| OCR Text |
Show that have never been classified or set aside for specific use.* We, therefore, recommend that: An immediate review should be undertaken of all lands not previously designated for any specific use, and of all existing withdrawals, set asides, and classifications of public domain lands that were effected by Executive action to determine the type of use that would provide the maximum benefit for the general public in accordance with standards set forth in this report. The result of these reviews will be the delineation of lands that should be retained in Federal ownership and those that could best serve the public through private ownership. For those to be retained in Federal ownership, there will be a further breakdown indicating which ones should be set aside for special-purpose use-which may or may not include several different uses. As intimated above, our studies have also led us to the conclusions that the Congress has largely delegated to the executive branch its plenary constitutional authority over the retention, management, and disposition of public land;2 that statutory delegations have often been lacking in standards or meaningful policy determinations; that the executive agencies, understandably, in keeping with the operation of the American political system, took the action they deemed necessary to fill this vacuum through the issuance of regulations, manuals, and other administrative directives; and that the need for administrative flexibility in meeting varying regional and local conditions created by the diversity of our public lands and by the complexity of many public land problems does not justify failure to legislate the controlling standards, guidelines, and criteria under which public land decisions should be made. 2 U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 3. * Commissioner Clark submits the following separate view: Some of the statements in this and other parts of the report may lead to interpretations in the minds of some readers which do not represent views of all members of the Commission. However, since this is a consensus effort, a brief caveat is appropriate regarding the language and subjective tone employed to describe some past actions affecting public lands which should not detract from the general utility of the recommendations. This report must be read against nearly 200 years of history and no doubt a nongovernment report would contain similar inferences that would emphasize perhaps disproportionately the past inaction, delays, and piecemeal approach of Congress. We, therefore, recommend that: Congress should establish national policy in all public land laws by prescribing the controlling standards, guidelines, and criteria for the exercise of authority delegated to executive agencies. Many types of public land have been reserved by executive action for governmental uses, such as defense installations and atomic energy testing areas. The result has been to materially restrict or preclude their availability for recreation and resource development purposes. In other cases, withdrawals and reservations have severely limited permissible types of uses on tremendous acreages of public land in order to further administrative land policies. We find that when proposed land uses are passed on by the Congress, they receive more careful scrutiny in the executive branch before being recommended; furthermore, in connection with congressional action, the general public is given a better opportunity to comment and have its views considered. We conclude that Congress should not delegate broad authority for these types of actions. We, therefore, recommend that: Congress assert its constitutional authority by enacting legislation reserving unto itself exclusive authority to withdraw or otherwise set aside public lands for specified limited-purpose uses and delineating specific delegation of authority to the Executive as to the types of withdrawals and set asides that may be effected without legislative action. Our studies have convinced us that, with respect to lands retained in Federal ownership, the rules and regulations governing their use, to the extent that they exist, have not been adequate to fulfill the purpose; that they were promulgated without proper consultation with, and participation by, either those affected or the general public; that existing regulations are cumbersome; and that the procedures for users or other interested parties to exercise their rights to seek or oppose the grant of interests in public land are likewise cumbersome as well as expensive with no assurance of objective, impartial consideration of appeals from, or objections to, decisions by land managers. We, therefore, recommend that: Public land management agencies should be required by statute to promulgate comprehensive rules and regulations after full consideration of all points of view, including |
