OCR Text |
Show tion provides that no order affecting land under the administrative jurisdiction of another executive department or agency may be issued without the consent of the head of the department or agency concerned. Although any disagreement concerning the proposed order may be referred to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget for settlement, or, in his discretion, to the President, this has never been done in a formal manner. The President, in whom the existing powers are vested, cannot personally resolve these problems. The lack of final authority in such cases discourages a vigorous review policy by the Secretary. An exception to the Secretary's withdrawal authority is the Federal Power Act, under which the filing of an application for a preliminary permit or license for a hydroelectric project automatically withdraws all public land described in the application if within the purview of the Act. As a practical matter, these self-initiated withdrawals are subject to no preliminary review whatsoever. Our recommendation would remedy these problems. However, the centralization of the withdrawal power in the Department of the Interior raises several practical problems. The Department itself contains land-using program agencies, which expose it to complaints of a lack of objectivity when it reviews their individual withdrawals. Hence we recommend that such authority continue in a presidentially appointed official of the Department removed from the operating aspects of the Department's programs. Coordination and Public Review of Public Land Plans and Programs We have pointed out our concern with the lack of coordination in land use planning among the Federal agencies and between the Federal agencies and those of other units of government, as well as the general public. The failure to coordinate plans, and the resultant actions, leads to program duplication and to inefficient accomplishment of Federal and other governmental programs. Our earlier recommendations to require the public land agencies to prepare comprehensive regional land use plans, and to specify the factors that were considered in preparing the plans, provide a basis on which land use planning can be coordinated. However, to assure that the agencies do, in fact, coordinate their planning, it is our belief that statutory direction is necessary. The problem of coordination in land use planning has three closely related facets. First is the need to assure public consideration of proposed Federal land use plans by providing for effective public participation in the planning process before final land use decisions are made. The second concerns the need to bring together the separate land use planning activities of all Federal agencies within a geographic region. While the planning and program decisions of one Federal land management agency obviously affect the plans and programs of other Federal agencies in the same region, there appears to be little meaningful coordination among them.30 The third facet of coordination relates to the need to encourage full consideration of the external effects of Federal land use policy on the regions to which the policies apply. Federal land use decisions obviously affect a wide variety of institutions outside the Federal agencies, particularly state and local governments. Thus, we believe that it is essential to bring these institutions into the land use planning process so that they will have a voice in decisions that affect their interests. Public Participation Recommendation 11: Provision should be made for public participation in land use planning, including public hearings on pro- ) posed Federal land use plans, as an initial step in a regional coordination process. One of the frequently voiced complaints at the Commission's public meetings was that the public has been largely excluded from the land management agencies' land use planning activities. Our contractor's study confirmed this deficiency, finding that most agency contacts with the public concerning land use planning are of an "after the fact" informational nature.31 We believe that the expression of multiple views and interests and their impact on Federal land use plans is fundamental to a democratic and meaningful planning process. It is essential to provide a direct avenue for citizen participation in the planning process, through the use of both public hearings and citizen advisory boards. State and local governments have long recognized the importance and utility of public hearings, and have required them in connection with adoption or amendments of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Congress and the land management agencies have not been particularly concerned about this problem, although the public hearings required by statute in connection with wilderness proposals under the Wilderness Act of 1964,32 and the Bureau of Land Management's public meetings in connection with its classification program under the Classifica- (Text continued on page 60.) 30 Herman D. Ruth & Associates, Regional and Local Land Use Planning. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. ¦^Ibid., Ch. III. 32 n. 10, supra. 57 |