OCR Text |
Show lie domain and acquired lands of the Federal Government should be eliminated. We find that the division of responsibility for the development of policy and the administration of public lands among Congressional Committees and several Federal departments and agencies has led to differences, contradictions, and duplications in policies and programs. Not only have these factors been administratively burdensome, but they have also been the source of confusion to citizens dealing with the Government. We, therefore, recommend that: Responsibility for public land policy and programs within the Federal Government in both the legislative and executive branches should be consolidated to the maximum practicable extent in order to eliminate, or at least reduce, differences in policies concerning the administration of similar public land programs. We submit the foregoing findings and basic recommendations as a statement of principles that should govern the retention and management or disposition of federally owned lands. In the chapters that follow, we will develop detailed background in specific subject areas, along with more detailed recommendations designed to implement the basic principles enunciated in the foregoing recommendations. In arriving at these recommendations and those that follow, we made each decision on the basis of what we consider to be the maximum benefit for the general public, in accordance with the statutory charge to the Commission as cited in the Preface. We have not defined in any one place what we consider to be "the maximum benefit for the general public." Nor have we defined a set of criteria that will lead all persons to the same conclusion as to what is the maximum benefit for the general public. These are tasks that are perhaps best left to sociologists, philosophers, and others. But, we did study the problem and found, in the end, that our work was eased and made more meaningful by adopting a convenient categorization of broadly justifiable, unexceptionable, yet often conflicting, interests within the totality of the general public. Obviously, the general public is made up of many persons and groups with conflicting aims and objectives. Stated another way, it may be said that there are several "publics" which, in the aggregate, make up the general public with respect to policies for the public lands. Perhaps this categorization of identifi- able interests would be useful in other areas of public policy, too. In any case, we found it useful in our work and applied it to all of our decisions. The six categories of interests we recognized are: -the national public: all citizens, as taxpayers, consumers, and ultimate owners of the public lands are concerned that the lands produce and remain productive of the material, social, and esthetic benefits that can be obtained from them. -the regional public: those who live and work on or near the vast public lands, while being a part of and sharing the concerns of the national public, have a special concern that the public lands help to support them and their neighbors and that the lands contribute to their overall well-being. -the Federal Government as sovereign: the ultimate responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare and, in so doing, it should make use of every tool at its command, including its control of the public lands. -the Federal Government as proprietor: in a narrower sense, the Federal Government is a landowner that seeks to manage its property according to much the same set of principles as any other landowner and to exercise normal proprietary control over its land. -state and local government: most of the Federal lands fall within the jurisdiction limits of other levels of governments, which have responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents and, thus, an interest in assuring that the overriding powers of the Federal Government be accommodated to their interests as viable instruments in our Federal system of government. -the users of public lands and resources: users, including those seeking economic gain and those seeking recreation or other noneconomic benefits, have an interest in assuring that their special needs, which vary widely, are met and that all users are given equal consideration when uses are permitted. The Commission in each of its decisions gave careful consideration to the interests of each of the several "publics" that make up the "general public." Distinguishing among these interests required that the Commission specifically consider each of them and, thus, assure that the decisions of the Commission, to the best of its ability, reflect all of the interests of the general public. In applying the procedure that we did, in each case it was possible to see which interest is affected most. This is not only useful in the decisionmaking process but provides a healthy atmosphere in which all parties |