OCR Text |
Show their knowledge and insights throughout their work. These people were not advisors in name only-the Commission asked for and obtained their advice, which was then referred to frequently during the Commission's deliberations. As one of its main objectives at the outset, the Commission undertook the task of establishing some principles or criteria that could furnish help in judging whether retention and management, or disposition, would provide the maximum benefit for the general public. The Commission recognized that it would be impossible to establish scientific criteria and that, in any event, much judgment would be required. Considering the scope of this task, the Commission believes it has been successful. As brought out in the report, the Commission agreed upon a checklist of the justifiable interests affected by public land policy that permitted it (and that it believes will be helpful to future policymakers and administrators) to arrive at conclusions and recommendations which, after taking all factors into consideration, will meet the test of providing the maximum benefit for the general public. In response to the requirement that it develop background data, the Commission's staff designed a research program embracing 33 individual subjects, on each of which manuscripts were prepared as one source of information for Commission consideration. A discussion of the research program is included in the appendix.9 Although thereafter the Commission discussed with the Advisory Council and the Governors' Representatives, as well as in executive session, material on a subject-by-subject basis, it never lost sight of the concept that it was necessary for one group in one place at one time to look at all the public land laws and policies, as well as their interrelationships. This the Commission did as it went along. For the purposes of our review and report, the Commission considered all the resources and uses of the public lands to be commodities. Accordingly, in addition to the traditional resources of minerals, timber, forage, intensive agriculture, water, and fish and wildlife, there were included outdoor recreation and the various spatial uses such as for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes. The impact that the use or development of each commodity has on other commodities, was considered. The Commission also considered to what extent, if any, the commodity would affect the environment so that, where appropriate, recommendations could be made to alleviate any adverse effect. The Commission also examined several other fac- 9 Attachment No. 4, Appendix D. tors that are common to all the commodities. These are pricing or fees to be charged, objectives or goals in providing and supplying the commodities, investment and financing by both the Federal Government and the user, questions of allocation of either the resource base for production of the commodity or of the commodity to users, and finally, whether lands that are chiefly valuable for a particular purpose should be retained and managed in Federal ownership or disposed of either to another public body or into private ownership. As to those lands the Commission proposes be retained, the management policies that should be adopted were considered. It is not intended by the foregoing to suggest that these were the only policy matters given consideration. Quite the contrary is true and policy matters peculiar to individual commodities were considered in connection with each such commodity. In addition, at the final meeting of the Advisory Council with the Governors' Representatives participating, the Commission conducted a complete review of suggestions of how to determine guidelines concerning which lands should be retained and managed and which lands should be disposed of, all in a manner to provide the maximum benefit for the general public. The comprehensive research program conducted by and under the supervision of the staff, examined each and every public land law as well as the regulations, practices and procedures involved in their administration. However, throughout its work, the Commission took a broad approach to matters of policy and did not consider the subject before it in a law by law review. Nor have we attempted to identify in our recommendations all of the inconsistent laws that should be repealed or possibly modified upon adoption of our recommendations. Where we have not recommended repeal or modification of specific statutes, the recommendation is implicit if the action we propose is inconsistent with existing law. The Digest of Public Land Laws, prepared as part of the research program set forth in Attachment No. 4, Appendix D, will be of considerable aid to the Congressional Committees in ascertaining the laws that are affected by the Commission's recommendations. It will be up to the Congress in framing new legislation, in those instances where an entire law would not be rendered obsolete, to determine whether there should be an amendment to or replacement of existing law. The probability is that upon adoption of this Commission's recommendations, no public land law will be left intact. We note, however, that many of the Commission's recommendations can be implemented by administrative action in the executive branch. We have been XI |