| OCR Text |
Show and are comparatively permanent in character, except where such uses are nonexclusive. The Commission finds that there are no explicit guidelines or criteria set forth in existing laws and regulations regarding the nature of occupancy uses for which land will generally be disposed of rather than retained and managed. No reason is apparent to the Commission for the retention of public lands that are needed for occupancy uses which require long-term private investment, materially alter the land and virtually exclude other use of the land surface. Examples of this type of use are schools, electric substations, canals, reservoirs, industrial sites, and commercial building sites. The limited tenure provided by leases or permits for such use results in uncertainty and risk for the user, and creates problems in financing new developments or improvements. The retention of such land is also an unnecessary continuing burden and cost to the Government. The Commission believes it is in the public interest to dispose of such lands, and recommends that statutory authority for such disposal be explicitly provided. However, many occupancy uses which require a large investment and are relatively permanent do not require exclusive use of the surface. Other uses compatible with the occupancy use are often possible. In such cases, the land should be retained so that other types of users may benefit and the Government may continue to manage the land for the compatible uses. Typical nonexclusive types of uses which the Commission believes do not generally justify disposal of public lands include electric transmission lines, communication lines, pipelines, and access roads. Many of these nonexclusive uses lend themselves to application of the corridor concept on public lands, under which the joint use of facilities and the maximum concentration of similar facilities in a single area are encouraged. This would reduce the acreage of public land needed to accommodate these uses, minimize the environmental impact, and reduce conflicts with other resource uses. A corridor policy would mean lower clearing, construction and maintenance costs, and lower utility rates to the rate-paying public. However, where public land on which a term lease or permit exists is disposed of, the new owner would control the charges, terms, and conditions of renewals. This problem would be avoided if Congress would provide by statute for the granting of perpetual easements for nonexclusive uses which involve heavy investment and where it is anticipated that the use will continue indefinitely. Consistent with our general recommendations on pricing, we recommend that transfers and leases be at market value. We believe the principle of fair market value pricing treats equitably the various interests involved, including the general taxpaying public and prospective users competing for the land. Furthermore, it generally encourages the highest and best use of the land. Leases and permits granted for less than market value in some instances acquired a value which has been captured by the user upon sale of the privately owned improvements. This has been particularly evident in the charges made for vacation summer homes, where the supply is very limited and permits have been transferred to the new owner upon sale of the improvements. Land managing agencies should develop consistent means of applying the market value basis in leases and permits for occupancy uses. However, transfers or leases to other governmental entities for public purposes should be made at less than market value, with appropriate limitations. Existing law provides for the disposal or use of certain public lands to non-Federal entities for public use at less than market value in certain situations.2 The Commission believes than any conveyance of public land for a public purpose to a state or local government for less than market value should provide for a possibility of reverter, in accordance with our general recommendation on this point in Chapter Eighteen. Tenure Recommendation 94: Where occupancy uses are authorized on retained lands by permit, lease, or otherwise, (a) the term and size of permits should be adequate to accommodate the project and the required investment; (b) compensation should be paid when the use is terminated by Federal action prior to expiration of the prescribed term; and (c) a preference right to purchase should be accorded to such users dependent on the lands if they are later offered for disposal. Concern has been expressed to the Commission over current limitations on the length of permits or leases in some cases. Existing law provides for leases of up to 50 years for some uses and much shorter leases, term permits, or annual permits for many other uses. Often the term for which a permit or lease can be given is shorter than that needed to amortize the capital investment on, or dependent upon the use of the land. In such situations the user 2 Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, Federal Public Land Laws and Policies Relating to Use and Occupancy, Ch. Ill, pts. II D, II E. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. 221 |
