A Report to :the Prerieand to the.: Congresáby)he Public Landi.1W emission

I

One Thirdof the Nation'sLand

A Report to the Presidentand to the Congressby the Public LandLaw Review Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C.June 1970

IDENTICAL LETIERS TO:

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402

Gordon Allott

Clinton P. Anderson

Walter S. Baring

Alan Bible

'Laurence J.Burton

Robert Emmet Clark

PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW COMMISSION

1730 K STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

The PresidentJune 20, 1970

The White HouseWashington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

We submit with pride the report of the Public Land Law Review Commission with ourrecommendations for policy guidelines for the retention and management or disposition ofFederal lands that equal one-third of the area of our Nation.

The report is responsive to the provisions of Public Law 8 8-606 which established thisCommission and charged us with specific responsibilities that are detailed in the Preface.

Our recommendations represent a broad consensus on both basic underlying principlesand recommendations to carry them out. Although we represent diverse views and backgrounds,we were able to adjust our ideas, objectively consider the problems, and achieve this generalagreement. In a few instances, individual members have set forth their separate views. Becausethis is a consensus report, however, the absence of a member's separate views does not necessarilyindicate that there is unanimity on the details.

The Commission's recommendations will support early implementation through Executiveand legislative action to assure equitable treatment of our citizens and make the public landlaws of the United States and their administration simpler, more effective, and, in accordance withthe criterion of the policy objective set forth in the Commission's Organic Act, truly for themaximum benefit for the general public.

Respectfully,

-Paul J. Fannin

Mauiëdard

Philip H. Hoff

Henry J ckson

Len B. oan

Kyl'

N. AspinallChairman

H. Byron MockVice Chairman

42Laurance S. Rockefeller

NancfE. 5mith

Roy A. Taylor

ill

United States Senate

Gordon Allott, ColoradoClinton P. Anderson, New MexicoAlan Bible, NevadaPaul J. Fannin, ArizonaHenry M. Jackson, WashingtonLen B. Jordan, Idaho

Robert Emmet ClarkProfessor of LawThe University of ArizonaTucson, Arizona

Maurice K. GoddardSecretary of Forests and WatersHarrisburg, Pennsylvania

Presidential Appointees

H. Byron Mock, Vice ChairmanPracticing AttorneySalt Lake City, Utah

Nancy E. SmithSupervisor, Fifth DistrictCounty of San BernardinoSan Bernardino, California

Former Members

Mrs. John Blessner Lee, Farmington, Conn., from inception until August 1965.Senator Thomas H. Kuchel, California, from inception until January 1969.Representative Leo W. O'Brien, New York, from inception until August 1966.Representative Compton I White, Jr., Idaho, from inception until January 1967.Representative Rogers C. B. Morton, MarylandFebruary 1965-January 1967.Representative Walter Rogers, TexasJuly 1965-January 1967.Representative Ralph J. Rivers, AlaskaAugust 1966-January 1967.

House of Representatives

Walter S. Baring, NevadaLaurence J. Burton, UtahJohn H. Kyl, Iowa *John P. Saylor, PennsylvaniaRoy A. Taylor, North CarolinaMorris K. Udall, Arizona

Philip H. HoffFormer Governor of VermontBurlington, Vermont

Laurance S. RockefellerChairmanRockefeller Brothers FundNew York, New York

iv

* Served from inception until January 1965; reappointed in January 1967.

THE COMMISSION

ChairmanRepresentative Wayne N. Aspinall, Colorado

Assistant to the Directorand General Counsel

Elmer F. Bennett

LegalJerome C. Muys, Chief and

Assistant General CounselJerry L. HaggardJoe W. IngramThomas C. LeeJoseph M. McDonald (Deceased)

AdministrativeThomas J. Cavanaugh, Assistant to

the General CounselJoAnn Harte, Editorial AssistantEdward F. Kerr, Information OfficerJames P. McAleer, Contract SpecialistArthur B. Meyer, EditorPennie Paynich, Administrative Officer

Rae B. CarlileNina LeftwichMarjorie MelinMarion Merrithew

Assistant DirectorCharles Conklin

Resources and EvaluationDennis A. Rapp, ChiefPerry R. Hagenstein, Assistant ChiefAndrew Mayer, Assistant ChiefFrank W. ClaytonM. Florentine FordDouglas Harnish, Jr.Louis C. HermelEugene E. HughesRobert J. LavellS. Lawrence LissnerVal PayneDon A. SeastoneFrank H. SkeldingThomas R. WaggenerMelvin L. Yuhas

Secretarial and ClericalInez H. Jarvis, Administrative

Assistant to the Director

Billie K. RileyEva SheldonDorothy YevichMichael Halpin

DirectorMilton A. Pearl

STAFF

Listed above is the professional staff as constituted in August 1969, when reduction of that staff was initiated,together with the subprofessional and stenographic and clerical personnel on the staff at the time this reportwas completed.

Harry L. Moffett served as Assistant Director (Administration) from October 1966 to July 1969, and Leland0. Graham, Arthur D. Smith, and Max M. Tharp made significant contributions as members of the staff priorto August 1969.

v

The Act establishing the Commission provides for an Advisory Council consisting of Fed-eral liaison officers from departments and agencies having an interest in or responsibility for theretention, management, or disposition of the public lands and 25 other members repre-sentative of various major citizen groups interested in problems relating to the retention, man-agement, and disposition of the public lands. The following persons are either now on the Ad-visory Council or served on it previously.

* Former Under Secretary of the Interior. Acted as Liaison Member of Council representing Depart-ment of the Interior.

vi

Federal

Department of DefenseWilliam H PointDirectorReal Property Management

Department of JusticeShiro KashiwaAssistant Attorney GeneralLand and Natural Resources

Department of the InteriorMitchell MelichSolicitor

Department of AgricultureT. K. CowdenAssistant Secretary

Department of CommerceL. Ralph MechamFederal CochairmanFour Corners Regional Commission

Non - Federal

Roscoe E. BellConsultantPortland, Oregon

John A. BiggsDirectorDepartment of GameState of WashingtonOlympia, Washington

William E. BurbyProfessor of LawCalifornia Western UniversitySan Diego, California

Orb E. ChildsPresidentColorado School of MinesGolden, Colorado

Bert L. ColeCommissioner of Public LandsState of WashingtonOlympia, Washington

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL

Liaison Members

Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment

Samuel C. JacksonAssistant Secretary for Metropolitan

DevelopmentAtomic Energy Commission

James T. RameyCommissioner

Federal Power CommissionJohn A. Carver, Jr.*Commissioner

General Services AdministrationJohn W. Chapman, Jr.Deputy Administrator

Government Members

A. B. CurtisMayor of Orofino and Chief Fire WardenClearwater & Potlatch Timber Protective

AssociationsOrofino, Idaho

E. K. DavisGeneral CounselSacramento Municipal Utility DistrictSacramento, California

Gene EtchartRancherGlasgow, Montana

Sherry R. FisherVice PresidentCentral National Bank and Trust CompanyDes Moines, Iowa

Charles H. W. FosterNeedham, Massachusetts

W. Howard GrayChairmanPublic Lands CommitteeAmerican Mining CongressReno, Nevada

C. R. GutermuthVice PresidentWildlife Management InstituteWashington, D. C.

Lloyd E. HaightVice President and General CounselJ. R. Sim plot CompanyBoise, Idaho

Robert E. Lee HallSenior Vice PresidentNational Coal AssociationWashington, D. C.

Clarence E. HinklePracticing AttorneyRoswell, New Mexico

Samuel S. JohnsonPresidentJefjerson Plywood CompanyRedmond, Oregon

Thomas G. KelliherVice President and General ManagerSouthern DivisionGetty Oil CompanyHouston, Texas

Frederic L. KirgisPracticing AttorneyDenver, Colorado

FORMER ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS(Titles indicate affiliation at time of membership on Council)

Federal Liaison MembersHarry R. Anderson Karl S. Landstrom

Assistant Secretary Assistant to the Secretary for LandDepartment of the Interior Utilization

John A. Baker Department of the InteriorAssistant Secretary Clyde 0. MartzDepartment of Agriculture Assistant Attorney General

Victor Fischer Department of JusticeAssistant Administrator John C. MasonHousing and Home Finance Agency Deputy General Counsel

Charles M. Haar Federal Power CommissionAssistant Secretary Joe E. MoodyDepartment of Housing and Urban Deputy Administrator

Development General Services AdministrationPaul R. Ignatius Leonard Niederlehner

Assistant Secretary of Defense Acting General CounselDepartment of Defense Department of Defense

Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.Assistant Attorney GeneralDepartment of Justice

Non - Federal Government MembersEarl F. Requa Harold G. Wilm

Vice President and General Counsel Associate DeanNorthern Pacific Railway Company The New York State College of ForestrySt. Paul, Minnesota Syracuse University

Syracuse, New York

Clifford G. MclntireDirectorNatural Resources DepartmentAmerican Farm Bureau FederationWashington, D. C.

John MarvelRancherBattle Mountain, Nevada

Bernard L. OrellVice PresidentWeyerhaeuser CompanyTacoma, Washington

Bruce RenwickVice President and General CounselSouthern California Edison Co.Los Angeles, California

Fred SmithBusinessman and TrusteeJackson Hole Preserve, Inc.New York, New York

H. A. True, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerTrue Oil CompanyCasper, Wyoming

Michael F. Widman, Jr.DirectorResearch and Marketing Dept.United Mine Workers of AmericaWashington, D. C.

vii

THESYSTEM of private land ownership in most

of the states can be traced to the public landsystem developed after the Revolutionary War.

In oider to form and maintain the Union, thosestates asserting claims west of their traditionalboundaries ceded their interests to the National Gov-ernment. This Federal public domain grew as theNation's sovereignty became established across thecontinent.

Contrary to the traditions of sovereigns elsewherein the world, the United State disposed of much ofthe land at nominal prices and encouraged privateownership. At the same time, in order to promotethe common school system and, later, institutionsof higher learning, Congress granted substantialacreages to new states as they were formed.

In two years, the Nation will celebrate the 100thanniversary of the establishment of Yellowstone asth first national park, when Americans becameaware that some of the rare public domain shouldbe set aside and dedicated to provide for theirenjoyment, ". in such manner and by suchmeans as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoy-ment of future generations." 1

Although the National Government provided forthe reservation of forest resources in 1891 and sub-sequently set aside other lands for various purposes,the emphasis continued on disposal well into thiscentury as detailed in the History of Public LandLaw Development, prepared for this Commissionas part of its study program.2

Despite the fact that controversy surrounded theestablishment of many different types of programs onpublic domain lands, Professor Gates, in the Historyreferred to above, came to the following conclusion:

Many Americans take great pride in the national parks,enjoy the recreational facilities in the national forests,and in large numbers tour the giant dams and reservoirsof the Reclamation Service. National pride in the posses-sion and enjoyment of these facilities seems to be dis-placing the earlier views.

The increased demand for the use of the publiclands during and after World War II gave rise to aneed for new management and disposal tools con-cerning the public lands. The inability of Congressand the administrators of public lands to resolve allthe conflicting demands being made on the lands led

116 U.S.C. § 1(1964).2 Paul Wallace Gates and Robert W. Swensen, History of

Public Land Law Development. PLLRC Study Report, 1968.

PREFACE

to a multitude of suggestions for various amendmentsor additions to the body of public land laws. Theinterrelationships among all segments of public landlaw led to the conclusion that a broad review shouldbe undertaken in order to assure that no facet ofpublic land policy was being overlooked.

In reporting out the legislation which resulted inthe establishment of the Public Land Law ReviewCommission, both of the committees of Congressthat were involved stated:

It is the considered opinion of the committee that thenecessary comprehensive study required of the public landlaws cannot be carried out successfully by this committeeacting alone. The committee believes that due to themany and varied factors, considerations, and interestsinvolved, only a bipartisan commission supplemented byan advisory council made up of the many interested usersof the public lands would be in a position to coordinateand supervise effectively such a broad study.

H.R. 8070, if enacted as amended, will establish such abipartisan commission to conduct a review of existingpublic land laws and regulations and recommend revisionsnecessary therein. The commission and its staff would beassisted by liaison officers from Federal agencies with adirect interest.3

The Commission as established is comprised of19 members: Six appointed by the Speaker of theHouse of Representatives and six appointed by thePresident of the Senate, equally divided between thetwo major parties from among the membership ofthe respective Committees on Interior and InsularAffairs; six appointed by the President of the UnitedStates from persons outside of the Federal Govern-ment; and a Chairman elected by the 18 appointedmembers.

The full text of the statute creating the Commis-sion appears in Appendix A to this report.4 Certainsalient provisions must, however, be kept in mind

1. Section 10 of the Commission's Organic Actdefines as follows the lands concerning which theCommission was charged with responsibility for mak-ing recommendations:

As used in this Act, the term "public lands" includes (a)the public domain of the United States, (b) reservations,other than Indian reservations, created from the publicdomain, (c) lands permanently or temporarily withdrawn,reserved, or withheld from private appropriation and dis-posal under the public land laws, including the mining

H. R. Rep. No. 1008, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1964);S. Rep. No. 1444, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1964).

443 U.S.C. § 139 1-1400 (1964) as amended, (Supp. IV,1969).

ix

laws, (d) outstanding interests of the United States inlands patented, conveyed in fee or otherwise, under thepublic land laws, (e) national forests, (1) wildlife refugesand ranges, and (g) the surface and subsurface resourcesof all such lands, including the disposition or restrictionon disposition of the mineral resources in lands definedby appropriate statute, treaty, or judicial determination asbeing under the control of the United States in the OuterContinental Shelf.

Only Indian reservations were, therefore, excludedfrom consideration.5 The Commission thus generallyexamined matters pertaining not only to the landsincluded within the definition of its Act, but also tolands that are managed in conjunction with definedpublic lands, or that have characteristics similar tothem.

Of the 2.2 billion acres of land within the UnitedStates, the Federal Government owns 755.3 millionacres, of which 724.4 million acres are specificallywithin the definition of lands concerning which theCommission is charged with the responsibility ofmaking recommendations. As discussed in this report,there are both known and unknown values in theselands. This Commission never lost sight of the poten-tial significance that its recommendations might havebecause of these values.

The Commission was charged with making a"comprehensive review of [public land] laws, and therules and regulations promulgated thereunder" aswell as "the policies and practices of the Federalagencies charged with administrative jurisdictionover [public] lands insofar as such policies and prac-tices relate to the retention, management, and dispo-sition of those lands" in order "to determine whetherand to what extent revisions thereof are necessary."This broad charter meant that the Commission wasrequired to do much more than codify existingstatutes. Although it is a law review commission, itsmembers recognized that the laws could not be re-viewed under the above-quoted statutory languagewithout having a comprehensive examination of thelands and their resources, as well as the uses andpotential uses.

The Act requires the Commission to "compiledata necessary to understand and determine thevarious demands on the public lands which now existand which are likely to exist within the foreseeablefuture."

The Commission's work was based on a determina-tion that the year 2000 is the limit of its "foreseeablefuture." Such data were compiled and were referredto as the Commission made decisions.

The Commission is then charged with the re-

The United States holds legal title to Indian reservationlands for the benefit of the Indians. A body of law hasdeveloped for these lands wholly separate from those com-monly termed public land laws. For these reasons, Indianreservations were specifically excluded from the Commis-sion's study by the Act establishing the Commission.

sponsibility of recommending "such modifications inexisting laws, regulations, policies, and practices aswill, in the judgment of the Commission, best serveto carry out the policy" that the "public lands of theUnited States shall be (a) retained and managed or(b) disposed of, all in a manner to provide themaximum benefit for the general public." (§ § 4, 1)

The Commission held its organizational meetingin Washington, D. C. on July 14, 1965, at whichtime it elected unanimously Representative Wayne N.Aspinall (D-Colo.) as Chairman; a Presidential ap-pointee, H. Byron Mock, as Vice Chairman; andMilton A. Pearl as Director. The Director wascharged with the responsibility of assembling a staffand formulating a program that would produce allthe information and data necessary as a foundationfor the Commission's deliberations, conclusions, andrecommendations.

The Commission then chose 25 members of theAdvisory Council to be, in the words of the statute,"representative of the various major citizens' groupsinterested in problems relating to the retention, man-agement, and disposition of the public lands," towhom were added liaison officers appointed by theheads of Federal departments and agencies whichhave an interest in or responsibility for the retention,management, or disposition of the public lands.

Thereafter, each of the Governors of the 50 states,in response to an invitation from the Chairman,designated a representative to work with the Com-mission, its staff, and the Advisory Council.7

The first meeting of the Advisory Council, with theGovernors' Representatives participating, was heldon March 24, 1966. In June of the same year, theCommission held the first of a series of public meet-ings designed to obtain the views of all interestedpersons and groups. During the course of thosemeetings, which were held throughout the country,over 900 witnesses presented statements that werehelpful in focusing attention on problems and theirpossible solutions.8

The meetings of the Advisory Council with theGovernors' Representatives participating and thepresentations by members of the public contributedsubstantially to the Commission's understanding ofthe impacts of public land laws, policies, practices,and procedures.

The Commission is indebted particularly to mem-bers of the Advisory Council and the Governors'Representatives for their dedicated service in pro-viding comments and recommendations. The mem-bers and staff of the Commission benefited from

A listing of the Advisory Council appears on page vi.7 A listing of the Governors' Representatives appears in

Appendix C.S See Appendix D, Attachment No. 3, for a listing of the

public meetings.

their knowledge and insights throughout their work.These people were not advisors in name onlytheCommission asked for and obtained their advice,which was then referred to frequently during theCommission's deliberations.

As one of its main objectives at the outset, theCommission undertook the task of establishing someprinciples or criteria that could furnish help injudging whether retention and management, or dis-position, would provide the maximum benefit forthe general public. The Commission recognized thatit would be impossible to establish scientific criteriaand that, in any event, much judgment would berequired.

Considering the scope of this task, the Commis-sion believes it has been successful. As brought outin the report, the Commission agreed upon a check-list of the justifiable interests affected by public landpolicy that permitted it (and that it believes will behelpful to future policymakers and administrators)to arrive at conclusions and recommendations which,after taking all factors into consideration, will meetthe test of providing the maximum benefit for thegeneral public.

In response to the requirement that it developbackground data, the Commission's staff designed aresearch program embracing 33 individual subjects,on each of which manuscripts were prepared as onesource of information for Commission consideration.A discussion of the research program is included inthe appendix.9

Although thereafter the Commission discussedwith the Advisory Council and the Governors'Representatives, as well as in executive session, ma-terial on a subject-by-subject basis, it never lostsight of the concept that it was necessary for onegroup in one place at one time to look at all thepublic land laws and policies, as well as their inter-relationships. This the Commission did as it wentalong.

For the purposes of our review and report, theCommission considered all the resources and uses ofthe public lands to be commodities. Accordingly,in addition to the traditional resources of minerals,timber, forage, intensive agriculture, water, and fishand wildlife, there were included outdoor recreationand the various spatial uses such as for residential,commercial, and industrial purposes.

The impact that the use or development of eachcommodity has on other commodities, was con-sidered. The Commission also considered to whatextent, if any, the commodity would affect the en-vironment so that, where appropriate, recommenda-tions could be made to alleviate any adverse effect.

The Commission also examined several other fac-

Attachment No. 4, Appendix D.

tors that are common to all the commodities. Theseare pricing or fees to be charged, objectives or goalsin providing and supplying the commodities, in-vestment and financing by both the Federal Govern-ment and the user, questions of allocation of eitherthe resource base for production of the commodityor of the commodity to users, and finally, whetherlands that are chiefly valuable for a particular pur-pose should be retained and managed in Federalownership or disposed of either to another publicbody or into private ownership. As to those landsthe Commission proposes be retained, the manage-ment policies that should be adopted were con-sidered.

It is not intended by the foregoing to suggest thatthese were the only policy matters given considera-tion. Quite the contrary is true and policy matterspeculiar to individual commodities were consideredin connection with each such commodity.

In addition, at the final meeting of the AdvisoryCouncil with the Governors' Representatives par-ticipating, the Commission conducted a completereview of suggestions of how to determine guidelinesconcerning which lands should be retained and man-aged and which lands should be disposed of, all in amanner to provide the maximum benefit for the gen-eral public.

The comprehensive research program conductedby and under the supervision of the staff, examinedeach and every public land law as well as the regu-lations, practices and procedures involved in theiradministration. However, throughout its work, theCommission took a broad approach to matters ofpolicy and did not consider the subject before it ina law by law review. Nor have we attempted toidentify in our recommendations all of the incon-sistent laws that should be repealed or possiblymodified upon adoption of our recommendations.Where we have not recommended repeal or modifica-tion of specific statutes, the recommendation is im-plicit if the action we propose is inconsistent withexisting law.

The Digest of Public Land Laws, prepared as partof the research program set forth in AttachmentNo. 4, Appendix D, will be of considerable aid to theCongressional Committees in ascertaining the lawsthat are affected by the Commission's recommenda-tions. It will be up to the Congress in framing newlegislation, in those instances where an entire lawwould not be rendered obsolete, to determine whetherthere should be an amendment to or replacement ofexisting law. The probability is that upon adoptionof this Commission's recommendations, no publicland law will be left intact.

We note, however, that many of the Commission'srecommendations can be implemented by administra-tive action in the executive branch. We have been

xi

pleased and encouraged by the responsiveness ofland management agencies to possibilities for changethat were suggested during the course of our review,either by our official advisors, citizens at meetings,or by the study reports. Some of these changes havebeen instituted, and we understand that others areunder active consideration on the basis of materialdeveloped by or for us and without awaiting studyof the Commission's specific recommendations.

With the various interestsprivate and public,Federal as well as non-Federalrepresented in theadvisory groups, and with the diverse political, social,

xl'

and economic backgrounds of the Commissioners,taken together with the comprehensive studies pre-pared by or under the direction of the staff, as wellas the several thousand views received at meetingsand otherwise from members of the public, the Com-mission believes that all factors have been given con-sideration in the making of its final decisions. Allthe members of the Commission, including those whoare legislators, have looked beyond the narrowrequirements of their constituencies, affiliations, andassociations to judge the public weaL

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER TWO

CHAPTER THREE

CHAPTER FOUR

CHAPTER FIVE

CHAPTER SIX

CHAPTER SEVEN

CHAPTER EIGHT

CHAPTER NINE

CHAPTER TEN

CHAPTER ELEVEN

CHAPTER TWELVE

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

CHAPTER NINETEEN

CHAPTER TWENTY

CONTENTS

Letter of TransmittalThe CommissionThe StaffThe Advisory CouncilPrefaceA Program for the FutureSummaryWhere and What Are Public Lands?To Whom the Public Lands Are ImportantPlanning Future Public Land UsePublic Land Policy and the EnvironmentTimber ResourcesRange ResourcesMineral ResourcesWater ResourcesFish and Wildlife ResourcesIntensive AgricultureThe Outer Continental ShelfOutdoor RecreationOccupancy Uses

Tax ImmunityLand Grants To StatesAdministrative ProceduresTrespass and Disputed TitleDisposals, Acquisitions, and ExchangesFederal Legislative JurisdictionOrganization, Administration, and Budgeting

Policy

AppendicesThe Commission's Organic ActThe CommissionGovernors' RepresentativesHow the Work Was AccomplishedFunctions of the Public Land Manage-

ment AgenciesAcreage of Land Administered by

Agency and StateCredits for Photographs Used

IndexPublic Lands Map Folded in Report

cover photograph by Leland Prater

xm

iii

iv

v

vi

ix

1

9

19

33

41

67

91

105

121

141

157

177

187

197

219235

243

251

259265277

281

291297299305

323

327337339

FEELING

THE PRESSURES of an enlargingpopulation, burgeoning growth, and expandingdemand for land and natural resources, the

American people today have an almost desperateneed to determine the best purposes to which theirpublic lands and the wealth and opportunities ofthose lands should be dedicated. Through the timelyaction of Congress, and through the work of thisCommission, a rare opportunity is offered to answerthat need.

For reasons that we will detail, we urge reversalof the policy that the United States should disposeof the so-called unappropriated public domain lands.But we also reject the idea that merely becausethese lands are owned by the Federal Government,they should all remain forever in Federal ownership.

We have also found that by administrative actionthe disposal policy, although never "repealed" bystatute, has been rendered ineffective. In the absenceof congressional guidelines, there has been no pre-dictable administrative policy.

We, therefore, recommend that:The policy of large-scale disposal of publiclands reflected by the majority of statutes inforce today be revised and that future dis-posal should be of only those lands that willachieve maximum benefit for the generalpublic in non-Federal ownership, while retain-ing in Federal ownership those whose valuesmust be preserved so that they may be usedand enjoyed by all Americans.

While there may be some modest disposals, weconclude that at this time most public lands would

A Programfor the Future

An introductory summary of the Commission's basicconcepts and recommendations for long-range goals,objectives, and guidelines, underlying the more specificrecommendations in the individual chapters of thereport.

not serve the maximum public interest in privateownership. We support the concepts embodied inthe establishment and maintenance of the nationalforests, the National Park System, the NationalWildlife Refuge System, and the parallel or sub-sidiary programs involving the Wilderness Preserva-tion System, the National Riverways and ScenicRivers Systems, national trails, and national recrea-tion areas.

In recent years, with very few exceptions, all areasthat have been set aside for specific use have beengiven intensive study by both the legislative andexecutive branches and have been incorporated inone of the programs through legislative action. Wewould not disturb any of these because they have alsobeen subjected to careful scrutiny by state and localgovernments as well as by interested and affectedpeople.

Based on our study, however, we find that, gen-erally, areas set aside by executive action as nationalforests, national monuments, and for other purposeshave not had adequate study and there has notbeen proper consultation with people affected or withthe units of local government in the vicinity, par-ticularly as to precise boundaries. Although theDepartment of the Interior and the Bureau of LandManagement classified lands under the temporaryClassification and Multiple Use Act of 1964,1 webelieve that in many cases there was hasty actionbased on preconceived determinations instead ofbeing based on careful land use planning. In addi-tion, there are many areas of the public domain

143 U.S.C. § 1411-1418 (1964).

1

that have never been classified or set aside forspecific use.*

We, therefore, recommend that:An immediate review should be undertakenof all lands not previously designated for anyspecific use, and of all existing withdrawals,set asides, and classifications of public do-main lands that were effected by Executiveaction to determine the type of use thatwould provide the maximum benefit for thegeneral public in accordance with standardsset forth in this report.

The result of these reviews will be the delineationof lands that should be retained in Federal owner-ship and those that could best serve the publicthrough private ownership. For those to be retainedin Federal ownership, there will be a further break-down indicating which ones should be set asidefor special-purpose usewhich may or may notinclude several different uses.

As intimated above, our studies have also led usto the conclusions that the Congress has largelydelegated to the executive branch its plenary consti-tutional authority over the retention, management,and disposition of public land; 2 that statutory dele-gations have often been lacking in standards ormeaningful policy determinations; that the execu-tive agencies, understandably, in keeping with theoperation of the American political system, tookthe action they deemed necessary to fill this vacuumthrough the issuance of regulations, manuals, andother administrative directives; and that the needfor administrative flexibility in meeting varying re-gional and local conditions created by the diversityof our public lands and by the complexity of manypublic land problems does not justify failure tolegislate the controlling standards, guidelines, andcriteria under which public land decisions should bemade.

2

2 U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 3.

* Commissioner Clark submits the following separateview: Some of the statements in this and other parts of thereport may lead to interpretations in the minds of somereaders which do not represent views of all members of theCommission. However, since this is a consensus effort, abrief caveat is appropriate regarding the language and sub-jective tone employed to describe some past actions affectingpublic lands which should not detract from the general utilityof the recommendations. This report must be read againstnearly 200 years of history and no doubt a nongovernmentreport would contain similar inferences that would empha-size perhaps disproportionately the past inaction, delays, andpiecemeal approach of Congress.

We, therefore, recommend that:

Congress should establish national policy inall public land laws by prescribing the con-trolling standards, guidelines, and criteriafor the exercise of authority delegated toexecutive agencies.

Many types of public land have been reservedby executive action for governmental uses, such asdefense installations and atomic energy testing areas.The result has been to materially restrict or precludetheir availability for recreation and resource develop-ment purposes. In other cases, withdrawals andreservations have severely limited permissible typesof uses on tremendous acreages of public land inorder to further administrative land policies.

We find that when proposed land uses are passedon by the Congress, they receive more carefulscrutiny in the executive branch before being recom-mended; furthermore, in connection with congres-sional action, the general public is given a betteropportunity to comment and have its views con-sidered. We conclude that Congress should notdelegate broad authority for these types of actions.

We, therefore, recommend that:

Congress assert its constitutional authorityby enacting legislation reserving unto itselfexclusive authority to withdraw or otherwiseset aside public lands for specified limited-purpose uses and delineating specific delega-tion of authority to the Executive as to thetypes of withdrawals and set asides that maybe effected without legislative action.

Our studies have convinced us that, with respectto lands retained in Federal ownership, the rules andregulations governing their use, to the extent thatthey exist, have not been adequate to fulfill the pur-pose; that they were promulgated without properconsultation with, and participation by, either thoseaffected or the general public; that existing regula-tions are cumbersome; and that the procedures forusers or other interested parties to exercise theirrights to seek or oppose the grant of interests inpublic land are likewise cumbersome as well as ex-pensive with no assurance of objective, impartialconsideration of appeals from, or objections to,decisions by land managers.

We, therefore, recommend that:Public land management agencies should berequired by statute to promulgate compre-hensive rules and regulations after full con-sideration of all points of view, including

protests, with provisions for a simplified ad-ministrative appeals procedure in a mannerthat will restore public confidence in the im-partiality and fairness of administrative deci-sions. Judicial review should generally beavailable.

In pursuing our work, we took cognizance of thefact that between 1965, when we started our work,and the year 2000, the population of the UnitedStates will have grown by over 100 million people.The public lands can, must, and will contribute tothe well-being of our people by providing a combi-nation of many uses. Some of these will help to takecare of the increasing leisure time that Americans ofthe future will have, while others must help in fur-nishing the added amounts of food, fiber, and min-erals that the larger numbers of people will require.

Under existing statutes and regulations, there is noassurance that the public lands retained in Federalownership will contribute in the manner that willbe required. We find that the absence of statutoryguidelines leaves a void which could result in landmanagers withholding from public use public landsor their resources that may be required for aparticular time; that even if land managers plan tomake specific goods and services available to thepublic, there are no long-range objectives or pro-cedures that will assure fulfillment of a program;and that the absence of statutory guidelines for theestablishment of priorities in allocating land usescauses unnecessary confusion and inconsistent ad-ministration.

We, therefore, recommend that:

Statutory goals and objectives should beestablished as guidelines for land-use plan-ning under the general principle that withina specific unit, consideration should be givento all possible uses and the maximum num-ber of compatible uses permitted. Thisshould be subject to the qualification thatwhere a unit, within an area managed formany uses, can contribute maximum benefitthrough one particular use, that use shouldbe recognized as the dominant use, and-theland should be managed to avoid interferencewith fulfillment of such dominant use.

Throughout our work we were aware of the ever-growing concern by the American people about thedeterioration of the environment. We share thatconcern and have looked in vain to find assurancein the public land laws that the United States, as alandowner, had made adequate provision to assurethat the quality of life would not be endangered

by reason of activities on federally owned lands.We find to the contrary that, despite recent legisla-tive enactments, there is an absence of statutoryguidelines by which land management agencies canprovide uniform, equitable, and economically soundprovision for environmental control over lands re-tained in Federal ownership.

We, therefore, recommend that:

Federal statutory guidelines should be es-tablished to assure that Federal public landsare managed in a manner that not only willnot endanger the quality of the environment,but will, where feasible, enhance the qualityof the environment, both on and off publiclands, and that Federal control of the landsshould never be used as a shield to permitlower standards than those required by thelaws of the state in which the lands arelocated. The Federal licensing power shouldbe used, under statutory guidelines, to assurethese results.

Every landowner is concerned with the returnthat he receives for the use of his land or for therevenue he receives from products produced on thatland. United States citizens, collectively the ownersof the public lands, are similarly concerned. Weascertained from the many witnesses that we heardthat the concern of some is that the United Stateshas not been receiving the maximum dollar return;the concern of others is that the United States hasbeen trying to receive too much of a dollar return;while the concern of still others is that the UnitedStates is uneven in its efforts to obtain monetary re-turn from its public lands.

From our review, we find that there is a greatdiversity in public land policy on fees and chargesfor the various goods and services derived fromthe public lands; that the fee structures vary amongcommodities and among agencies administering thepublic lands; that objectives for the pricing of goodsand services are unclear; and that the absence ofcomprehensive statutory guidelines has created asituation in which land managers are unable to pro-vide uniform equitable treatment for all.

We, therefore, recommend that:Statutory guidelines be established providinggenerally that the United States receive fullvalue for the use of the public lands and theirresources retained in Federal ownership, ex-cept that monetary payment need not repre-sent full value, or so-called market value, ininstances where there is no consumptive useof the land or its resources.

3

Many of those who appeared before the Commis-sion testified to the drastic results that sometimes flowfrom the uncertainty of tenure and the insecurity ofinvestment of public land users. Studies preparedfor the Commission confirm this, despite the fact thatnot only individuals and companies but many com-munities are wholly or partially dependent for theireconomic life on the public lands and their resources.

We, therefore, recommend that:Statutory provision be made to assure thatwhen public lands or their resources aremade available for use, firm tenure and se-curity of investment be provided so that if theuse must be interrupted because of a FederalGovernment need before the end of the lease,permit, or other contractual arrangement,the user will be equitably compensated forthe resulting losses.

The United States need not seek to obtain thegreatest monetary return, but instead should recog-nize improvements to the land and the fact that theland will be dedicated, in whole or in part, toservices for the public as elements of value received.

Having determined that there should be no whole-sale disposition of the public lands, we turned our at-tention to the impact that the retention in Federalownership would have on other levels of government.In doing this, we made an intensive review of existingprograms.

Revenue-sharing programs were established forthe purpose of compensating state and local govern-ments for the fact that certain types of lands wouldnot be going into private ownership and, therefore,onto the tax rolls. Nonetheless, we find that suchprograms actually have no relationship to the burdensimposed on state and local governments by the re-tention of public lands in Federal ownership. Thecontinuation of the general United States policy ofproviding for transfer to private ownership of vir-tually all of the public lands would not have requiredconsideration of a comprehensive program to com-pensate state and local governments for the burdensimposed by Federal ownership of public lands sincesuch ownership was then transitory. The establish-ment of new programs in recent years and the ad-ministration of the public land laws generally hasresulted in millions of acres of land being set asidefor permanent retention by the Federal Governmentthroughout the 50 states with concomitant unpre-dicted burdens on state and local governments. Thepotential retention of additional millions of acres ofpublic domain lands as a result of the review recom-mended by this Commission requires that we re-

4

examine the obligations and responsibilities of theUnited States as a landowner in relation to state andlocal governments upon which continuing burdenswill be placed. We find further that any attempt totie payments to states and local governments to re-ceipts generated from the sale or use of public landsor their resources causes an undue emphasis to begiven in program planning to the receipts that maybe generated.

We, therefore, recommend that:The United States make payments in lieuof taxes for the burdens imposed upon stateand local governments by reason of theFederal ownership of public lands without re-gard to the revenues generated therefrom.Such payments should not represent full taxequivalency and the state and local tax effortshould be a factor in determining the exactamount to be paid.

The statute establishing the Public Land Law Re-view Commission stated that, "those laws, or someof them, may be inadequate to meet the current andfuture needs of the American people." Our re-view has led us to the conclusion that the lawsare indeed inadequate, first, because of the em-phasis on disposition, second, because of the ab-sence of statutory guidelines for administration, asdiscussed above, and third, because the dispositionlaws themselves are obsolete and not geared to thepresent and future requirements of the Nation. Withthe exception of the temporary Public Land SaleAct,4 which will expire 6 months after submission ofthe final report by this Commission, there is nostatute permitting the sale of public domain landsin any large tracts for residential, commercial, orindustrial use, and we find that the statute for thesale of small tracts has not worked well.

Accordingly, we find that it is necessary to modifyor repeal all of the public domain disposition lawsand replace them with a body of law that will permitthe orderly disposition of those lands that can con-tribute most to the general welfare by being placedin private ownership.

We, therefore, recommend that:Statutory authority be provided for the saleat full value of public domain lands requiredfor certain mining activities or where suit-able only for dryland farming, grazing of

343 U.S.C. § 1392 (1964).443 U.sc. § 1421-1427 (1964).

domestic livestock, or residential, com-mercial, or industrial uses, where such saleis in the public interest and important publicvalues will not thereby be lost.

In the mid-1860's, statutory provision was madefor the use of public lands as sites for new towns.5Our studies reveal that relatively few new towns areestablished on public lands through the townsitelaws.

We find that the need for the establishment of newtowns to provide for a portion of the anticipatedpopulation growth and the parallel growth of industryby the year 2000 will be, realistically, challengingand difficult to fulfill. Compounding the problem arethe mounting difficulties facing the large existingcities. While we find that the problems of urbanareas cannot be solved by transplanting large num-bers of people to the public land areas, we also findthat the public lands offer an opportunity for theestablishment of at least some of the new cities thatwill be required in the next 30 years, and that,in many instances, they offer the only opportunityfor the expansion of existing communities.

We, therefore, recommend that:Legislation be enacted to provide a frame-work within which large units of land may bemade available for the expansion of existingcommunities or the development of newcities.

Until some experience has been gained inthe various mechanisms that might be uti-lized and a national policy adopted concern-ing the establishment of new cities generally,Congress should consider proposals for thesale of land for new cities on a case-by-casebasis.

Our inquiries and studies have revealed that thereare many instances where all concerned will agreethat public domain land previously incorporatedwithin a national forest could best serve the publicinterest by being transferred to private ownership.We find, however, that the present procedures forthe accomplishment of such transfer, requiring asthey do an exchange for other lands, are cumbersome,administratively burdensome, and unnecessarily ex-pensive to both the Government and the privateparty, inordinately time consuming, and result in theacquisition of land that may not, in fact, be needed bythe United States any more than the land of whichit is disposing through the exchange process.

543 U.S.C. § 711 et seq. (1964).

We, therefore, recommend that:Statutory authority be granted for the limiteddisposition of lands administered by theForest Service where such lands are neededto meet a non-Federal but public purpose, orwhere disposition would result in the landsbeing placed in a higher use than if con-tinued in Federal ownership.

The administration of some programs, such asrecreation, can be accomplished just as well, if notbetter, by state and local government units; in otherinstances, Federal public lands are required forconstruction of schools and other buildings that pro-vide state or local government services.

We find that it is in the best interest of all con-cerned to encourage state and local governments toassume complete responsibility for the maximumnumber of programs that those levels of governmentcan and will administer and to acquire title to therequired land in order to permit the proper level ofinvestment to be made.

We, therefore, recommend that:Legislation be enacted to provide flexiblemechanisms, including transfer of title atless than full value, to make any federallyowned lands available to state and localgovernments when not required for a Federalpurpose if the lands will be utilized for apublic purpose.

Throughout our studies and inquiries, we com-pared the policies, practices, and procedures appli-cable to the public lands as defined in the statuteestablishing the Public Land Law Review Com-mission with the policies, practices, and proceduresapplicable to other types of lands where such otherlands were managed in conjunction with or hadcharacteristics similar to public lands concerningwhich this Commission was charged with respon-sibility of making recommendations. We also takenote of the fact that within the definition of lands inour Organic Act, there are both "public domain" and"acquired" lands as discussed elsewhere in thisreport.

We find that there is no logical basis for distin-guishing between public domain and acquired landsor between lands defined as "public lands" and allother federally owned lands.

We, therefore, recommend that:Generally, in both legislation and administra-tion, the artificial distinctions between pub-

5

6

lic domain and acquired lands of the FederalGovernment should be eliminated.

We find that the division of responsibility for thedevelopment of policy and the administration ofpublic lands among Congressional Committees andseveral Federal departments and agencies has led todifferences, contradictions, and duplications inpolicies and programs. Not only have these factorsbeen administratively burdensome, but they havealso been the source of confusion to citizens dealingwith the Government.

We, therefore, recommend that:Responsibility for public land policy and pro-grams within the Federal Government in boththe legislative and executive branches shouldbe consolidated to the maximum practicableextent in order to eliminate, or at least re-duce, differences in policies concerning theadministration of similar public land pro-grams.

We submit the foregoing findings and basic rec-ommendations as a statement of principles thatshould govern the retention and management or dis-position of federally owned lands. In the chaptersthat follow, we will develop detailed background inspecific subject areas, along with more detailedrecommendations designed to implement the basicprinciples enunciated in the foregoing recommenda-tions.

In arriving at these recommendations and thosethat follow, we made each decision on the basis ofwhat we consider to be the maximum benefit forthe general public, in accordance with the statutorycharge to the Commission as cited in the Preface.

We have not defined in any one place what weconsider to be "the maximum benefit for the generalpublic." Nor have we defined a set of criteria thatwill lead all persons to the same conclusion as towhat is the maximum benefit for the general public.These are tasks that are perhaps best left to sociolo-gists, philosophers, and others. But, we did study theproblem and found, in the end, that our work waseased and made more meaningful by adopting a con-venient categorization of broadly justifiable, unexcep-tionable, yet often conflicting, interests within thetotality of the general public.

Obviously, the general public is made up of manypersons and groups with conflicting aims and objec-tives. Stated another way, it may be said that thereare several "publics" which, in the aggregate, makeup the general public with respect to policies for thepublic lands. Perhaps this categorization of identifi-

able interests would be useful in other areas of publicpolicy, too. In any case, we found it useful in ourwork and applied it to all of our decisions. The sixcategories of interests we recognized are:

the national public: all citizens, as taxpayers,consumers, and ultimate owners of the publiclands are concerned that the lands produce andremain productive of the material, social, andesthetic benefits that can be obtained from them.

the regional public: those who live and workon or near the vast public lands, while beinga part of and sharing the concerns of the na-tional public, have a special concern that thepublic lands help to support them and theirneighbors and that the lands contribute to theiroverall well-being.

the Federal Government as sovereign: the ulti-mate responsibility of the Federal Government isto provide for the common defense and promotethe general welfare and, in so doiig, it shouldmake use of every tool at its command, includingits control of the public lands.

the Federal Government as proprietor: in anarrower sense, the Federal Government is alandowner that seeks to manage its propertyaccording to much the same set of principles asany other landowner and to exercise normalproprietary control over its land.

state and local government: most of the Federallands fall within the jurisdiction limits of otherlevels of governments, which have responsibilityfor the health, safety, and welfare of their con-stituents and, thus, an interest in assuring thatthe overriding powers of the Federal Govern-ment be accommodated to their interests asviable instruments in our Federal system ofgovernment.

the users of public lands and resources: users,including those seeking economic gain and thoseseeking recreation or other noneconomic bene-fits, have an interest in assuring that theirspecial needs, which vary widely, are met andthat all users are given equal consideration whenuses are permitted.

The Commission in each of its decisions gave care-ful consideration to the interests of each of theseveral "publics" that make up the "general public."Distinguishing among these interests required thatthe Commission specifically consider each of themand, thus, assure that the decisions of the Com-mission, to the best of its ability, reflect all of theinterests of the general public.

In applying the procedure that we did, in each caseit was possible to see which interest is affected most.This is not only useful in the decisionmaking processbut provides a healthy atmosphere in which all parties

interested can be assured that consideration has beengiven to them.

We, therefore, recommend that:In making public land decisions, the FederalGovernment should take into considerationthe interests of the national public, the re-gional public, the Federal Government as thesovereign, the Federal proprietor, the usersof public lands and resources, and the stateand local governmental entfties within whichthe lands are located in order to assure, tothe extent possible, that the maximum bene-fit for the general public is achieved.

Premises

Fundamental premises are beliefs set forth in theforegoing underlying principles as well as in theimplementing recommendations that follow. Theseare:

1. Functioning of Government in a manner thatreflects the principles set forth in the Constitution.

In adhering to this principle, we seek to giverecognition particularly to these specific prin-ciples:

Congress, elected by and responsive tothe will of the people, makes policy; theexecutive branch administers the policy.

Maintenance of a strong Federalism. TheFederal Government not only recognizesthe importance of state and local govern-ments in the Federal system but affirm-atively supports and strengthens theirroles to the maximum extent possible.

The Federal Government protects the

rights of individual citizens and assuresthat each one is dealt with fairly andequitably.

Balancing of all major interests in order toassure maximum benefit for the general public.

No one of the interests we have identifiedshould benefit to the unreasonable detri-ment of another unless there is an over-riding national interest present.

Providing responsible stewardship of the publiclands and their resources.

Environmental values must be protectedas major permanent elements of publicland policy.

Public lands must be available to meet adiversity of expanding requirements with-out degradation of the environment and,where possible, enhancement of the en-vironment.

Better planning will provide increasedefficiency in the allocation of resourcesand the investment of funds.

Guidelines must be established to providefor priorities in reducing conflicts amongusers and resolving conflicts when theyarise.

In addition to serving national requirements,the public lands must serve regional and local needs.

In many areas, consideration must begiven to dependence of regional and localsocial and economic growth upon publiclands and land policy.

In planning the use of public lands, theuses of nonpublic lands must be givenconsideration.

7

ONEHUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN specific

recommendations are set forth below, as theyappear and as they are numbered consecutively

beginning in Chapter 3 and concluding in Chapter20.1 Not included here are (1) the basic principlesset forth in A Program for the Future as under-lying the detailed recommendations elsewhere in theReport, and (2) the unnumbered recommendations,which appear in italics within the various chapterssubsidiary to the ones here set forth.

Chapter Three (Planning Future Public Land Use):Goals should be established by statute for a

continuing, dynamic program of land use planning.These should include:

Use of all public lands in a manner that willresult in the maximum net public benefit.

Disposal of those lands identified in land useplans as being able to maximize net public benefitonly if they are transferred to private or state or localgovernmental ownership, as specified in other Com-mission recommendations.

Management of primary use lands for secondaryuses where they are compatible with the primarypurpose for which the lands were designated.

Management of all lands not having a statutoryprimary use for such uses as they are capable ofsustaining.

Disposition or retention and management of publiclands in a manner that complements uses and patternsof use on other ownership in the locality and theregion. Page 42.

Public land agencies should be required to planland uses to obtain the greatest net public benefit.Congress should specify the factors to be consideredby the agencies in making these determinations, andan analytical system should be developed for theirapplication. Page 45.

Public lands should be classified for transferfrom Federal ownership when net public benefitswould be maximized by disposal. Page 48.

Management of public lands should recognizethe highest and best use of particular areas of landas dominant over other authorized uses. Page 48.

1 There are no recommendations in Chapters One andTwo.

Summary

All public land agencies should be required toformulate long range, comprehensive land use plansfor each state or region, relating such plans not onlyto internal agency programs but also to land use plansand attendant management programs of otheragencies. Specific findings should be provided intheir plans, indicating how various factors were takeninto account. Page 52.

As an essential first step to the planning systemwe recommend, Congress should provide for a care-ful review of (1) all Executive withdrawals andreservations, and (2) BLM retention and disposalclassifications under the Classification and MultipleUse Act of 1964. Page 52.

Congress should provide authority to classifynational forest and BLM lands, including the au-thority to suspend or limit the operation of any publicland laws in specified areas. Withdrawal authorityshould no longer be used for such purpose. Page 53.

Large scale, limited or single use withdrawals ofa permanent or indefinite term should be accom-plished only by act of Congress. All other withdrawalauthority should be expressly delegated with stat-utory guidelines to insure proper justification forproposed withdrawals, provide for public partici-pation in their consideration, and establish criteriafor executive action. Page 54.

Congress should establish a formal program bywhich withdrawals would be periodically reviewedand either rejustified or moçlified. Page 56.

All Executive withdrawal authority, withoutlimitation, should be delegated to the Secretary of theInterior, subject to the continuing limitation of exist-ing law that the Secretary cannot redelegate to any-one other than an official of the Departmentappointed by the Fresident, thereby making the exer-cise of this authority wholly independent of publicland management operating agency heads. Page 56.

Provision should be made for public partici-pation in land use planning, including public hearingson proposed Federal land use plans, as an initialstep in a regional coordination process. Page 57.

Land use planning among Federal agenciesshould be systematically coordinated. Page 60.

State and local governments should be given

9

an effective role in Federal agency land use planning.Federal land use plans should be developed in con-sultation with these governments, circulated to themfor comments, and should conform to state or localzoning to the maximum extent feasible. As a generalrule, no use of public land should be permitted whichis prohibited by state or local zoning. Page 61.

Congress should provide additional financialassistance to public land states to facilitate better andmore comprehensive land use planning. Page 63.

Comprehensive land use planning should beencouraged through regional commissions along thelines of the river basin commissions created under theWater Resources Planning Act of 1965. Such com-missions should come into existence only with theconsent of the states involved, with regional coordina-tion being initiated when possible within the contextof existing state and local political boundaries.Page 64.

Chapter Four (Public Land Policy and the Environ-ment):

Environmental quality should be recognizedby law as an important objective of public land man-agement, and public land policy should be designedto enhance and maintain a high quality environmentboth on and off the public lands. Page 68.

Federal standards for environmental qualityshould be established for public lands to the extentpossible, except that, where state standards have beenadopted under Federal law, state standards should beutilized. Page 70.

Congress should require classification of thepublic lands for environmental quality and enhance-ment and maintenance. Page 73.

Congress should specify the kinds of environ-mental factors to be considered in land use planningand decisionmaking, and require the agencies toindicate clearly how they were taken into account.Page 77.

Congress should provide for greater use ofstudies of environmental impacts as a preconditionto certain kinds of uses. Page 80.

Existing research programs related to thepublic lands should be expanded for greater emphasison environmental quality. Page 80.

Public hearings with respect to enviromnentalconsiderations should be mandatory on proposedpublic land projects or decisions when requested bythe states or by the Council on EnvironmentalQuality. Page 81.

Congress should authorize and require thepublic land agencies to condition the granting ofrights or privileges to the public lands or their re-sources on compliance with applicable environmentalcontrol measures governing operations off public

10

lands which are closely related to the right or privilegegranted. Page 81.

Federal land administering agencies should beauthorized to protect the public land environment by(1) imposing protective covenants in disposals ofpublic lands, and (2) acquiring easements on non-Federal lands adjacent to public lands. Page 82.

Those who use the public lands and resourcesshould, in each instance, be required by statute toconduct their activities in a manner that avoids orminimizes adverse environmental impacts, and shouldbe responsible for restoring areas to an acceptablestandard where their use has an adverse impact onthe environment. Page 83.

Public land areas in need of environmentalrehabilitation should be inventoried and the FederalGovernment should undertake such rehabilitation.Funds should be appropriated as soon as practicalfor environmental management and rehabilitationresearch. Page 86.

Congress should provide for the creation andpreservation of a natural area system for scientificand educational purposes. Page 87.

Chapter Five (Timber Resources):There should be a statutory requirement that

those public lands that are highly productive fortimber be classified for commercial timber produc-tion as the dominant use, consistent with the Com-mission's concept of how multiple use should beapplied in practice. Page 92.

Federal programs on timber production unitsshould be financed by appropriations from a re-volving fund made up of receipts from timber saleson these units. Financing for development and use ofpublic forest lands, other than those classified fortimber production as the dominant use, would be byappropriation of funds unrelated to receipts from thesale of timber. Page 95.

Dominant timber production units should bemanaged primarily on the basis of economic factorsso as to maximize net returns to the Federal Treasury.Such factors should also play an important but notprimary role in timber management on other publiclands. Page 96.

Major timber management decisions, includ-ing allowable-cut determinations, should includespecific consideration of economic factors. Page 97.

Timber sales procedures should be simplifiedwherever possible. Page 98.

There should be an accelerated program oftimber access road construction. Page 99.

Communities and firms dependent on publicland timber should be given consideration in themanagement and disposal of public land timber.Page 99.

Timber production should not be used as a

justification for acquisition or disposition of Federalpublic lands. Page 101.

Controls to assure that timber harvesting isconducted so as to minimize adverse impacts on theenvironment on and off the public lands must beimposed. Page 101.

Chapter Six (Range Resources):Public land forage policies should be flexible,

designed to attain maximum economic efficiency inthe production and use of forage from the public land,and to support regional economic growth. Page 106.

The grazing of domestic livestock on thepublic lands should be consistent with the productivityof those lands. Page 106.

Existing eligibility requirements should beretained for the allocation of grazing privileges upto recent levels of forage use. Increases in forage pro-duction above these levels should be allocated undernew eligibility standards. Grazing permits for in-

creased forage production above recent levels shouldbe allocated by public auction among qualifiedapplicants. Page 108.

Private grazing on public land should be pur-suant to a permit that is issued for a fixed statutoryterm and spells out in detail the conditions andobligations of both the Federal Government and thepermittee, including provisions for compensation fortermination prior to the end of the term. Page 109.

Funds should be invested under statutoryguidelines in deteriorated public grazing lands re-

tained in Federal ownership to protect them againstfurther deterioration and to rehabilitate them wherepossible. On all other retained grazing lands, invest-ments to improve grazing should generally be con-trolled by economic guidelines promulgated understatutory requirements. Page 114.

Public lands, including those in nationalforests and land utilization projects, should be re-viewed and those chiefly valuable for the grazing ofdomestic livestock identified. Some such public landsshould, when important public values will not be lost,be offered for sale at market value with grazing per-mittees given a preference to buy them. Domesticlivestock grazing should be declared as the dominantuse on retained lands where appropriate. Page 115.

Control should be asserted over public accessto and the use of retained public grazing lands fornongrazing uses in order to avoid unreasonable inter-ference with authorized livestock use. Page 116.

Fair-market value, taking into considerationfactors in each area of the lands involved, should beestablished by law as a basis for grazing fees.Page 117.

Policies applicable to the use of public landsfor grazing purposes generally should be uniform forall classes of public lands. Page 118.

Chapter Seven (Mineral Resources):Congress should continue to exclude some

classes of public lands from future mineral develop-ment. Page 123.

Existing Federal systems for exploration, de-velopment, and production of mineral resources onthe public lands should be modified. Page 124.

Whether a prospector has done preliminaryexploration work or not, he should, by giving writtennotice to the appropriate Federal land managementagency, obtain an exclusive right to explore a claimof sufficient size to permit the use of advancedmethods of exploration. As a means of assuring ex-ploration, reasonable rentals should be charged forsuch claims, but actual expenditures for explorationand development work should be credited againstthe rentals.

Upon receipt of the notice of location, a permitshould be issued to the claimholder, including meas-ures specifically authorized by statute necessary tomaintain the quality of the environment, together withthe type of rehabilitation that is required.

When the claimholder is satisfied that he hasdiscovered a commercially mineable deposit, heshould obtain firm development and production rightsby entering into a contract with the United States tosatisfy specified work or investment requirementsover a reasonable period of time.

When a claimholder begins to produce and marketminerals, he should have the right to obtain a patentonly to the mineral deposit, along with the right toutilize surface for production. He should have theoption of acquiring title or lease to surface upon pay-ment of market value.

Patent fees should be increased and equitableroyalties should be paid to the United States on allminerals produced and marketed whether before orafter patent. Page 126.

Competitive sale of exploration permits orleases should be held whenever competitive interestcan reasonably be expected. Page 132.

Statutory provision should be made to permithobby collecting of minerals on the unappropriatedpublic domain and the Secretary of the Interiorshould be required to promulgate regulations inaccordance with statutory guidelines applicable tothese activities. Page 134.

Legislation should be enacted which wouldauthorize legal actions by the Government to acquireoutstanding claims or interests in public land oil shalesubject to judicial determination of value. Page 134.

Some oil shale public lands should be madeavailable now for experimental commercial develop-ment by private industry with the cooperation of theFederal Government in some aspects of the develop-ment. Page 135.

11

Restrictions on public land mineral activitythat are no longer relevant to existing conditionsshould be eliminated so as to encourage mineralexploration and development and long standingclaims should be disposed of expeditiously. Page 135.

The Department of the Interior should con-tinue to have sole responsibility for administeringmineral activities on all public lands, subject to con-sultation with the department having managementfunctions for other uses. Page 136.

In future disposals of public lands for non-mineral purposes, all mineral interests known to beof value should be reserved with exploration anddevelopment discretionary in the Federal Governmentand a uniform policy adopted relative to all reservedmineral interests. Page 136.

Chapter Eight (Water Resources):The implied reservation doctrine of water

rights for federally reserved lands should be clarifiedand limited by Congress in at least four ways: (a)amounts of water claimed, both surface and under-ground, should be formally established; (b) proce-dures for contesting each claim should be provided;(c) water requirements for future reservations shouldbe expressly reserved; and (d) compensation shouldbe awarded where interference results with claimsvalid under state law before the decision in Arizonav. California. Page 146.

Congress should require the public land man-agement agencies to submit a comprehensive reportdescribing: (1) the objectives of current watershedprotection and management programs; (2) the actualpractices carried on under these programs; and (3)the demonstrated effect of such practices on theprogram objectives. Based on such information,Congress should establish specific goals for watershedprotection and management, provide for preferenceamong them, and commit adequate funds to achievethem. Page 150.

"Watershed protection" should in specified,limited cases be: (1) a reason for retaining lands inFederal ownership; and (2) justification for landacquisition. Page 151.

Congress should require federally authorizedwater development projects on public lands to beplanned and managed to give due regard to othervalues of the public lands. Page 154.

Chapter Nine (Fish and Wildlife Resources):Federal officials should be given clear statutory

authority for final land use decisions that affect fishand wildlife habitat or populations on the publiclands. But they should not take action inconsistentwith state harvesting regulations, except upon afinding of overriding national need after adequate

12

notice to, and full consultation with, the states.Page 158.

Formal statewide cooperative agreementsshould be used to coordinate public land fish andwildlife programs with the states. Page 159.

The objectives to be served in the manage-ment of fish and resident wildlife resources, andproviding for their use on all classes of Federalpublic lands, should be clearly defined by statute.Page 160.

Statutory guidelines are required for mini-mizing conflicts between fish and wildlife and otherpublic land uses and values. Page 164.

Public lands should be reviewed and key fishand wildlife habitat zones identified and formallydesignated for such dominant use. Page 168.

A Federal land use fee should be charged forhunting and fishing on all public lands open for suchpurposes. Page 169.

The states and the Federal Government shouldshare on an equitable basis in financing fish and wild-life programs on public lands. Page 173.

State policies which unduly discriminateagainst nonresident hunters and fishermen in the useof public lands through license fee differentials andvarious forms of nonfee regulations should bediscouraged. Page 174.

Chapter Ten (Intensive Agriculture):The homestead laws and the Desert Land Act

should be repealed and replaced with statutoryauthority for the sale of public lands for intensiveagriculture when that is the highest and best use ofthe land. Page 177.

Public lands should be sold for agriculturalpurposes at market value in response to normalmarket demand. Unreserved public domain landsand lands in land utilization projects should be con-sidered for disposal for intensive agriculture purposes.Page 179.

The states should be given a greater role in thedetermination of which public lands should be soldfor intensive agricultural purposes. The state govern-ments should be given the right to certify or veto thepotential agricultural use of public lands but onlyaccording to the availability of state water rights.Consideration should also be given to consistency ofuse with state or local economic development plansand zoning regulations. Page 180.

The allocation of public lands to agriculturaluse should not be burdened by artificial and obsoleterestraints such as acreage limitations on individualholdings, farm residency requirements, and the ex-clusions of corporations as eligible applicants.Page 182.

Chapter Eleven (The Outer Continental Shelf):Complete authority over all activities on the

Outer Continental Shelf should continue to be vestedby statute in the Federal Government. Moreover, allFederal functions pertaining to that authority, in-cluding navigational safety, safety on or aboutstructures and islands used for mineral activities,pollution control and supervision, mapping andcharting, oceanographic and other scientific research,preservation and protection of the living resources ofthe sea, and occupancy uses of the Outer ContinentalShelf, should be consolidated within the Governmentto the greatest possible degree. Page 188.

Protection of the environment from adverseeffects of activities on the Federal Outer ContinentalShelf is a matter of national concern and is a responsi-bility of the Federal Government. The Commission'srecommendations concerning improved protectionand enhancement of the environment generally re-quire separate recognition in connection with activi-ties on the Shelf, and agencies having resource man-agement responsibility on the Shelf should be requiredby statute to review practices periodically and con-sider recommendations from all interested sources,including the Council on Environmental Quality.

In addition, there must be a continuing statutoryliability upon lessees for the cleanup of oil spillsoccasioned from drilling or production activities onFederal Outer Continental Shelf leases. Page 190.

Proposals to open areas of the Outer Conti-nental Shelf to leasing, including both the call fornomination of tracts and the invitation to bid, as wellas operational orders and waivers of order require-ments should be published in at least one newspaperof general circulation in each state adjacent to thearea proposed for leasing or for which orders arepromulgated.

Where a state, on the recommendation of localinterests or otherwise, believes that Outer ContinentalShelf leasing may create environmental hazards, orthat necessary precautionary measures may not beprovided, or that natural preservation of an area is inthe best interest of the public, then, at the state'srequest, a public hearing should be held and specificfindings issued concerning the objections raised.Page 191.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act shouldbe amended to give the Secretary of the Interiorauthority for utilizing flexible methods of competitivesale. Flexible methods of pricing should be encour-aged, rather than the present exclusive reliance onbonus bidding, plus a fixed royalty. In addition, thetiming and size of lease sales, both of which arepresently irregular, should be regularized. Further-more, while discretion to reject bids should remainwith the Secretary, this authority should be qualified

to require that he state his reasons for rejection.Page 192.

To the extent that adjacent states can provenet burdens resulting from onshore or offshore opera-tions, in connection with Federal mineral leases onthe Outer Continental Shelf, compensatory impactpayments should be authorized and negotiated.Page 193.

The Federal Government should undertakean expanded offshore program of collection anddissemination of basic geological and geophysicaldata.

As part of that program, information developedunder exploration permits should be fully disclosed tothe Government in advance of Outer ContinentalShelf lease sales. However, industry evaluations ofraw data should be treated as proprietary and ex-cluded from mandatory disclosure. Page 193.

Chapter Twelve (Outdoor Recreation):An immediate effort should be undertaken to

identify and protect those unique areas of nationalsignificance that exist on the public lands. Page 198.

Recreation policies and programs on thosepublic lands of less than national significance shouldbe designed to meet needs identified by statewiderecreation plans. Page 199.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation should bedirected to review, and empowered to disapprove,recreation proposals for public lands administeredunder general multiple-use policy if they are not ingeneral conformity with statewide recreation plans.Page 202.

A general recreation land use fee, collectedthrough sale of annual permits, should be requiredof all public land recreation users and, where feasible,additional fees should be charged for use of facilitiesconstructed at Federal expense. Page 203.

Statutory guidelines should be established forresolving and minimizing conflicts among recreationuses and between outdoor recreation and other usesof public lands. Page 205.

The Federal role in assuming responsibilityfor public accommodations in areas of nationalsignificance should be expanded. The FederalGovernment should, in some instances, finance andconstruct adequate facilities with operation and main-tenance left to concessioners. The security of in-vestment afforded National Park Service concession-ers by the Concessioner Act of 1965 should beextended to concessioners operating under compa-rable conditions elsewhere on the Federal publiclands. Page 208.

Private enterprise should be encouraged toplay a greater role in the development and manage-ment of intensive recreation use areas on those public

13

lands not designated by statute for concessionerdevelopment. Page 211.

Congress should provide guidelines for devel-oping and managing the public land resources foroutdoor recreation. The system of recreation landclassification recommended by the Outdoor Recre-ation Resources Review Commission should be re-fined and adopted as a statutory guide to be appliedto all public lands. Page 213.

Congress should authorize a program foracquiring and developing reasonable rights-of-wayacross private lands to provide a more extensivesystem of access for outdoor recreation and other usesof the public lands. Page 214.

The direct Federal acquisition of land forrecreation purposes should be restricted primarilyto support the Federal role in acquiring and preserv-ing areas of unique national significance; acquisitionsof additions to Federal multiple use lands for recre-ation purposes should be limited to inholdings only.Page 215.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Actshould be amended to improve financing of publicland outdoor recreation programs. During the interimperiod until the recreation land use fee we recom-mend is adopted, the Golden Eagle Program shouldbe continued. After essential acquisitions have beencompleted, the Land and Water Conservation Fundshould be available for development of Federal publicland areas. Page 215.

Chapter Thirteen (Occupancy Uses):Congress should consolidate and clarify in a

single statute the policies relating to the occupancypurposes for which public lands may be made avail-able. Page 219.

Where practicable, planning and advancedclassification of public lands for specific occupancyuses should be required. Page 219.

Public land should be allocated to occupancyuses only where equally suitable private land is notabundantly available. Page 220.

All individuals and entities generally empow-ered under state law to exercise an authorized occu-pancy privilege should be eligible applicants foroccupancy uses, although a showing of financial andadministrative capability should be required wherelarge investments are involved.

Lands generally should be allocated competitivelywhere there is more than one qualified private appli-cant, but preference should be given to state andlocal governments and nonprofit organizations toobtain land for public purposes and to REA coopera-tives where incidental to regular REA operations.Page 220.

In general, disposal should be the preferredpolicy in meeting the need for occupancy uses that

14

require substantial investment, materially alter theland, and are comparatively permanent in character,except where such uses are nonexclusive. Page 220.

Where occupancy uses are authorized onretained lands by permit, lease, or otherwise, (a) theterm and size of permits should be adequate toaccommodate project and the required investment;(b) compensation should be paid when the use isterminated by Federal action prior to expiration ofthe prescribed term; and (c) a preference right topurchase should be accorded to such users dependenton the lands if they are later offered for disposal.Page 221.

Public lands should not hereafter be madeavailable under lease or permit for private residentialand vacation purposes, and such existing uses shouldbe phased out. Page 223.

Land management agencies should have theauthority to require a reciprocal right-of-way on equi-table terms as a condition of a grant of a right-of-wayacross public land. Page 224.

A new statutory framework should be enactedto make public lands available for the expansion ofexisting communities and for the development ofnew cities and towns. Page 226.

Whenever the Federal Government utilizes itsposition as landowner to accomplish, indirectly,public policy objectives unrelated to protection ordevelopment of the public lands, the purpose to beachieved and the authority therefor should be pro-vided expressly by statute. Page 229.

While control and administration of occupancyuses should remain with the agencies managing thelands, assistance should be obtained from agencieshaving technical competence in connection withspecific programs. Page 229.

The Secretary of the Interior should beauthorized to approve other uses of railroad rights-of-way with the consent of the affected railroad, andpersons holding defective titles from railroads toright-of-way lands should be confirmed in their usesby the Federal Government and the affected railroads.Page 230.

Chapter Fourteen (Tax Immunity):If the national interest dictates that lands

should be retained in Federal ownership, it is theobligation of the United States to make certain thatthe burden of that policy is spread among all thepeople of the United States and is not borne only bythose states and governments in whose area the landsare located.

Therefore, the Federal Government should makepayments to compensate state and local governmentsfor the tax immunity of Federal lands. Page 236.

Payments in lieu of taxes should be made tostate governments, but such payments should not

attempt to provide full equivalency with paymentsthat would be received if the property was in privateownership. A public benefits discount of at least 10percent but not more than 40 percent should beapplied to payments made by the Government inorder to give recognition to the intangible benefitsthat some public lands provide, while, at the sametime, recognizing the continuing burdens imposed onstate and local governments through the increaseduse of public lands. The payments to states should beconditioned on distribution to those local units ofgovernment where the Federal lands are located,subject to criteria and formulae established by thestates. Extraordinary benefits and burdens should betreated separately and payments made accordingly.Page 237.

In a payments-in-lieu-of-taxes system, atransition period should be provided for states andcounties to adjust in changing from the existingsystem. Page 241.

Chapter Fifteen (Land Grants to States):No additional grants should be made to any

of the 50 states. Page 243.Within a relatively brief period, perhaps

from 3 to 5 years, the Secretary of the Interior, inconsultation with the involved states, should berequired to classify land as suitable for state indem-nity selection, in reasonably compact units, and suchclassifications should aggregate at least 3 or 4 timesthe acreage due to each state. In the event theaffected states do not agree, within 2 years thereafter,to satisfy their grants from the lands so classified, theSecretary should be required to report the differencesto the Congress. If no resolution, legislative or other-wise, is reached at the end of 3 years after such report,making a total of 10 years of classification, selection,and negotiation, all such grants should be terminated.Page 245.

Limitations originally placed by the FederalGovernment on the use of grant lands, or fundsderived from them, should be eliminated. Page 247.

The satisfaction of Federal land grants toAlaska should be expedited with the aim of com-pleting selection by 1984 in accordance with theStatehood Act, and selections of land under theAlaska Statehood Act should have priority over anyland classification program of the Bureau of LandManagement. Page 249.

Chapter Sixteen (Administrative Procedures):Congress should require public land manage-

ment agencies to utilize rulemaking to the fullestextent possible in interpreting statutes and exercisingdelegated discretion, and should provide legislativerestrictions to insure compliance with this goal.Page 251.

Congress should direct the public land agen-cies to restructure their adjudication organizationand procedures in order to assure: (1) proceduraldue process; (2) greater third party participation;(3) objective administrative review of initial de-cisions; and (4) more expeditious decisionmaking.Page 253.

Judicial review of public land adjudicationsshould be expressly provided for by Congress.Page 256.

Chapter Seventeen (Trespass and Disputed Title):Statutes and administrative practices defin-

ing unauthorized use of public lands should be clari-fied, and remedies available to the Federal Govern-ment should be uniform among land managementagencies. Where necessary, statutory authority forpolicing by Federal agencies should be provided.Page 259.

An intensified survey program to locate andmark boundaries of all public lands based upon asystem of priorities, over a period of years, should beundertaken as the public interest requires. Page 260.

The doctrine of adverse possession shouldbe made applicable against the United States withrespect to the public lands where the land has beenoccupied in good faith. Citizens should be permittedto bring quiet title actions in which the Governmentcould be named as defendant. The defenses of equi-table estoppel and laches should be available in asuit brought by the Government for the purpose oftrying title to real property or for ejectment.

In cases where questions of adverse possession,equitable estoppel, and laches do not apply, personswho claim an interest in public land based upon goodfaith, undisturbed, unauthorized occupancy for asubstantial period of time, should be afforded anopportunity to purchase or lease such lands.Page 260.

Chapter Eighteen (Disposals, Acquisitions, and Ex-changes):

Statutory eligibility qualifications of appli-cants for public lands subject to disposal shouldgenerally avoid artificial restraints and promotemaximum competition for such lands. Preferencesfor certain classes of applicants should be usedsparingly. Page 265.

Disposals in excess of a specified dollar oracreage amount should require congressional authori-zation. Page 265.

Where land is disposed of at less than fair-market value, or where it is desired to assure thatlands be used for the purpose disposed of for alimited period to avoid undue speculation, transfersshould provide for a possibility of reverter, which

15

should expire after a reasonable period of time.Page 265.

Public lands generally should not be disposedof in an area unless adequate state or local zoning isin effect. In the absence of such zoning, and wheredisposal is otherwise desirable, covenants in Federaldeeds should be used to protect public values.Page 266.

Protective covenants should be included inFederal deeds to preserve important environmentalvalues on public lands in certain situations, evenwhere state or local zoning is in effect. Page 266.

The general acquisition authority of thepublic land management agencies should be consist-ent with agency missions. Page 267.

The general land acquisition authority of thepublic land management agencies should be revisedto provide uniformity and comprehensiveness withrespect to (1) the interests in lands which may beacquired, and (2) the techniques available to acquirethem. Page 267.

The public land management agencies shouldbe authorized to employ a broad array of acquisitiontechniques on an experimental basis in order todetermine which appear best adapted to meeting theproblem of price escalation of lands required forFederal programs. Page 268.

Congress should specify the general programneeds for which lands may be acquired by eachpublic land agency. Page 269.

Justification standards for and oversight ofpublic land acquisitions should be strengthened, andpresent statutory requirements for state consent tocertain land acquisitions should be replaced withdirectives to engage in meaningful coordination ofFederal acquisition programs with state and localgovernments. Page 269.

General land exchange authority should beused primarily to block up existing Federal holdingsor to accomplish minor land tenure adjustments inthe public interest, but not for acquisition of majornew Federal units. Page 270.

Exchange authority of the public land man-agement agencies should be made uniform to permit(1) the exchange of all classes of real propertyinterests, and (2) cash equalization within percentagelimits of the value of the transaction. Page 271.

Generally, within each department, all fed-erally owned lands otherwise available for disposalshould be subject to exchange, regardless of agencyjurisdiction and geographic limitation. Page 271.

Public land administrators should be author-ized by law to dispense with the requirement of aformal appraisal: (1) in any sale or lease where thereis a formal finding that competition exists, the sale

16

or lease will be held under competitive biddingprocedures, and the property does not have a valuein excess of some specified amount set forth in thestatute; and (2) whenever property can be acquiredfor less than some specified price set forth in thestatute, provided a formal finding is made that theproperty to be acquired has a value at least equal tothe amount the Government would be paying ineither a dir6ct purchase or exchange. Page 272.

Administration of all land acquisition pro-grams for Department of the Interior agencies, in-cluding performance of the appraisal function, shouldbe consolidated within the Department. Procedures,however, should be standardized for all public landmanagement agencies. Page 273.

Chapter Nineteen (Federal Legislative Jurisdiction):Exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction

should be obtained, or retained, only in those un-common instances where it is absolutely necessary tothe Federal Government, and in such instances theUnited States should provide a statutory or regulatorycode to govern the areas. Page 278.

Federal departments and agencies shouldhave the authority to retrocede exclusive Federallegislative jurisdiction to the states, with the consentof the states. Page 279.

Chapter Twenty (Organization, Administration, andBudgeting Policy):

The Forest Service should be merged withthe Department of the Interior into a new departmentof natural resources. Page 282.

Greater emphasis should be placed on re-gional administration of public land programs.Page 284.

The recommended consolidation of publicland programs should be accompanied by a consoli-dation of congressional committee jurisdiction overpublic land programs into a single committee in eachHouse of Congress. Page 284.

The President's budget should include aconsolidated budget for public land programs thatshows the relationship between costs and benefits ofeach program. Page 285.

Periodic regional public land programsshould be authorized by statute as a basis for annualbudgets and for appropriation of funds. Page 286.

There should be a uniform, statutory basisfor pricing goods and services furnished from thepublic lands. Page 287.

Statutory authority should be provided forpublic land citizen advisory boards and guidelinesfor their operation should be established by statute.Page 288.

THECommission's task has been a challenging

one. The Congress of the United States hascharged it with reviewing, in the light of con-

temporary conditions, laws, policies, practices, andprocedures affecting the public lands, which constitutenearly one-third of the area of the Nation.

The Act creating the Commission declared thatthe Nation's public lands should be retained andmanaged, or disposed of, all in a manner to providethe maximum benefit for the general public. Thisgoal has been the Commission's objective. In theprocess of developing its conclusions and recom-mendations, its members have constantly appliedJohn Ruskin's admonition: 'God has lent us theearth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs asmuch to those who are to come after us . . . as tous; and we have no right, by anything we do orneglect, to involve them in any unnecessary penalties,or to deprive them of benefits which it was in ourpower to bequeath."

In the 100 years after the United States became aNation, it was presented with an unparalleled oppor-tunity by the acquisition of lands. Seven of theoriginal states ceded their western lands to theFederal Government. These lands generally includedthose betveen the original states and the MississippiRiver. Following this, the acquisition of the landsbetween the Mississippi and the Pacific Ocean andfinally the acquisition of Alaska iii 1867 providedthe United States with a vast area of largely unsettJedlands that in the main had not been committed toprivate ownership or use.

The acquisition of these lands and the desire todispose of them to encourage settlement of the Westtook place just at the time that the railroad wasmaking it possible to open these lands to seitlenient

The Seven Lamps of Architecture, S Works of JohnRuskin 233 (E. T. Cook and A. Wedderburn, ed. t903).

CHAPTER ONE

Where andWhat ArePublic Lands?

and use. And the lands generally were rich in re-sources and productive for farming so that it waspossible to settle the West. The policy of makingthese lands available to those who would developthem must be judged as highly successful. In goodpart because of this policy, the United States nowhas the highest standard of living of any nation onthe earth.

But not all of the Federal lands were suitable fordevelopment and not nU of them have been madeavailable for development. Some of the lands weretoo dry for farming and some of the high mountainlands were also unsuited to farming. And much ofAlaska was unsuitable for farming. Other lands,the national forests and national parks, were reservedfrom disposition under the settlement laws in orderto meet other objectives of the Federal Government.

The Lands and Their Administration

The remaining public domain in Federal ownershiptogether with additional areas of acquired nationalforest and wildlife refuge lands total nearly 725million acres.2 These lands, which have been assignedby Congress to this Commission for review, cover anarea equal to the size of India. In addition, theCommission has considered the laws, policies, andpractices governing some 20 million acres of landacquired for the National Park System, land utiliza-tion project lands, and other areas which, for variousreasons, were deemed similar to those within theCommission's mandate.

Nearly 700 million acres of the original publicdomain, lands that were never transferred fromFederal ownership, remain as part of our public lands.

The distribution of public lands througbotrt the UnitedSuites is shown for each rnijor category of lands on the mapfolded in this report.

19

Over 179 million acres of the public domain havebeen reserved as national parks and national forests.Some, approximately 53.5 million acres, have beenset aside for specific uses by the Department of De-fense, Atomic Energy Commission, arid other Federalagencies. In all cases the lands are still classed as partof the public domain for some purposes.

The rest of the Federal lands have been acquiredfrom non-Federal owners. Some 26 million acreshave been acquired for inclusion in national forestsand national wildlife refuges and another 29 millionacres have been acquired for other purposes that areconnected with or similar to those on which ourreview concentrated.

The lands with which our review is concerned

20

K

are for the most part managed by four agencies ofthe Federal Government: the United Stales ForestService of the Department of Agriculture, and theBureau of Land Management, the Fish and WildlifeService, and the National Park Service of the Depart-ment of the Interior. Smaller but significant acreagesare administered by the military departments: theAtomic Energy Commission, and the Bureau ofReclamation.

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible

The graph, Administration of Federal Lands by Agency,196, page 22, shows the proportion of public landsadministered by each major agency. Areas administered byeach agency are shown in Acreage of Lands Administeredby Agency and Stale, Appendix F.

I

Diversity of Geology or' the Public Lands:The young' Sierras and the 'old" Blue RidgeMountains.

for administration of the more than 465 million acresof public domain lands that have not been set asidefor particular uses; together with other lands, itadministers over 60 percent of all Federal lands.Almost two-thirds of the lands it manages are inAlaska. The remainder are almost entirely in the 11western states. These are primarily the lands thatwere not considered suitable for farming or for in-clusion in national parks and forests,

About one-fourth of the Federal lands are admin-

istered by the Forest Service. Most of this is 160 mil-lion acres of public domain under its control in theWest. It also administers over 22 million acres ofacquired national forest lands, primarily in the east-ern United States, and approximately 3.5 millionacres of other acquired lands.

Much smaller acreages are managed by the Na-tiona Park Service (23.3 million acres) and ureauof Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (26.6 million acres),The responsibilities of these agencies, however, are

21

DMIIL S (LAYIOid O F.)RA1 I LY AGENCY. issa

TOTALFEPAL lAuD

URAU LA-LAND MAMAGEMENT

ICE

22

DFARTM F \!TOF DF--FNSE

NATIONAL PARkSEN V IC E

OTuE14AGENCIES

S! CE LLC Sfl)OC NVCTOCC NSOCC*? 050' :05!; YA6E 45.. 559

The bulk of the Federal lands are administeredby the Bureau of Land Management and theForest Service.

substantial because of the variety of lands includedin the national park and national wildlife refugesystems, and their location throughout the country.

Location of the Public Lands

About one-half of the public lands are in Alaska.Because of its remoteness and northern location,development has not made progress in Alaska to thesame extent as in other states. As a result, theFederal Government still owns over 95 percent ofall the lands in the state.

The other half of the public lands are located inthe 48 contiguous states, but are not evenly distrib-uted throughout the states. Over 90 percent of theFederal lands outside of Alaska are in the 11 westernstates. The huge expanse of the public lands of theFar West is difficult for many to comprehend. Yet,to understand adequately the Commission's con-clusions and recommendations, this vastness must bestudied, understood, and kept in mind.

More than 86 percent of the State of Nevada isowned by the Federal Government, and the publicland area in that state is twice the size of the entireState of New York. Similarly, public land in Cali-fornia amounts to eight times the total area of theState of Massachusetts. Utah's public lands are aboutequal to the total area of the State of Florida, andIdaho's about equal to the size of Arkansas. Theentire area of Pennsylvania is smaller than the Federalpublic land holdings in either Oregon or Wyoming.The public lands in Montana and New Mexico are

each about equal to the total area of Virginia.Federal lands in Colorado are equal to the total areaof Indiana; and the public land area in the State ofWashington is twice as great as the total area ofNew Hampshire.

Despite the heavy concentration of public landsin the western states, Federal land ownership never-theless is vitally important to other states as well.Minnesota, for example, has Federal public landswhich exceed the area of Connecticut. In addition,there are 10 other nonwestern states in each ofwhich the public landholdings of the Federal Gov-ernment approximate or exceed the land area of theState of Delaware.4 There are also sigoicant butcomparatively lesser acreages in New Hampshire,Vermont, and several Appalachian states, which aresubstantial in relation to the total of the area of eachstate involved.

The public lands must also be viewed lii the con-text of their location relative to the population ofthe Nation. Of the II contiguous western states onlytwo, California and Washington, have populationdensities equal to or exceeding the national average.The other nine western states have population densi-ties substantially less than that of Maine, the mostlightly populated state east of the Mississippi. Infact, two of them have a density of about one-tenththat of Maine arid four more have a density less thanone-third that of Maine.

Alaska, of course, is not comparable to any of theother states, and it is difficult to make any meaningfulcomparison with Alaska's sparse population. But itcan be noted that the population density of Alaska isnow about one-tenth that of the United States at thetime of the rst census in 1790.

In part because of the uneven distribution of publiclands, but also because of the obvious importance ofthese lands to alJ regionsincluding the South, theNortheast, and the Midwestthe Commission hasnecessarily given substantial weight to regional aswell as national considerations. We have found thatFederal land ownership is important to all areasbecause of the diversity and regional concentrationof the lands.

Diversity of the Public Lands

One of the most important characteristics of thepublic lands is their great diversity. Because of theirgreat rangelthey are found from the northern tipof Alaska to the southern end of Floridaall kindsof climate conditions are found on them. Arctic cold,rain forest torrents, desert heat, mountain snows,

They are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Mis-sii.sippi, Missouri, Nrtb Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia,and Wisconsin.

FE

DE

RA

L LA

ND

PS

DIS

TR

I8U

TE

D U

NE

VE

NLY

TH

RO

UG

HO

UT

TH

E U

NIT

ED

ST

AT

ES

PE

RC

EN

T O

F E

AC

H S

TA

TE

AR

EA

FE

DE

RA

LLY

-OW

NE

D96

8

Less

Ihn

1%

-20%

- 20

-40% -

- 60

-80% -

fluE

,.L.1

±A

,üN

IT' (

I-Z

_

-

24

Alr

Diversity of Climate on the Public Lands:Glacial rivers of Alaska (top left); dry desertreaches of the Southwest (left); humid low-lands of the Deep South (above).

25

a.

a

Diversify o# Terrain on the Public Lands:Northern lake country (above); time-eroded spires En the Southwest (topcenter); the Rockies (top right); and anational seashore (right).

26

and semitropical littoral conditions are all character-istic of public lands in one area or another.

Great differences in terrain are also typical. Thetallest mountain in North America, Mount McKinleyin Alaska, is on public lands, as is the tallest moun-tain in the 48 contiguous states, Mount Whitney inCalifornia. But the lowest point in the United States,Death Valley, is also on public lands, as are most ofthe highest peaks in the White Mountains of NewHampshire and the Appalachians of the southeasternstates.

Not all of these lands arc mountains and valleys,however. Vast areas of tundra and river deltas inAlaska are flat, marked only with an incredible num-ber of small lakes. Other vast areas in the Great Basinarea of Nevada and Oregon are not marked withlakes, but with desert shrubs. Still other areas ofrolling timber-covered mountains extend for mileafter mile, both in the Pacific Northwest and the In-land Empire of Idaho, eastern Washington, andwestern Montana, and in the Allegheny, Green, andOuachita Mountains of Pennsylvania, Vermont, andArkansas. And still other vast areas are rangelandsused for grazing domestic livestock.

However, not all of these public lands can be char-acterized as vast wild cr semideveloped expanses. Inmany instances, Feder& ownership is scattered in rel-atively small tracts among larg&y privately ownedlands. The condition of the land may still be un-developed, but our consideration of how the landshould be used is necessarily influenced by the scat-tered nature of the Federal ownership. In some cases,public lands are found almost in the midst of urbanareas and here again we must view the use of thelands in relation to the surrounding lands.

The great diversity of these lands is a resource initself. As needs of the Nation have changed, thepublic lands have been able to play a changing rolein meeting these needs. Whethcr the demand is forminerals, crop production, timber, or recreation, andwhether it is national or regional, the public landsarc able to play a role in meeting them.

Historical Development

Many of the present national public land attitudcsand policies can be traced to historical backgrounds.While today one thinks of Alaska and the 11 westernstates as 'pubJic land states," 19 others in theMiddle West and the South were carved from landwhich was once public domain. The Federal Govern-ment, in the last 175 years, has granted or sold overone billion acres of public land, land which nowconstitutes a major portion of the productive baseof the United States.

Today we are a Nation of more than 200 millionpeople and almost 2.3 billion acres of land. Some-

27

what over 1 .5 billion acres are in private or stateownership. If one excludes Alaska, this is nearlyfour-fifths of the total area of the Nation.

It is obvious that past and present Federal landlaws and policies concerning the disposal or retentionof public land have shaped the mosaic of land usesover most of the United States. It is equally obviousthat future public land laws and policies relating tothe retention or disposal of the remaining publicland will greatly influence American land use andthe quaJity of life in the years ahead.

During most of the 19th century, our public landpolicy was basically one of disposal into non-Federalownership to encourage settlement and developmentof the country. Those lands most favorably situatedfor mineral development, agriculture, and townsiteswere settled first. And land grants to states and torailroads resulted in areas of land being transferredout of Federal ownership. Many of these grants,which were made to provide the states with a basisfor development and to encourage the westwardspread of railroads, were made in a manner that muchunfavorably, as well as favorably, situated land wasplaced in non-Federal ownership,

On the whole, however, the best and most produc-tive land was settled first. Therefore, as a generalrule, the land in non-Federal ownership is the mostvaluable, and the residual Federal holdings tend tobe those with the least economic potential. Thereare, of course, significant exceptions. Beginning justprior to 1900, the emphasis in public land policy be-gan to shift toward the retention of sonic lands inFederal ownership. Millions of acres of land were setaside to be held as national forests, national parks,or other conservation and management units.

Many of these lands were or became highlyvaluable. The timberlands that were placed ln thenational foresLs of the Pacific Northwest, largely dur-ing the early conservation period from 1891 to 1920,were recognized even then as having great com-mercial value. And many of the national park areaswere potentially valuable not only for their splendidscenery, but for their resource values as well. In fact,reservation of the parks was often necessary toprotect them from resource development.

The policy of reservation of lands for parks andforests did not halt large scale disposals after 1900.Honiesteading was still a means of conveying con-siderable Federal land into private ownership untilthe 1930's. But by this time most of the land suitablefor farming under the existing conditions was inprivate ownership. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934,

28

4US.C. §315et.seq. (1964).

which stabilized the range livestock industry, broughtthe era of homesteading largely to an end.

The lands that remained in the unappropriatedand unreserved public domain, outside of those inAlaska, were mainly the arid and semiarid grazinglands of the West. These lands, together with thenational parks, forests, and wildlife refuges, and othersimilar Federal lands are the subject of this report.

Uses of the Public Lands

Just as the public lands themselves are diverse, theresources and uses of these lands also exhibit greatdiversity. Logging, mining, and grazing have alwaysbeen important uses of public land. And recreation,watershed protection, and other uses of land in itsseniiwild state are becoming increasingly important.Some of the lands are still potentially valuable foragriculture and others have great potential value as aplace for cities and towns to develop and expand.Magnificent scenery and incomparable wildernessalso characterize much of the public land. These en-vironmental resources are a national treasure forall the American people.

As did Gifford Pinchot, the Commission recog-nized that these resources have a direct bearing onthe material well-being of all the American people,wherever they live. And we have also recognizedtheIr importance as recreational resources and aspart of our heritage. The public lands have beenimportant in the past and we are committed to theprinciple that they continue to be available to servethe Nation's needs in the future.

If one excludes Alaska, which possesses vast areasnever subjected to anything more than casual humanuse, the most widespread economic use of publiclands has been, and is today, for the grazing of do-mestic livestock. Over one-third of our public landis administered for grazing. While grazing is an ex-tensive use of relatively low value lands, cattle andsheep grazed on the public lands are important to thelivestock industry of the Nation and as the economicbasis for many western communities.

Timber production is also a widespread use of un-developed lands. The public lands include about100 million acres of land classed as commercialforest. which is being managed to maintain a sus-tained yield of wood products. Because many of thenational forests were reserved in the mountainousareas of the West, much of the commercial forestland has never been logged. But in recent years, thetimber cut has increased to the point where the publiclands now support nearly one-third of the Nation'stotal production. These forests are important as a

Diversify of Vegetaton orj the Public Lands: PHyon-]uniper region of the Upper Desert (top); sagebrush (center);and timber countrV west of the Continental Divide.

'F

iaS'. '. k..

-,,

- U

.

b

--

f.

source of raw materials to the timber industry notonly in the West, but throughout the eastern part ofthe country.

Like timber production, mineral extraction is anintensive use of public land. This is illustrated bythe fact that in 1968 there were 8,245 producingleases, priniarily for oil and gas, under the MineralLeasing Act,' generating royalties to the FederalGovernment of over $92 million from less than 6 mil-lion acres. And an even smaller area is required forthe production of hard minerals, such as copper andJead. Areas that were public lands when mineralswere first discovered on them have contributed muchof the Nation's production of hard minerats, and insome cases have been almost the sole source.

While not constituting public land interests inthe usual legal or lay definitions of public lands, themineral resources in the Outer Continental Shelfwere included in the statutory charge to the Comms-sion. Since the early 1950s, oil and gas from theOuter Continental Shelf has been of growing im-portance to the petroleum industry and the Shelf alsopromises to become a source of other resources inthe future.

In addition to those areas held in fee by thc UnitedStaths, the Federal Government also owns mineralrights in approximately 62 million acres of tandpreviously conveyed under the public land laws.These mineral rights have raised a number of en-vironmental and equitable issues for considerationin the Commission's review.

In many cases, the most valuable economic useof public lands are occupancy uses dictated byessential human needs. Examples include rights-of--way for utility transmission lines and lease or pernhitrights for the operation of service facilities, such ashotels, service stations, and other business enter-prses. Schools and other needs of state or localgovernments are also high value intensive uses, as isthe use of land for cities and urban expansion.Public land often abuts western communities (suchas Las Vegas and Phoenix), and as they grow, theirspatial requirements for urban expansion make theadjoining public !and increasingly valuable. Werecognize that this use is likely to increase in thefuture as the rapidly growing areas of the West con-tinue to expand.

Some recreation use is also highly intensive, withheavy concentrations of people at some times duringthe year. Yosemite National Park and the WhiteMountain, Angeles, Arapaho and Wasatch NationalForests, for example, are subjected to very intensiveuse for recreation. And If is undoubtedly true that

30

30 U.S.C. § 181 et. seq. (1964).

public land areas like these, which are readily acces-sible to metropolitan areas, will be utilized evenmore heavily in the future.

Much of the recreation use, however, is concen-trated within less intensively used areas. Ski slopesand campgrounds on the national forests, the 7 squaremiles o valley floor at Yosemite National Park,and the area around the geysers at Yellowstone Na-tional Park bear the brunt of use in these areas.Much o the other recreation use on public lands isextensive, rather than intensive, in relation to themagnitude of the F&leral public land areas and theremoteness of most of them from Targe populationcenters.

Wildlife of one form or inother occurs on nearlyall public lands, most of which can also be consideredto be watershed lands. In most cases, these are broad,extensive uses with relatively little concentration ofactivity. But consideration must be given to them.Many of the arid public lands contain fragile soilssubject to wind and water erosion. Often their princi-pal value is that they constitute a major source ofwater for downstream communities. Consequently,their management for watershed protection and wi'd-life habitat purposes has become more important.

The Future of the Public Lands

Inevitably, the value of land changes with popu-lation changes and with the location advantages ordisadvantages of the land itself. The highest andbest use in many public land areas today is notthe same as it was 30 years ago. Nor will it remainstatic over the next 30 years. Recognition of theserapidly changing values in relation to pub]ic land isimplicit in the recommendations proposed by thisCommission.

As we have proceeded with our task of reviewingthe Nations public land laws and policies, we havekept in constant view the great variation in publiclands, resources, uses, and human needs. We haverecognized the dornnant rote of Federal public landin the 12 far western states. In ]arge measure thefuture of those states may depend on the adoptionof sound public land laws and policies that will assureenvironmental quality and, at the same time, en-courage healthy economic growth. We have alsorecognized the importance of these lands to otherregions of the country. We are confident that the verydiversity of lands, resources, uses, and needs thatmade our task so complex will assure that the publiclands can continue to meet the changing, and perhapsunexpected, needs of the future.

a

r .tt'

WESTART with a strong belief that the public

lands of the United States and their re-

sources are important to everyone.These lands are a natural heritage and national

asset that belong to all of us. Each American shouldcherish them and seek to assure their retention andmanagement or dispositionin the words of sec-tion 1 of the Commission's Organic Act.so as to pro-vide "the maximum benefit for the general public'

How does one achieve "maximum benefit"?How does one define "general public"?Virtually all matters of governmental policy pose

questions of relative advantages and disadvantagesto different segments of our society. Public landpolicy is no different. To arrive at a reasonable judg-ment of what constitutes the maximum benefit for thegeneral public requires evaluating and weighingmany diverse considerations and interests.

As part of our research program, a staff study wasundertaken to develop criteria and identify factorsthat could be used to a.csist us in making a consistentand rational approach toward defining the maximumbenefit for the general public in public land matters.En addition to soliciting the views of the Commis-sion's Advisory Council and the representatives ofthe 50 Governors, individuals and groups throughoutthe country were asked to contribute their recom-mendations. Not only was the question of maximumbenefit for the general public a recurrent theme inmany of the meetings of the Advisory Council withthe Governors' Represcntatives participating, butthree of our meetings with these advisors focusedspecifically on this subject. Many of the Commis-sion's witnesses and correspondents also made recom-mend ations.

To Whomthe PublicLands AreImportant

CHAPTER TWO

We recognized that there cannot be a scientificallyaccurate manner of determining how the variousjustifiable interests can arid should be weighed inorder to assure maximum benefit for the generalpublic. But we did find that it is useful to categorizeand catalog such interests in order to determine theircommon goals and objectives as well as the conflictsamong them. It is also essential to have an historicalperspective on the use of the public lands in examin-ing the role that these lands must fulfill today andin the years ahead.

The public lands have played a vital, thoughchanging, role in the development of the Nation.Historically, they served as an inducement for thedevelopment of the frontier and, before the CivilWar, as a major source of revenue. Today, the publiclands must serve more complex and rapidly chang-ing needs. Even though other aspects of nationalpolicy may overshadow public land policy, the publiclands are, indeed, still important to all the peopleof the country.

We found, however, that recognizing the im-portance of public lands in our national life wasonly the first step in approaching our task of makingrecommendations that will serve the public interest.The wide range of suggestions received by the Com-mission, the very considerable differences in the ap-parent interests of various individuals and groups,and the great geographical variation in populationrelitive to the public lands, all suggest that the gen-eral public must be recogni7ed as a composite ofmany different interests. One of our earliest conclu-sions vas /hat the "general pub/ic" is in fact made upof many publics.

The variety and range of those having a direct

33

interest in the retention, management, or dispositionof the public lands was recognized by Congress inthis Commission's Organic Act. As detailed in thePreface, provision was made for an Advisory Councilto the Commission with members representative ofthe various interest groups, including representativesof Federal departments and agencies.

For clarity of analysis, and in an effort to assureourselves that all justifiable interests were given con-sideration, we classified these interests and, as indi-cated in this chapter, identified the direct and indirectbenefits and burdens that are afforded or imposedon them by public land policies. In doing so, we gaverecognition not only to the direct user, whether aconsumptive or noriconsumptive one, but also tothose whose only interest might be an intellectual oremotional one. The Nation has learned that athreatened destruction of a wilderness or some otherunit of natural beauty will have a tremendous impacton city dwellers thousands of miles away, even thoughthey have no immediate expectation of themselvesbeing able to visit such areas. While such reactionsmay sometimes have had a disproportionate impacton a decision in either the legislative or the execu-tive branch, we believe that it can be placed inperspective in the weighing of interests that we haveused, and that we recommend for future use indecisionmaking.

The interests we identified could have been cate-gorized in many different ways. In analyzing themultiplicity of probJem brought to our attention,we identified six interests or points of view which, inour opinion, comprise, in the aggregate, the generalpublic with respect to public land policies.

Because the interests are not mutually exclusive,there is some overlapping and, therefore, duplicationamong them. An individual living in an area wherepublic lands are dominant possesses the interest ofeach one of the different publics we have identified.Similarly, the concerns of the city dweller far re-moved from the public lands will, in many respects,be the same as those of a person who uses the publiclands daily. Nevertheless, we find the identificationof these separate interests necessary in order towork with them consistently in the analysis of publicland policy.

Our six categories, each of which is discussed indetail below, are:

The National Public;The Regional Public;The Federal Government as Sovereign;The Federal Government as Proprietor;State and Local Governments; andThe Users of the Public Lands

It is difflcuJt, if not impossible, to establish priori-ties among the concerns that a member of any group

34

has regarding the public lands. Our enumeration,therefore, is to assure that all of them are givenconsideration. There is no intent to indicate prioritiesfor weighting the various publics or the interestswithin categories.

The National Public

Although the public lands, as noted in Chapter 1,are not distributed proportionally throughout theNation, they and their resources belong to all thepeople of the United States. Considered by manyas playgrounds, the public lands annually providemillions of dollars in revenue for the Treasury ofthe United States, and much more in terms of thevalue of goods and services they produce. Despitethe fact, noted above, that many desirable publiclands are not readily accessible to everyone, it is

obvious that all the people of the United States havecertain common interests in them.

The national public has an interest in reducing theburden on taxpayers generally either by maximizingthe net revenue from the public lands, or by assuringmore efficient rnanagenient, or both. The nationalpublic also has an interest that consumer goods andservices derived from the public lands will be madeavailable at the lowest possible price consistent withgood conservation practices.

Each citizen, whether he has expressed it or not,wants the lands to be used and, to the extent neces-sary, retained, so as to maintain capability for futureuse. Timber, water, forage, and wildlife are amongthe most plentiful renewable resources of the publiclands, but good management is required to increaseor even maintain the ability of the land to producethem. Policies for the use of nonrenewable resourcesmust take into consideration the interest of thenational public that the resources be available whenand if needed.

The national public, we assume, is concerned thatthe public lands should contribute to the maintenanceof a quality environment. The interest of each personin the preservation of areas of national importance,such as national parks, monuments, or wildernessareas adds significance to his identity as an American.We have concluded and base our consideration onthe assumption that the national public is also de-sirous that the public lands should be managed toenhance human and social values.

While the interests of the national public are notassociated with any particular kind of use of thepublic lands, the national public is concerned thatpeople who do use the public lands shall be treatedequally.

The Regional Public

Those who live and work on and near the publiclands have a separate. identifiable and special con-cern with those policies that go beyond their interestas members of the national public. This was madequite evident to the Commission at the various meet-ings held throughout the country.

Identifiable concerns of regional publics occurwherever these lands may be located. The regionalpublic in the area of the White Mountains NationalForest in New Hampshire is as concerned about thosepublic lands as is the regional public in the area ofpublic domain lands in Alaska or in Montana, Theinterests of the various regional publics may be ex-pressed in different terms, but there are commonthreads among them.

We found, for example, that the people living inthe immediate vicinity of public lands have a st.rongdesire that these lands contribute meaningfully tothe quality of the environment in which they live.Scars from poorly planned rights-of-way or siltationof favorite fishing streams are environmental impactsthat are with the regional public every day of theyear. And so are the contributions of the public landsto their way of life. The child who has ready accessto the use of public lands for fishing and hiking, andwhose father derives an income from these lands,grows to have an abiding interest in them as a mem-ber of the regional public.

Taxes on private property ownership are a majorsource of revenue in public land states, particularlyat the local level. They contribute significantly topublic education and other governmental services inpublic land areas. It is in the regional public interestto have the Federal Government, as landowner, payits fair share of the costs of adequate local and stategovernmental services.

Public lands and their resources are an importantpart of the economic base in at least 22 states. Thereclearly is a regional public interest in laws and poli-cies which permit public lands and their resourcesto contribute to regional growth, development, andemployment. There is also a companion interest thatthe public lands contribute to the stability of thecommunity.

The Federal Government as Sovereign

As a matter of constitutional law, there is nolegal significance in the different roles of the FederalGovernment as sovereign and as proprietor, but it isuseful to separate these two institutional interestsin public land. By doing so, we may distinguish thoseinterests which relate to governmental functions fromthose which are similar to the interests of any otherlandowner.

36

Through all its powers, including regulation andadministration, the Federal Government has greatinfluence on the economy and other aspects of ournational life which only incidentally relate to publicland. If it is to achieve its broad constitutional re-sponsibilities toward the national community, publicland laws and policies should complement and imple-ment other nationwide programs and policies.

Under the Constitution, it is the ultimate re-sponsibility of the Federal Government to providefor the common defense and promote the generalwelfare. Public lands must be viewed as one of thetools that the Federal Government has available inpursuing its sovereign objectives. Control over publiclands, for example, has been important historicallyin meeting various national defense needs. And thereservation of national parks and national forestsfrom the public domain was accomplished to promotethe general welfare of the Nation,

We believe the public lands can be used in avariety of ways to promote sovereign objectives. Wealso found that present and proposed uses of publiclands must be examined carefully to ascertainwhether they might interfere with the pursuit ofsovereign objectives. The nature of modern society,the pervasiveness of the Federal Government's ob-jectives, and the large number of laws and treatiesthat define Federal sovereign objectives complicatethis task.

For example, the Federal sovereign interest lies inthe efficient economic and noneconomic utilizationof all the resources of our Nation and the avoidanceof diversion of labor and capital to less productiveenterprises. Consequently, from the sovereign pointof view, laws and policies should be avoided whichpermit public lands and resources to be used in un-fair competition with resources from other sources.Withholding of public land resources from develop-ment may in different circumstances either further orthwart the sovereign interest. The national interestrequires users of public land and resources to con-tribute their fair share of Federal revenues. Thisprinciple precludes tax or pricing policies which un-duly favor the users of public land. There is asovereign interest in assuring access on equal termsto all potential users of the goods and services fromthose lands. The avoidance of monopoly and specialprivilege is the basic policy of many Federal laws,including for example, the anti-trust laws.

There is also a sovereign interest in the mainte-nance of quality environmental conditions on publiclands at least equal to those standards legislated forthe Nation generally. It would be unfair, if not im-possible, to enforce on the private sector standardshigher than those established for public lands by thevery government charged with their enforcement.

In a crisis, the sovereign responsibilities must over-.

ride the objectives of all the others. However, in theabsence of an emergency, policies and practices inconnection with the retention and management ordisposition of the public lands should be based on de-cisions made after taking into consideration all cate-gories of interest, without assigning a higher priorityto the interest of the sovereign.

The Federal Government as Proprietor

With about one-third of the country's land in itsownership, the Federal Government is a giant land-owner. To a substantial extent, Federal ownershipof the public lands is a coincidence of history. Mostof these lands were obtained as our national territoryexpanded. Although some were dedicated to meet-ing specific needs, the remaining unreserved publicdomain lands are mostly those for which there wasneither a Federal need nor demand under Federallaws providing for transfer into non-Federal control.Consideration of policies for these lands must gen-erally start from the premise that they are not inFederal ownership because of some direct tie toFederal sovereign objectives.

In its role as proprietor, the Federal Governmenthas much the same interest as other landowners. Itwants at least the same degree of freedom as otherlandowners to manage and use its resources.

As a proprietor, the Federal Government wants tomaximize the net economic return from sales of landand resources.

The Government, in the role of proprietor, has aninterest in assuring the availability of sufficient fundsto finance programs at a level that will result in anet monetary gain. It is also interested in the further-ance of research to achieve better use of the land.

The Federal proprietor, in addition, has an interestin controlling users of the land in order to maintainthe resource base and minimize damage or adverseenvironmental impacts. In performing these andother functions, every owner seeks maximum freedomof action, and the Federal Government is no excep-tion. As owner of the public lands, the Governmentwants to be free from control by state or local govern-ment and to pay no more for the support of localgovernment than other landowners.

Before giving consideration to the noneconomicelements of the public interest that may require re-tention of land, the Federal Government, strictlyfrom the standpoint of a proprietor, is interested inthe relationship between the cost of administeringlands and the income received.

State and Local Governments

In the absence of conflicting Federal legislation,state and local governments have constitutional juris-

diction over federally owned public lands for manypurposes except where exclusive Federal jurisdictionhas been ceded over specific areas, as discussed inChapter Nineteen. Roads, schools, and police pro-tection are examples. Local governments, in par-ticular, obtain substantial revenues from propertytaxes to finance their functions, and state govern-ments generally supplement these from other taxsources throughout the state as a whole. Federalproperty is immune from property taxes. State andlocal governments have an interest in obtaining anequitable share of their governmental costs from theFederal Government as a proprietor of public lands.

Other matters of state and local governmentalconcern can also be affected by Federal actions onthe public lands. Zoning and use of non-Federallands is affected by uses made of contiguous publiclands. And activities on public lands can result inenvironmental pollution on or damage to adjacent ornearby non-Federal lands.

State and local governments that will be affectedby land use decisions expect, as a minimum, thatthey will be consulted and have a voice in the Federaldecisionmaking process. They expect the UnitedStates in that way to give consideration to relevantstate and local programs and also to consider the im-pact of public land actions on state and local govern-ments. These units of government want the UnitedStates to share with other landowners in bearingthe costs of providing services, not only for thepublic lands but for the community as a whole.

It is in the interest of state and local governmentsthat measures for the control of the health, safety,and welfare of the people apply equally within theirboundaries, including public land areas.

Because they use public lands for a public purpose,these units of government except a preference overcompeting potential users, and to purchase or leasepublic land at less than market value.

Users of PubHc Lands and Resources

Those who use the public lands as a basis foreconomic enterprise and those who use the publiclands for personal recreation, together have an identi-fiable interest in the public lands. This is not neces-sarily a short-term interest, since all users areconcerned that public land policies provide an op-portunity for the satisfaction of future requirementsas well as present needs.

While users as a group have a common interest inthe public lands, different classes of users, and, in-deed, individual users within classes, often mustcompete for the opportunity to use the public lands.Many of the controversies over public land policyinvolves such conflicts and they should be so recog-nized.

37

Users as a class have many interests. They wantequal opportunity for access to public lands and re-sources in which they are interested, and equal treat-ment in their relations with the Federal Governmentand with other users. They are interested in havinga voice in decisionmaking from the time that plansare made for general use through the chain of eventsthat may involve decisions affecting their particularuses. In this latter connection, of course, all usersdesire prompt and fair consideration of disputes withpublic land administrators.

38

A

National LocalPublic Gov't.

All users are interested in having the terms andconditions under which use will take place specificallystated in advance. Although such need is not alwaysrecognized by those who use the public lands fornoneconomic purposes, we believe it has significanceand should be taken into consideration by all users.In addition, all users desire a minimum of inter-ference by the landowner, i.e., the Federal Govern-ment, in the manner in which the public lands areused.

Users also have a justifiable interest in seekingpricing and other conditions competitive with theuse of other lands, together with security of invest-ment, usually through assured tenure of use. As acorollary, they expect to be compensated if their useis disrupted or interfered with before the expirationof the term of the lease or permit of use.

Summary

We believe that it is in the public interest to en-courage the highest and best use of the public landsto the end that they contribute the most in socialand economic values. As national resources, theyhave little value unless their values are made avail-able for the use of our people, either in Federal ornon-Federal ownership.

Our efforts to find a formula for the maximumbenefit for the general public are in response to thatbelief.

The Commission believes that the maximum bene-fit for the general public can most nearly be ascer-tained after a careful consideration and weighing ofthe impacts on the interests of the six categories wehave identified and discussed in this chapter.

In establishing guidelines to determine whetherlands should be retained and managed or disposedof, we are in search of the means of accomplishingthe task rather than the end result. The end result,of course, is to achieve the maximum benefit for thegeneral public and it is for that reason that we havefocused so much of our attention on seeking criteriato assist in that determination.

We could find no better way to perform our com-plex task, and, having found it helpful, we recom-mend its use in future public land decisionmaking.

1 /