federal land payments actually received by units of government in the prior
fiscal year is deducted. If a unit receives a Federal land payment, but is required by State law to
pass all or part of it to financially and politically independent school districts, or any other single
or special purpose district, payments are considered to have not been received by the unit of local
government and are not deducted from the Section 6902 payment.23
For example, if a state requires all counties to pass along some or all of their RRSF payments
from FWS to the local school boards, the amount passed along is not deducted from the counties’
PILT payments for the following year (31 U.S.C. §6907). Or if two counties of equal population
in two states each received $2,000 under the FS Payments to States program, and State #1 pays
that amount directly to the local school board but State #2 does not, then under this provision the
PILT payment to the county in State #1 will not be reduced in the following year but that of the
county in State #2 will drop by $2,000. State #1 will have increased the total revenue coming to
the state and to each county by taking advantage of this feature.24
Consequently, the feature of PILT that apparently was intended to even out payments among
counties (at least of equal population size) may not have that result if the state takes advantage of
this pass-through feature.25 Under Title 31, Section 6903(b)(2), of the United States Code, each
governor reports annually to the Secretary of the Interior with a statement of the amounts actually
paid to each county government under the relevant federal payment laws. DOI also cross-checks
each governor’s report against the records of the payment programs of federal agencies.
In addition, there is a pass-through option for the PILT payment itself. A state may require that the
PILT payment go to a smaller unit of government, contained within the county (typically a school
district; 16 U.S.C. §6907). In this case, one check is sent by the federal government to the state
for distribution by the state to these smaller units of government. The distribution must occur
within 30 days. To date, Wisconsin is the only state to have elected to pass through PILT
payments.
Step 5. What Is This Year’s Consumer Price Index?
A provision in the 1994 amendments to PILT adjusted the authorization levels for inflation. The
standard and minimum rates, as well as the payment ceilings, are adjusted each year. Under Title
31, Section 6903(d), of the United State Code, “the Secretary of the Interior shall adjust each
dollar amount specified in subsections (b) and (c) to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, for the 12 months ending
the preceding June 30.” This is an unusual degree of inflation adjustment; no other federal land
agency’s payment program has this feature. But as will be shown below, increases in the
(...continued)
the counties in which the national forests are located. Each state has its own rules on the mechanics of that transfer, on
the proportion to be used for roads and the proportion for schools. Some states direct that the education portion be
given directly to school boards. For more information see CRS Report R40225, Federal Land Management Agencies:
Background on Land and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
23 FY2015 National Summary, p. 10.
24 Note that even though a county as a whole may benefit from this provision, the county government itself will not,
because it forgoes the revenues given directly to its school system.
25 However, the Supreme Court has held that states cannot direct counties to spend their PILT payments (i.e., payments
under the DOI-managed program described in this report) for particular purposes once they have actually received their
PILT payment. Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood School District, 469 U.S. 256 (1985).
Congressional Research Service
11
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
authorization do not necessarily lead to a commensurate increase in the funds received by the
counties.
Putting It All Together:
Calculating a County’s Payment
Knowing the answers to these questions, one then can make two comparisons to calculate the
authorized payment level for a county. (Figure 5 shows a flow chart of the steps in these
comparisons.) All charts and comparisons in this report are based on FY2015 payment levels.
Alternative A. Which is less: the county’s eligible acreage multiplied by $2.62 per acre or the
county’s ceiling payment based on its population? Pick the lesser of these two numbers. From it,
subtract the previous year’s total payments for these eligible lands under specific payment or
revenue-sharing programs of the federal agencies that control the eligible land.26 The amount to
be deducted is based on an annual report from the governor of each state to DOI. This option is
called the standard rate.
Alternative B. Which is less: the county’s eligible acreage multiplied by $0.37 per acre or the
county’s ceiling payment based on its population? Pick the lesser of these two. This option is
called the minimum provision and is used in counties that received relatively large payments
(more than $2.25 per acre for FY2015) from other federal agencies in the previous year.
The county is authorized to receive whichever of the above calculations—(A) or (B)—is greater.
This calculation must be made for all counties individually to determine the national
authorization level. From the program’s inception through FY2007, the authorized payments were
subject to annual appropriations. If appropriations were insufficient for full funding, each county
received a pro rata share of the appropriation. After passage of P.L. 110-343 and P.L. 112-141,
each county received the full authorized amount for FY2008-FY2012; as a result of sequestration
(P.L. 112-25), each county received 94.8% of the authorized amount for FY2013. With the
enactment of P.L. 113-79, counties received the full authorized amount in FY2014. As mentioned
above, P.L. 113-291 and P.L. 113-235 provided 89.6% of the full authorized amount in FY2015.
The additional $37 million to be provided under P.L. 113-291in October 2015 will bring the
FY2015 total to 97.8% of the full formula amount.
26 Payments under the Secure Rural Schools program for Forest Service lands (but not Bureau of Land Management
lands) are included among those prior-year payments to be deducted. See CRS Report R41303, Reauthorizing the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, by Katie Hoover.
Congressional Research Service
12
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Figure 5. Steps in Calculating PILT for Eligible Federal Lands
(FY2015 payment levels)
Source: Prepared by CRS, based on PILT statute (31 U.S.C §§6901-6907).
Notes: The payments (marked *) are the specific payments for federal lands. The amount subtracted is reduced
in states with pass-through laws.
The standard rate, with its offset between agency-specific payments and PILT payments, still does
not guarantee a constant level of federal payments to counties because of the time lag in
determining PILT payments. Federal payments for a given fiscal year generally are based on the
receipts of the prior year. PILT payments of the following fiscal year are offset by these payments.
The combination of specific payments and PILT in the standard rate means that reductions (or
increases) in those other payments in the previous year could be offset exactly by increases (or
reductions) in PILT payments. However, provided the county’s population is not so low as to
affect the outcome, PILT payments could not fall below $0.37 per acre for FY2015 (see
Congressional Research Service
13
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Alternative B, above), so the full offset occurs only when the other federal payments in the
previous year total less than $2.22 per acre (i.e., the maximum payment of $2.62 per acre minus
the $0.37 per acre minimum payment from PILT).27
To illustrate, consider a county whose only eligible federal lands are under FS jurisdiction. If the
federal receipts on the FS lands dropped in FY2013 (compared with FY2012), authorized FS
payments in FY2014 would fall. Authorized PILT payments will therefore increase to offset the
drop—in FY2015. (This example assumes the PILT payment is calculated under the standard
rate.) The counties will be authorized to receive at least $2.62 per acre from FS payments and
PILT payments combined,28 but the two payments would not come in the same year.
Consequently, if FS payments are falling from year to year, the combined payments in the given
year would be less than $2.62 per acre, but if FS payments are rising, the authorized combined
payment in the given year would be more than $2.62 per acre.
National Totals
Because of the need for annual data, a precise dollar figure cannot be given in advance for each
year’s PILT authorization level.29 Information from all 2,254 counties with eligible land in
FY2015 was needed before an aggregate figure for the nation could be calculated for the most
recent payment. As a result, no figure can be given yet for the amount required for full funding in
FY2016.
Current Issues
Although the enactment of six years of mandatory spending put the issue of full funding to rest
for a time, county governments still show strong support for continuing mandatory spending for
PILT. This question of mandatory spending has been the biggest issue facing the program from
the 112th through the 114th Congresses. The question of funding for the program has been
addressed for the FY2015 payment. At the same time, with congressional debate over spending
levels in general, support for greater or mandatory spending for PILT may compete with
proposals to modify or even eliminate PILT in later years as a means of reducing federal deficits.
Congressional interest, after the 1994 revisions to PILT, has focused on the three areas cited
above: (1) whether to approve mandatory spending (either temporary or permanent) at the full
amount or some fixed level; (2) whether to make the opposite choice of reducing the program,
either through discretionary appropriations or by changing the PILT formula; and (3) whether to
27 To illustrate more concretely, imagine each county as a large bucket whose sides are marked off in “$/acre.” PILT, in
effect, checks the payment already in the bucket from other agencies and then adds at least enough money to the bucket
to bring it to the $2.62/acre mark. Moreover, PILT adds 37¢/acre, regardless of the amount in the bucket already.
Consequently, the money bucket could reach levels well above $2.62/acre, with the last 37¢ added by PILT. The
county population ceilings might then be thought of as holes in the sides of some of the buckets that prevent the
buckets from filling beyond a certain level for that bucket (i.e., county).
28 An exception would occur if the county’s population is so small that the county is affected by the PILT ceiling on
payments due to population.
29 DOI does not include estimated full payment levels in its annual budget justification to Congress. It confines itself to
the Administration’s request for the year. However, DOI’s annual report of current year PILT payments to counties
includes this information.
Congressional Research Service
14
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
add or subtract any lands from the list of those now eligible for PILT payments. PILT payments
for FY2015 totaled $404.6 million in mandatory spending.30 In contrast, FY2015 discretionary
appropriations for DOI totaled $10.7 billion, or about 26 times the PILT program that year.
However, for a relatively small fraction of the federal or even departmental budget, PILT garners
considerable attention for local reasons: (1) according to the FY2015 National Summary, 2,230
counties had lands eligible for PILT payments; (2) the average payment per county (many of
which are sparsely populated) was $181,435; (3) although some counties with eligible lands
received no payment (because they have very few federal lands and PILT makes no payments of
less than $100), many received over $1 million and 14 counties received over $3 million.31 The
resulting impact on budgets of local governments helps generate interest despite the
comparatively small size of the PILT program. As PILT funding reverts to discretionary spending,
counties with large federal land holdings may return to significant fiscal uncertainty.
Several more specific issues also are being debated in Congress or within county governments.
Among them are the inclusion of Indian or other categories of lands; tax equivalency, especially
for eligible urban lands; and payments affecting the NWRS.
Inclusion of Indian Lands
The inclusion of other lands (e.g., military lands generally or those of specific agencies such as
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) under the PILT program has been mentioned
from time to time, and some counties with many acres of nontaxable Indian lands within their
boundaries have long supported adding Indian lands to the list of lands eligible for PILT. Their
primary arguments are that these lands receive benefits from the county, such as road networks,
but Indian residents do not pay for these benefits with property taxes. At the same time, the
federal government does not actually own these lands.
The complexity of the PILT formula makes it very difficult to calculate the consequences of such
a move, either for authorization levels or appropriation levels. Additionally, Congress would have
to decide what sorts of Indian lands would be eligible for such payments and a variety of other
complex issues.32 If some categories of Indian lands were to be added to those lands already
eligible for PILT, Congress might wish to limit payments to counties with more than some
minimum percentage of Indian lands within their borders. Regardless, even a very restrictive
30 A total of $405.0 million was appropriated for PILT in FY2015; from this figure, $0.4 million was deducted for
administrative expenses.
31 National Summary, FY2015. The 14 counties were in 8 states: Arkansas (1), Arizona (3), California (3), Colorado
(1), Nevada (3), New Mexico (1), Utah (1), and Wyoming (1).
32 The many classifications of Indian lands include trust lands, restricted lands, and fee (private) lands, both on and off
reservations. Trust lands are lands held by the federal government in trust for an Indian tribe or individual. Restricted
lands are lands held by an Indian tribe or individual but subject to federal restrictions on alienation (e.g., sale) or
encumbrance (e.g., mortgaging). Most, but by no means all, Indian trust and restricted lands are on Indian reservations.
Trust and restricted lands, whether on or off reservations, are not subject to state or local land taxes. On-reservation
Indian fee lands may or may not be subject to state and local land taxes, depending on the federal statute under which
the land was fee patented. Off-reservation Indian fee lands generally are subject to state and local land taxes. (Indian
reservations may also include non-Indian fee lands, which are subject to state and local taxation.) Alaskan Native
corporation lands (none of which are trust lands) are affected by limits on state taxation in the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (P.L. 92-203). Congress would have to decide which of these many classifications of Indian lands
would become eligible for PILT benefits. Further, Congress might choose to distinguish between Indian lands that have
never been taxed by a county or state versus those Indian lands that once were taxable but were acquired into
nontaxable status after some specified date.
Congressional Research Service
15
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
definition of Indian lands seems likely to add many millions of acres to those already eligible.
Even if the criteria for eligibility were determined, it still would be difficult to anticipate the
effect on authorization levels. To paint an extreme example, if all of the eligible Indian lands were
in counties whose PILT payments already were capped due to the population ceiling, inclusion of
Indian lands would have no effect on PILT authorization levels.
If mandatory spending of the full formula amount is in place, appropriations would go up to fund
the newly eligible lands. If spending is not mandatory and annual appropriations are less than the
authorized level, each county would receive a pro rata share of the authorized full payment level.
Individual counties whose eligible acres had jumped markedly with the inclusion of Indian lands
might receive substantially more than in the past. Other counties (particularly those with few or
no eligible Indian acres) would receive a smaller fraction of the authorized amount as limited
dollars would be distributed among more lands.
Inclusion of Urban Lands and Tax Equivalency
Some observers have wondered whether urban federal lands are included in the PILT program.
The response is that urban lands are not excluded from PILT under the current law. For example,
in FY2015, the counties in which Sacramento, Chicago, and Cleveland are found, as well as the
District of Columbia, all received PILT payments (see Table 1), although the property tax on
similar, but nonfederal, lands likely would have been substantially greater.
Table 1. Authorized PILT Payments to Selected Urban Counties, FY2015
County
Eligible Acres
FY2015 Appropriated Amount ($)
Sacramento County (CA)
9,618
22,580
Cook County (IL)
139
326
Cuyahoga County (OH)
2,594
6,090
Arlington County (VA)
27
0a
District of Columbia
6,980
16,537
Source: National Summary, FY2015.
Notes: The urban counties and the District of Columbia were selected to show a wide range in the amount of
eligible lands and resulting payments.
a. Under the PILT formula, Arlington County’s 27 eligible acres (all under the National Park Service) would
generate a payment of $70. However, under the law, no payment is made for amounts under $100.
Eastern counties, which tend to be small, rarely have both large populations and large eligible
acreage in the same county. By contrast, western counties tend to be very large and may have
many eligible acres, and some, like Sacramento, may have large populations as well.
Furthermore, as the cases of Arlington County and the District of Columbia illustrate, PILT
payments are by no means acting as an equivalent to property tax payments. If the 6,980 acres in
the District of Columbia or the 27 acres in Arlington County were owned by taxable entities,
those acres would result in much more than $16,537 or $0, respectively, in property taxes.33
33 For a concrete example, the 2014 real property tax rate in Arlington County was $0.996 per $100 of assessed
valuation. At that rate, to generate $70 in property taxes, the county’s assessed value of the 27 acres would have been
$7,028, or about $270/acre. Actual assessed values in Arlington County tend to be higher by an order of magnitude or
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Because the formula in PILT does not reflect property taxes, counties such as these might support
a revised formula that would approach property tax payments.
National Wildlife Refuge System Lands
As noted above, NWRS lands that were withdrawn from the public domain are eligible for PILT,
and those that were acquired are not. In addition, the National Wildlife Refuge Fund (NWRF, also
called the Refuge Revenue-Sharing Fund, or RRSF) relies on annual appropriations for full
funding. For FY2015, payments for NWRF were approximately 23% of the authorized level. For
refuge lands eligible for PILT, some or perhaps all of the NWRF payment will be made up for in
the following year’s PILT payment, but this will not occur for acquired lands because they are not
eligible for PILT. Congress may consider making all refuge lands eligible for PILT and/or
providing mandatory spending for NWRF, as it has for PILT. Eastern counties could be the largest
beneficiaries of such a change, although some western states also may have many NWRS acres
that currently are not eligible for PILT. (See Table 2 for selected state examples.) Adding the 9.7
million acres of NWRS lands under the primary jurisdiction of FWS but currently ineligible for
PILT would increase PILT lands by about 1.6%.
Table 2. NWRS Acres Eligible for PILT in Selected States, FY2014
NWRS Acres Reserved from
Percent Eligible
State
Public Domain
Total NWRS Acres
for PILT
Alabama 0 71,573
0.0
Arizona 1,553,465
1,743,846 89.0
Iowa 334 120,586
0.3
Maine 0 69,744
0.0
Montana 433,135
1,539,372 28.
Ohio 77 9,446
0.8
Oregon 266,475
591,020 45.0
Source: Compiled from Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service As of September
30, 2014 (the most recent year available).
Notes: States were selected to show a wide range in NWRS acreage and amount of public domain lands.
NWRS = National Wildlife Refuge System; PILT = Payments in Lieu of Taxes.
County Uncertainty and Fiscal Effects on Counties34
The PILT program, as a mandatory spending program, provided a relatively certain flow of funds
to recipient jurisdictions. Some observers and policymakers are concerned that returning PILT to
discretionary spending or eliminating the program would destabilize the fiscal structure of some
jurisdictions receiving PILT payments. Nationally, however, the relative size of the PILT
(...continued)
more.
34 This section prepared by Steven Maguire, section research manager, Government Finance and Taxation Section (7-
7841, smaguire@crs.loc.gov).
Congressional Research Service
17
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
payments would seem to mitigate the impact and PILT reductions would not seem to have a
measurable fiscal impact on most county budgets that receive PILT transfers. Locally, the impacts
may be greater, perhaps substantially.
Reliance on property taxes is important for most counties. Nationwide, in FY2012, local property
taxes (for counties, cities, and special districts) comprised roughly 47.2% of own-source revenue
or just over $446 billion in total revenues.35 However, in FY2015, the PILT program was very
much smaller: the appropriated $405 million in PILT payments is roughly 0.1% of property tax
revenue nationally.36 For counties that receive a significantly larger PILT payment, however, the
impact would be greater. First, for the 14 counties that received over $3 million in FY2015, the
government services provided by the county could be adversely affected in the near term
(although restructuring the property tax or raising other local fees or taxes could likely
compensate for the reduced federal payment). Second, smaller payments also would be important
in low-property value, low-population counties with relatively greater shares of federally owned
land.
35 Own-source revenue is all revenue that is not a transfer from the state or federal government. Data are from the
Jeffery L. Barnett, Cindy L. Sheckells, Scott Peterson, and Elizabeth M. Tydings, “State and Local Government
Finance Summary: 2012,” Appendix Table A-1, Governments Division Briefs, U.S. Census Bureau, December 17
2014, at http://www2.census.gov/govs/local/summary_report.pdf. The report contains the most recent data available.
36 It is important to note that 30% of all counties in the country have no lands eligible for PILT and thus the two figures
are not entirely comparable. Specifically, it is not clear what fraction of the own-source revenue is produced in the 70%
of counties with lands eligible for PILT payments. For more on the number of counties by state, see U.S. Census
Bureau, “2012 Census of Governments: Organization Component Estimates.”
Congressional Research Service
18
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Appendix. PILT Data Tables
The first two tables below show the data presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The third shows the
agency payments that offset payments under PILT in the following year.
Table A-1. Total PILT Payments, FY1993-FY2015:
Appropriations in Current and Inflation-Adjusted 2014 Dollars
($ in millions)
Inflation-Adjusted
Year Appropriation
Appropriation
1993 103.2
154.7
1994 104.1
152.8
1995 101.1
145.3
1996 112.8
159.3
1997 113.1
157.0
1998 118.8
163.1
1999 124.6
168.5
2000 134.0
177.2
2001 199.2
257.6
2002 209.4
266.7
2003 218.6
272.9
2004 224.7
273.0
2005 226.8
267.0
2006 232.5
265.5
2007 232.5
258.7
2008 367.2
400.7
2009 381.6
413.2
2010 358.1
383.1
2011 375.2
393.3
2012 393.0
404.7
2013 400.2
406.0
2014 436.9
436.9
2015 404.6a
403.7
Sources: Current dollars from each annual National Summary. Inflation adjustment is based on chain-type price
index. Adjustment for 2015 is based on the index for the first quarter of the year.
Notes: For the same data in a bar chart, see Figure 1.
a. A total of $405.0 million was appropriated for PILT in FY2015; from this figure, $0.4 million was deducted
for administrative expenses.
Congressional Research Service
19
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Table A-2. Total PILT Payments, FY1993-FY2015:
Authorized Amount and Appropriation
($ in millions)
Year
Authorized
Appropriated
1993 103.2 103.2
1994 104.4 104.1
1995 130.5 101.1
1996 165.1 112.8
1997 212.0 113.1
1998 260.5 118.8
1999 303.7 124.6
2000 317.6 134.0
2001 338.6 199.2
2002 350.8 209.4
2003 324.1 218.6
2004 331.3 224.7
2005 332.0 226.8
2006 344.4 232.5
2007 358.3 232.5
2008 367.2 367.2
2009 381.6 381.6
2010 358.1 358.1
2011 375.2 375.2
2012 393.0 393.0
2013 421.7 400.2
2014 436.9 436.9
2015 451.5 405.0a
Sources: Relevant annual National Summary reports.
Notes: For the same data in a bar chart, see Figure 2.
a. A total of $405.0 million was appropriated for PILT in FY2015; from this figure, $0.4 million was deducted
for administrative expenses. An additional $37.0 million wil become available on October 1, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
20
Table A-3. Prior-Year Payment Laws That Are Offset Under Next PILT Payment
Federal Agency
Short Title of Law or
Lands Eligible for
Making Payment
Common Name
P.L. or Date
U.S. Stat.
U.S. Code
Payments Payment
Rate
Forest Service
25% payments or
Act of May 23,
35 Stat. 260
16 U.S.C. §500
Al national forest
25% of gross receipts to
Payments to States
1908 (ch. 192,
(NF) lands
state for roads and
§13)
schools in counties
None
Act of June 20,
36 Stat. 557, §6
Not codified
NF lands in AZ and
Proportion of lands in
1910 (ch. 310)
NM
NFs reserved for schools
times proceeds from
sales in NF
None
Act of June 22,
62 Stat. 570,
16 U.S.C. §577g,
Lands in Superior NF,
0.75% of appraised value
1948 (ch. 593, §5);
70 Stat. 328
§577g-1
MN
(in addition to 25%
Act of June 22,
payments above)
1956 (ch. 425, §2)
Mineral Leasing Act for
Act of Aug. 7,
61 Stat. 915
30 U.S.C. §355
NF lands with mineral
50% of mineral leasing
Acquired Lands (§6)
1947
leasing
revenues to states for
counties
Material Disposal Act
Act of July 31,
61 Stat. 681
30 U.S.C. §603
Net revenues from
Varies depending on type
1947 (§3)
sale of land and
of receipt and agency
materials
Secure Rural Schools and
P.L. 106-393, as
114 Stat. 1607, as
16 U.S.C. §§7101 et
NF lands (but not
Complex formula; see
Community Self-
amended
amended
seq.
lands under Land
CRS Report R41303,
Determination Acta
Utilization Program
Reauthorizing the Secure
[LUP] or National
Rural Schools and
Grasslands) if this
Community Self-
option is chosen by
Determination Act of 2000,
county instead of 25%
by Katie Hoover
payments
Bankhead-Jones
Farm
Act of July 22,
50 Stat. 526
7 U.S.C. §1012
National Grasslands
25% of revenues for use
Tenant Act
1937 (ch. 513,
and LUP lands
of lands to states
§33)
managed by FSb
Bureau of Land
Mineral Lands Leasing Act Act of February
41 Stat. 450
30 U.S.C. §191
Public lands
50% of leasing revenues
Management
25, 1920 (ch. 85,
to states for counties
§35)
Taylor Grazing Act
Act of June 28,
48 Stat. 1273
43 U.S.C. §315i
Public lands
12.5% of grazing receipts
1934 (ch. 865,
to states for counties
§10)
CRS-21
Federal Agency
Short Title of Law or
Lands Eligible for
Making Payment
Common Name
P.L. or Date
U.S. Stat.
U.S. Code
Payments Payment
Rate
Bankhead-Jones
Farm
Act of July 22,
50 Stat. 526
7 U.S.C. §1012
National Grasslands
25% of revenues for use
Tenant Act
1937 (ch. 513,
and LUP lands
of lands to states
§33)
managed by BLM
Mineral Leasing Act for
Act of Aug. 7,
61 Stat. 915
30 U.S.C. §355
Public lands with
50% of mineral leasing
Acquired Lands (§6)
1949
mineral leasing
revenues to states for
counties
Material Disposal Act
Act of July 31,
61 Stat. 681
30 U.S.C. §603
Net revenues from
Varies depending on type
1947 (§3)
sale of land and
of receipt and agency
materials
Fish and Wildlife
Refuge Revenue Sharing
Act of June 15,
49 Stat. 383
16 U.S.C.
Public domain lands in
25% of net receipts from
Service
Act
1935 (ch. 261,
§715s(c)(2)
NWRSc
timber, grazing, and
§401(c)(2))
mineral sales directly to
county; remaining 75% to
counties under other
formulas
Federal Energy
Federal Power Act
Act of June 10,
41 Stat. 1072
16 U.S.C. §810
NF and public lands
37.5% of revenues from
Regulatory
1920, (ch. 285,
with occupancy and
licenses for occupancy
Commission
§17)
use for power
and use to states for
projects
counties
Sources: 31 U.S.C. §6903(a)(1), National Summary, FY2015, p. 13. The latter document has typographical errors that are corrected here, as noted. Because the various
payment laws are identified in some documents by title, in others by a U.S. Code citation, and in still others by the Statutes at Large, date, or Public Law, all of these are
cited here, where they exist.
a. When payments are made for lands under FS jurisdiction for the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program, the payments result in a reduction (offset) in the following year’s
PILT payment. However, if the lands are under BLM jurisdiction, no offset is made in the following year’s PILT payment. All BLM lands eligible for SRS payments are in
Oregon.
b. The table shown in National Summary, FY2015, p. 13, indicates that these payments are made only to BLM lands and omits mention of FS lands. However, the majority
of Bankhead-Jones lands are in the FS National Grasslands, and DOI makes payments for these lands regardless of which of the two agencies own them. Therefore,
this payment is shown in the table for both agencies.
c. Acquired lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) are not eligible for PILT payments. See text.
CRS-22
PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified
Author Contact Information
M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
lcorn@crs.loc.gov, 7-7267
Congressional Research Service
23