OCR Text |
Show that arise over differences of opinion concerning desirable land use, such as occurred in the case of the North Cascades and Mineral King proposals involving national forests and national parks, would be minimized by more effective cooperation in land use planning from the outset. Congress should require and make provision for the creation of new arrangements and procedures for unifying planning for different kinds of Federal lands in a region. While our study shows that a variety of approaches, such as regional interagency committees or river basin commissions, may offer some possibilities for improved coordination, it is clear that all existing techniques need substantial refinement and strengthening. Both the field committee system used for 20 years by the Department of the Interior, and the interagency committee system employed by the Federal Government to coordinate Federal natural resource program activity on a regional scale have significant weaknesses. They have no staff capacity for independent planning and, more importantly, their authority to reconcile the divergent plans and programs of their member agencies is nonexistent. These organizations engage in resource use analysis and planning much less than they do in exchanging and reviewing their program plans and budgets to carry out resource plans already decided upon. We think that the Secretary of the new department we recommend in Chapter Twenty should give consideration to possible organizational unification at the regional level under the policy direction of a single administrator, in order to provide the opportunity to plan effectively for all classes of public land in a region. It is quite possible that a successful mechanism may only evolve through extensive trial and error experimentation. Recognition of the need is of paramount importance, however. State and Local Roles Recommendation 13: State and local governments should be given an effective role in Federal agency land use planning. Federal land use plans should be developed in consultation with these governments, circulated to them for comments, and should conform to state or local zoning to the maximum extent feasible. As a general rule, no use of public land should be permitted which is prohibited by state or local zoning. There are two basic reasons for involving state and local governments in Federal land use planning. First, these governments represent the people and institutions that will be most directly affected by Federal programs growing out of land use planning. For example, disposal of land to private ownership may involve substantial service burdens to state and local government, such as education and highway costs, which are not matched by a corresponding increase in taxes. Secondly, the objectives of land use planning can be frustrated unless all land within the planning area is included, regardless of ownership. Land use decisions often have important economic and environmental impacts at the regional, state, or local level. A decision by the Forest Service to facilitate the construction of a pulp and paper plant by making national forest timber available to a proposed mill will have a significant economic impact, but it can also have a serious external effect on the surrounding community in the form of air and water pollution. The Commission recognizes that there is a wide variation in the quality of the planning process as it exists at the level of state and local governments. In many public land areas, there is neither comprehensive planning nor zoning at the state or local level. Where either does exist, no attempt has been made to extend state or local zoning to cover Federal lands. One of the historical reasons for this disinterest has been that the local authorities had little reason to believe that they would influence the land planning of Federal agencies, although in more recent years some progressive local authorities have affirmatively zoned Federal lands with the cooperation of Federal agencies. Involving state and local planning groups in joint land use planning efforts with Federal agencies could have a significant effect in promoting a more active interest in land use planning by state and local governments. To us, broad gauged land use planning at all levels is vital if our nation is to meet the challenge of the next three decades to meet our increasing resource and environmental needs from a fixed land base. Awareness of the necessity for more aggressive land use planning and zoning in the states has changed significantly within a very few years. Some states have enacted statewide zoning and land planning laws, embracing rural and urban areas alike, and are committing funds and political action to undertake the complex task called for by these laws. We foresee a rapid change in their interest and capability to bring all the area within their borders under a comprehensive planning effort. It is imperative that the use, development, disposal, and acquisition planning for Federal lands be an integral part of this effort, and that the institutions and procedures that control planning for Federal lands be adopted to facilitate the effort. Until enactment of the Intergovernmental Co- 61 |