OCR Text |
Show ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC GRAZING LANDS 611 The bill had been given careful consideration by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture who agreed that the wisest plan was to have the lands over which administrative control was to be established retained under the jurisdiction of Interior. This was no supine surrender by Agriculture, for it had good reason to claim a share of responsibility for the public range but rather was based on the recognition that the measure would have more difficulty in getting through Congress if any considerable part of the lands were to be administered by the Forest Service. Taylor's bill and the act as finally adopted included some obvious political compromises, some uncertainties, and some clear borrowing from the administrative practices developed by the Forest Service. "Pending its [the public land's] final disposal," the measure authorized the establishment of grazing districts to include up to 80 million acres of public lands that were chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops. Part of the recommendation of the Garfield Committee of 1931 was included to permit the President to add to the national forests such lands as might best be administered by the Forest Service and to transfer from the Forest Service such land within the forests as could better be administered for grazing by the Secretary of the Interior. Decisions on such transfers, however, were to be made by the President, not by boards (two of whose five members should be appointed by the states concerned), as the Garfield Committee had proposed. The Secretary of the Interior, in whose hands responsibility for administering the control program rested, was authorized to initiate measures to protect, regulate the use of, and improve the lands within the districts. He was to issue permits for the use of the range, giving preference to stockmen, landowners, settlers, or owners of water rights, except those whose rights were gained in 1934. He could determine the fees and the number of livestock allowed within the districts and could reduce the number in the event of drought or epidemic disease. Settlers were to be permitted to pasture their domestic livestock free. Twenty-five percent of the income from fees was to be devoted to range improvements but only when appropriated by Congress, 50 percent was to be distributed to the states in which the lands were located for the counties, and the balance was to go to the Federal Treasury.10 Lands proposed for inclusion in districts were to be withdrawn from all forms of entry when public notice was given. When the lands within the grazing districts were classified, any that were found suitable and more valuable for raising agricultural crops than native grasses were to be open to homesteading in 320-acre tracts. Isolated or disconnected tracts up to 760 acres outside the districts might be sold at their appraised value, and small tracts not over 160 acres that were mountainous or rough could be sold to adjoining property owners. Finally, isolated or disconnected tracts up to 640 acres that were not included within the districts could be leased to contiguous owners.11 In the discussion in the House on the Taylor bill the cost of management and the fee question received the most attention. Representative Harry L. Englebright of California who was bitterly opposed to the measure, raised the cry of bureaucracy, objected to ending homesteading, and claimed the act would perpetuate Federal ownership of the lands and leave 11 states half Federal and half state. Englebright asked why the act did not provide for the management of the lands by the Forest Service which had already acquired much experience in administering rangelands and 10 This was in contrast to the 25 percent the states received of the receipts from grazing and sale of stumpage within the national forests. "48 Stat. 1269 ff. |