OCR Text |
Show 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. It has been estimated that from 1950 through 1967 only about 57,000 acres per year were patented in the 17 most western states under the homestead laws and Desert Land Act.6 During the 1950s, 86 percent of the applications under the homestead laws and 83 percent of the applications under the Desert Land Act were denied. Furthermore, when entry was allowed, the applicant, known as an "entryman," had no more than a fifty-fifty chance of being able to meet patent requirements for obtaining legal title. When these figures are compared with the 275 million acres homesteaded between 1781 and 1934, it becomes apparent that the era of homesteading is over and that the laws no longer serve as a viable mechanism for transferring public lands into private ownership for agricultural purposes. Nearly all of the public land suited to agriculture, as visualized when the homestead laws, including Indian homestead and allotment acts, and the Desert Land Act were passed, has already been transferred into private ownership. The agricultural land laws have also been subjected to misuse because for years they were the only major land disposal laws available to private citizens. Although the temporary Public Land Sale Act of 1964 7 provides a means for an individual to obtain public lands right now, many citizens have attempted to use the agricultural land laws to get title to land for purposes that were not provided for in other public land laws. We can find no basic reason for maintaining the kind of agricultural settlement policies embodied in the homestead laws, including provision for reclamation homesteads, Indian homesteads, and the Desert Land Act. The Commission makes no judgment, neither favorable nor unfavorable, concerning the merits of an urban-to-rural migration, or about measures that might accomplish it. But it does believe it to be indisputable that the agricultural use of Federal lands can provide little if any significant support for effecting such a turn-about in the movement of the Nation's population. A comparison of the area required to maintain a farm family with an income greater than the poverty level and the total area of public lands potentially suitable for agriculture suggests that agricultural settlement policies could have little effect relative to the expected increase of 100 million in the country's population between now and the year 2000. We see no reason, however, to hold lands in G n. 2, supra. M3 U.S.C. §§ 1421-1427 (1964). public ownership if they are potentially high quality agricultural lands and would, if in private ownership, normally be used for agricultural production. If a parcel of land can be used for farming and produce crops or other products that can compete on favorable terms with those from lands already being used for farming, we believe it is contrary to the principles of good land use to keep such lands from agricultural use if they do not have higher values in public ownership. Some persons, pointing to national surpluses of certain agricultural products and to massive Federal agricultural subsidy programs, have argued that there is no need for a public land agricultural policy. The Commission finds that these arguments are faulty. The methods and organization of agricultural production are constantly changing and this results in shifts in the regional location of agricultural activity. To resist such change by not permitting new lands suitable for agricultural production to be used for this purpose can only lead to inefficiencies in our agricultural system and to an increased need for subsidy programs. If it is possible, for instance, for a farm enterprise to bring Federal land under cultivation and offer farm products at prices comparable to those of national and regional markets, then we believe the land should be used for farming in the interests of efficiency and consumer welfare. The effect of agriculture on regional economic development is also an important consideration. We take note of the fact that a shift in land use to intensive agriculture from a less intensive use such as grazing will result in an increased level of economic activity in a region.8 Not only will the users of the land have increased incomes from the more intensive use, but this will spread through the regional economy and indirectly affect the incomes of grocery stores, service stations, equipment suppliers, and other enterprises. We believe that a policy for agricultural use of the public lands can be based, at least in part, on these regional economic effects. Public land policy should not discriminate against the possible economic growth of those regions with Federal lands that have become valuable for farming under today's conditions. If the lands can compete under modern technology in normal markets, those regions where they are located should be allowed to develop in a manner parallel to that of the eastern and midwestern farming regions. The Congress may deem it advisable to prohibit subsidy payments under various general agricultural programs when public lands are sold for intensive agriculture. It is impossible to draw a firm conclu- 8 Consulting Services Corporation, Impact of Public Lands on Selected Regional Economies, Ch. III. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. 178 |