OCR Text |
Show of concern in public land decisions, particularly where the decision involves a change in land use from an extensive use to an intensive use or from an economic use to a noneconomic use. In the past, this has also been a matter of concern when the change in land use would have affected direct payments to state and local government. We found it impossible to make a comprehensive analysis of the regional and local economic impacts of public land uses. The techniques for such analyses, which are comparable to those used by the Department of Commerce in preparing the national input-output tables associated with its national income measurements, are expensive and require vast amounts of data. But a good deal of work has been done by universities and other research organizations that can provide a basis for regional analyses in a number of areas. Our approach to this matter was to have analyses prepared for us on the regional economic impacts of public land uses and possible changes in such uses for two areas, the upper Colorado River Basin and the State of Washington. The technique that was used is regional input-output analysis, which we have found to be the only approach that provides a reliable basis for making comparisons of economic impacts for different land uses. We considered the results of these analyses at various points in our review, and believe that this technique has a proper place in land use planning. We intend the factors and procedures suggested above to be the primary basis for land use decisions generally. These decisions should in all cases be made at the local level and in most cases should lead to clear choices among alternative land uses. However, for those limited situations where choices among conflicting uses cannot clearly be made after application of this system, Congress should attempt to provide guidelines that could be used to resolve such conflicts. This would give the agencies the backing of Congress in making these "ultimate" decisions. We examined several possibilities. One approach would be to establish firm preferences among uses such as mineral development, timber harvesting, and outdoor recreation. This technique is used for resolving conflicts among uses of water under state water codes. This would require that Congress examine at the national level the various needs of to these areas of Commission consideration: Consulting Services Corporation, Impact of Public Lands on Selected Regional Economies. PLLRC Study Report, 1970; Robert S. Manthy, Probable Future Demands on Public Lands. PLLRC Study Report, 1970; Robert R. Nathan Associates, Projections of the Consumption of Commodities Producible on the Public Lands of the United States 1980-2000. PLLRC Study Report, 1970; Commission Staff, Inventory Information on Public Lands. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. the country, the capabilities of the public lands to meet these needs, and the relationship of these capabilities to the potential of the non-Federal land base. This would be an exceedingly complex task. It is unlikely that a consensus could be reached as to what constitutes a reasonable set of priorities that could be applied uniformly throughout the country, under a variety of specific resource and needs conditions, and over a reasonable period of time. Another approach would be to establish statutory standards reflecting value judgments as to the prevailing importance of various broad objectives served by the public lands that are not already designated for a primary use. We considered three possible general standards that could be used. First, a preference could be stated for uses that contribute most to regional economic growth. Most of the classes of land to which this guideline would apply have never been designated as serving a specific national purpose that would be predominate over a regional or local economic objective. Consequently, it could be concluded that, even though they are retained in Federal ownership, the use of such lands should be directed primarily at meeting regional development needs. Application of this standard would not necessarily mean that economic uses such as timber harvesting or mining or grazing would always be favored over other land uses such as recreation. Recreation may in fact generate greater economic benefits to the particular locality in some circumstances than any market-oriented resource use. The agencies would probably have to work with well developed input-output models, such as we have just discussed, to have the necessary information for making resource use choices based on this guideline. This standard, of course, does not imply decisions by the administrator that would ignore environmental values and acceptable standards of resource use and treatment. Second, nonmarket values, e.g., fish and wildlife, and watershed protection, might be favored over economic values. This standard would reflect a value judgment that: (1) the primary reason for continued Federal control of these lands is to see to it that such uses are always given full consideration along with logging, mining, and other market uses of land; and (2) since there is no well-established market mechanism to allocate land resources to these uses in the private sector, the fact of Federal ownership must be recognized as a necessary substitution for the imperfection in the market. Finally, a third standard would favor uses that appear likely to generate the lowest degree of environmental degradation, or contribute most to environmental enhancement. This standard would avoid the question of what specific uses are more important than others. Although it might tend to 47 |