| OCR Text |
Show 53. Restrictions on public land mineral activity that are no longer relevant to existing conditions should be eliminated so as to encourage mineral exploration and development and long standing claims should be disposed of expeditiously. Page 135. 54. The Department of the Interior should continue to have sole responsibility for administering mineral activities on all public lands, subject to consultation with the department having management functions for other uses. Page 136. 55. In future disposals of public lands for non-mineral purposes, all mineral interests known to be of value should be reserved with exploration and development discretionary in the Federal Government and a uniform policy adopted relative to all reserved mineral interests. Page 136. Chapter Eight {Water Resources): 56. The implied reservation doctrine of water rights for federally reserved lands should be clarified and limited by Congress in at least four ways: (a) amounts of water claimed, both surface and underground, should be formally established; (b) procedures for contesting each claim should be provided; (c) water requirements for future reservations should be expressly reserved; and (d) compensation should be awarded where interference results with claims valid under state law before the decision in Arizona v. California. Page 146. 57. Congress should require the public land management agencies to submit a comprehensive report describing: (1) the objectives of current watershed protection and management programs; (2) the actual practices carried on under these programs; and (3) the demonstrated effect of such practices on the program objectives. Based on such information, Congress should establish specific goals for watershed protection and management, provide for preference among them, and commit adequate funds to achieve them. Page 150. 58. "Watershed protection" should in specified, limited cases be: (1) a reason for retaining lands in Federal ownership; and (2) justification for land acquisition. Page 151. 59. Congress should require federally authorized water development projects on public lands to be planned and managed to give due regard to other values of the public lands. Page 154. Chapter Nine (Fish and Wildlife Resources) : 60. Federal officials should be given clear statutory authority for final land use decisions that affect fish and wildlife habitat or populations on the public lands. But they should not take action inconsistent with state harvesting regulations, except upon a finding of overriding national need after adequate 12 notice to, and full consultation with, the states. Page 158. 61. Formal statewide cooperative agreements should be used to coordinate public land fish and wildlife programs with the states. Page 159. 62. The objectives to be served in the management of fish and resident wildlife resources, and providing for their use on all classes of Federal public lands, should be clearly defined by statute. Page 160. 63. Statutory guidelines are required for minimizing conflicts between fish and wildlife and other public land uses and values. Page 164. 64. Public lands should be reviewed and key fish and wildlife habitat zones identified and formally designated for such dominant use. Page 168. 65. A Federal land use fee should be charged for hunting and fishing on all public lands open for such purposes. Page 169. 66. The states and the Federal Government should share on an equitable basis in financing fish and wildlife programs on public lands. Page 173. 67. State policies which unduly discriminate against nonresident hunters and fishermen in the use of public lands through license fee differentials and various forms of nonfee regulations should be discouraged. Page 174. Chapter Ten (Intensive Agriculture): 68. The homestead laws and the Desert Land Act should be repealed and replaced with statutory authority for the sale of public lands for intensive agriculture when that is the highest and best use of the land. Page 177. 69. Public lands should be sold for agricultural purposes at market value in response to normal market demand. Unreserved public domain lands and lands in land utilization projects should be considered for disposal for intensive agriculture purposes. Page 179. 70. The states should be given a greater role in the determination of which public lands should be sold for intensive agricultural purposes. The state governments should be given the right to certify or veto the potential agricultural use of public lands but only according to the availability of state water rights. Consideration should also be given to consistency of use with state or local economic development plans and zoning regulations. Page 180. 71. The allocation of public lands to agricultural use should not be burdened by artificial and obsolete restraints such as acreage limitations on individual holdings, farm residency requirements, and the exclusions of corporations as eligible applicants. Page 182. |
