OCR Text |
Show drawal authority to be lodged in the executive branch. However, this authority should be limited and exercised only within prescribed statutory guidelines. In the exercise of its land management functions, the executive branch is an agent of Congress and, as with any other agent, the extent of its power and authority should be clearly defined. Delegation of the congressional authority should be specific, not implied, and should be made through the enactment of a single statute which clearly replaces all existing authority expressly or impliedly delegated. We think that the Executive's use of withdrawals should generally be confined to the following broad purposes: 1. Allocation of public lands to nonresource use by other agencies, e.g., relatively small areas for defense purposes. 2. Withdrawals in aid of legislation, such as for setting aside those areas of national significance mentioned above, water resource development projects, or special purpose legislation such as the Alaska native claims settlement legislation. 3. Emergency situations to preserve values that would otherwise be lost pending administrative or legislative action. Executive withdrawals should be limited to a period of ten years duration, other than those in aid of legislation or for emergency purposes which should not exceed five years, subject to the provisions for review and renewal, where appropriate, discussed later in this chapter. Agency standards are not definitive either in selecting land for new withdrawals or reviewing the status of past withdrawals. Although advisory services from other agencies may be available, qualified expertise to weigh conflicting resource benefits are often limited in the agency for whose benefit land may be withdrawn. The evidence available also indicates that little attention is paid to selecting areas from among alternative sites so as to minimize resource losses when public land is requested for exclusive agency use. Rather than be concerned with problems of multiple use benefits or resource development measures, Federal agencies obtain withdrawals which are far more restrictive than they need to be. These practices prevent the withdrawal system from being what it might otherwise be-an effective tool for proper land allocation. An agency applying for a withdrawal should be required to establish the need for and effect of the withdrawal, particularly with respect to such matters as location, acreage required, intended duration, restrictions on use, and an evaluation of the impact on present and future uses and users and on the environment. Mandatory legislative guidelines should require evaluation of the merits of proposed withdrawals and reservations, including express consideration of the relative value of conflicting uses, and all pertinent economic, environmental and social impacts. These are essential steps if the withdrawal process is to be consistent with sound land use planning. Public notice of proposed withdrawals and participation of the public and state and local governments, at least through invitation to comment and through hearings in appropriate cases, should be assured. Effective planning requires thaat all citizen interests have an opportunity to be heard and considered. Similarly, state and local governments are directly concerned with the withdrawal process. It affords an available tool to accomplish a segregation of public lands for necessary local facilities and is, therefore, a vital part of local and regional land use planning. Moreover, restriction on various kinds of uses can have a serious impact on the regional economy. Consideration of these interests, along with others, should be mandatory in the withdrawal process. Regulations now provide for notice to the public of proposed withdrawals, opportunity to submit comments, and a discretionary hearing. However, hearings are seldom held. We recommend that they be required upon request of a state. The officer exercising delegated authority should be required to state his findings with respect to justification for each withdrawal. The officer who makes the final decision on the application for withdrawal is now under no requirement to explain his action. Thus, the adequacy of the justification furnished by the applicant and the extent to which important factors have actually been considered are not matters of public knowledge. Meaningful judicial review or congressional oversight is dependent upon such disclosure. Furthermore, the lack of adequate public accountability has led to problems such as excessive size, indefiniteness of boundaries, lack of uniformity, and interminable "temporary" withdrawals. At a minimum these findings should speak to (1) alternative sites, (2) weighted evaluation of existing and potential resource uses, including effect on the environment, (3) effects on present users, (4) effects on regional economy, (5) effects on state and local government interests, and (6) an explanation of the reasons for the duration of the proposed withdrawal as related to the purpose specified. The Pickett Act27 delegated authority to the President to temporarily withdraw lands, but does not set any time limit on such withdrawals. Some temporary withdrawals made under the Act have remained in effect for almost sixty years. Other tem- 27 n. 2, supra. 55 |