OCR Text |
Show of the Government have contributed to the concept of "permit value," whether or not the permit has the attributes of a property right. Loss of the permit prior to its expiration, therefore, should be compensated for, and the compensation standard should take into consideration the value of the base property with and without the permit. Grazing may be permitted as a secondary use in an area that has been classified for some other use as the dominant one in accordance with recommendations in the chapter Planning Future Public Land Use. Where that occurs, we would expect that the possibility of conflict between the dominant and secondary uses would be indicated as a cause for termination of the permit; but we would also expect that, in that particular instance, no compensation would be permitted. At the same time, we observe that the possibility of conflict in such a situation would be obvious and would influence the level of the fee to be paid for the grazing privilege as recommended in this chapter. Investment in Range Improvement Recommendation 41: Funds should be invested under statutory guidelines in deteriorated public grazing lands retained in Federal ownership to protect them against further deterioration and to rehabilitate them where possible. On all other retained grazing lands, investments to improve grazing should generally be controlled by economic guidelines promulgated under statutory requirements. There is general statutory authority for the investment of funds for range improvement purposes on the public lands.13 There are, however, no statutory guidelines for the allocation of such funds. In the case of the rehabilitation of deteriorated or frail lands, investments are generally related to the restoration of the lands to a minimum condition to serve a conservation objective. Investment in higher quality lands is related to providing improved grazing conditions and increased level of use. Investment policy criteria should be established by statute requiring that both land and investments be classified according to either of the objectives to be served. The Federal Government has generally supplied funds for the restoration and rehabilitation of badly deteriorated public range lands. Improved forage production will rarely justify such expenditures at least until the condition of the range has been improved to the extent that the lands are no longer classed as deteriorated. On the other lands, investments above the level required to restore and protect the resource are made with the objective of increasing the production of forage. But even on these lands, improved forage production will not always justify the investment if judged on economic grounds. Use of economic guidelines for the allocation of investments aimed at increasing forage production will assure that available funds are used most profitably, and that available resources will be allocated to opportunities that are economically feasible. We believe that procedures for financing investment in forage producing lands should be changed: range investments should be shared between the Federal Government and users on the basis of identifiable benefits to each. There is no consistent policy governing public range improvement financing. Investment has been by the Government, the range user, or cooperative agreement involving both parties. The absence of a fixed policy leads to uncertainty over who should, bear the cost and who owns the improvement. Understandably, users are reluctant to undertake improvements in the absence of assurance that they will be able to recover all or a part of their costs if the permit is terminated or cancelled. An explicit determination of expected benefits from each investment should be made and costs should be allocated on that basis. To prevent double charging, the user should be credited for his investment as he pays his grazing fee. This cost sharing policy should be mandatory and applied in all cases to maintain equity among users and between users and the Federal Government. Federal financing of investment in forage-producing lands should not be from earmarked receipts. The Commission opposes earmarking of public land receipts in most cases and sees no reason why an exception should be made in the case of investments in public grazing lands.14 The existing range improvement funds that are made up of a portion of the receipts from grazing fees should be discontinued. Parenthetically we note that such funds have been inadequate, and further that the desirable level of investment is not necessarily related to fees collected. Federally financed investments should come wholly from the general fund of the United States. 13 See 43 U.S.C. § 315i(b). 114 14 For the Commission's general recommendation on earmarking, see Chapter Twenty, Organization, Administration, and Budgeting Policy. |