| OCR Text |
Show can, and does, supplement these funds with direct appropriations. But the funds generated by these receipts are essentially free of congressional control. We have recommended that receipts from timber sales, on lands classified for timber as the dominant use, be placed in a separate fund. But monies would not be available for spending until appropriated by the Congress.18 Except where special conditions warrant-and we believe this to be the case with respect to timber programs on timber dominant areas-the earmarking of receipts for financing particular governmental programs is not consistent with good governmental practices. We also note that such earmarking after a few years usually results in either too much or too little money being available. Too much money often leads to needless expenditures of public funds in the hope that the level of earmarking will not be cut back in the future. And too little money may prevent the expenditure of needed funds on a program. We have also found that earmarking funds for one program may limit funds or expenditures in other areas. Uniform Basis for Pricing Recommendation 136: There should be a uniform, statutory basis for pricing goods and services furnished from the public lands. A primary objective of our review has been to examine public land laws and policies for their consistency with each other. Where a principle is common to a number of different land uses or programs, we have attempted to determine whether there are differences in the basic premise applicable to this common area of policy from law to law and from one use to another; whether these differences, if they exist, are valid today and for the future; and what single or uniform premise, if appropriate, should be adopted. Pricing-the charging and setting of fees for the use of various public lands goods and services, and for land itself-is a subject common to every area of public land use and management we have considered. But there is great diversity from law to law in the principles upon which pricing policies are based, as well as from agency to agency, among different uses and among different classes of public lands. Standards and methods for determining price levels are different, even where the principles may be identical. While specific pricing methods and policies 18 See recommendation in Chapter Five, Timber Resources. have been considered in each of the chapters of this report dealing with a land use or commodity, it seems desirable to set forth the premises and standards which underlie our specific recommendations. All those who use the public lands for any purpose should pay a fee for this privilege. There were valid reasons at various stages in the Nation's growth to grant privileges and to offer incentives in the form of price or fee subsidies to different classes of public land users. We believe those reasons have largely disappeared, or are outweighed by other considerations. The pressure to satisfy needs for every type of land use is increasing. Favored price treatment of any class of public land user is inequitable for other users and results in inefficient use of valuable resources. The United States should obtain fair-market value for the goods and services it furnishes from all classes of public land. The national public, as owners in common of the public lands, and the United States as a landowner, have a legitimate right to this expectation. Substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars have been spent on the protection, development, and maintenance of public lands. We believe that payment of fair value for goods and services from the public lands is equitable to the taxpayers who have financed their administration and management. We also believe that the best standard in a market economy for pricing goods and services from the public lands is the price that is set or would be set by the operation of market forces. Specifically, we recommend that the standard adopted be fair-market value as that term is generally defined in common economic and legal usage. In practice, we believe this standard translates into variable prices for goods and services as market prices vary with local conditions. This means that national uniform fee schedules are not generally desirable for goods and services for which a market price otherwise exists. There has been a tendency, in the interest of simplicity of administration, to adopt uniform fee schedules for public land goods and services which vary widely in quality from place to place, even if a well established regional or local market price structure exists. This is undesirable. To the extent possible, therefore, prices should be set by competitive methods for goods and services that have a market price structure. Where other aspects of policy do not permit the operation of market forces to establish price, minimum acceptable value to the United States should be determined by appraisal. Competitive conditions do not always exist. The normal operation of the market will not, therefore, establish the price of a given transaction. There are certain public land services, most notably outdoor recreation use of public lands, for which 287 |
