OCR Text |
Show tive bidding at not less than the appraised fair market value in tracts of up to 5,120 acres. There will be vast areas in which the higher use for Federal lands will not be agriculture; for example, national park use of Federal lands in our view will always prevail over agriculture. Likewise, the national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other public lands withdrawn or reserved for specific purposes should generally not be transferred out of public ownership for agricultural purposes. On the other hand, we find no good reason why lands purchased by the Federal Government for so-called land utilization projects, many of which now make up the national grasslands, should not be made available for intensive agriculture under the same conditions as the unreserved public domain lands.11 The argument is sometimes made that public lands, particularly those purchased by the Federal Government when they were in a rundown and eroded condition, should not be permitted to be farmed again. It is said that the land would be overused and would again become rundown and eroded. We do not find this to be a substantial argument. Government assistance programs that have been instituted since the 1930's, such as those of the Soil Conservation Service, help farmers to maintain lands in good condition. Such programs are, we believe, sufficient insurance against a repeat of the "dust bowl" conditions that led to the acquisition of much Federal lands.* The Commission recommends that leaseholds be used for Federal lands only when those lands must be retained for national objectives other than agricultural production. We take no exception to the proposition that if lands needed by the Federal Government for national programs, such as the wildlife refuges, can be used temporarily for agriculture without compromising the primary purpose of the area, they should be so used under lease. This approach would make it possible to lease lands at their market value when a regional demand exists, but the lands would remain under the control of the Federal Government. Whenever their use for agricultural purposes interferes with the primary purposes for which the lands are held, the lands should not be leased. This approach would give the public agencies considerable flexibility in making lands available for 11 Lands acquired under the land utilization program between 1935 and 1946 were primarily marginal and sub-marginal farms. Nearly one-half of the total area acquired is in the northern part of the Great Plains. See H. H. Wooten, The Land Utilization Program, 1934 to 1964. U. S. Department of Agriculture 1965, Washington, D. C. * Commissioner Clark submits the following separate view: For the very reasons cited as background for Government acquisition of the land, I disagree with the conclusion reached. 180 agriculture so as to fit this use in with other uses of the land. At the same time, it would provide private citizens with an opportunity to obtain the use of some classes of public lands from time to time although, of course, this use would not be permanent. Role of the States Recommendation 70: The states should be given a greater role in the determination of which public lands should be sold for intensive agricultural purposes. The state governments should be given the right to certify or veto the potential agricultural use of public lands but only according to the availability of state water rights. Consideration should also be given to consistency of use with state or local economic development plans and zoning regulations. There have been two eras in the identification of Federal lands suitable for intensive agriculture. In the system used prior to the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934,12 the potential "applicant" identified and filed on the lands he wished to enter. In the system used since 1934, and as refined in the temporary Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964,13 the potential entryman can still identify lands for entry, but the Federal Government, through the Bureau of Land Management, must classify the desired lands as more suitable for agricultural purposes than for other purposes before entry will be allowed. Two significant problems arise in this connection. Public land agency personnel may not be in a good position to judge the suitability of public lands for agricultural purposes, and they are clearly not in a good position to evaluate the impacts of agricultural development on state and local government. To obtain greater objectivity and expertise, the Commission proposes that state institutions with demonstrated competence in the agricultural sciences should be consulted by Federal agencies concerning the suitability of Federal lands for intensive agriculture. This work would be an extension of the kind of research being conducted on a routine basis by the state agricultural experiment stations and the programs of the Federal Extension and Soil Conservation Services. This process will not make the land available for agricultural entry; it would only constitute a first step in determining whether or not disposal for agricultural use would be ordered. While generally the final decision must remain with the Federal Government, the states are significantly 12 43 U.S.C. § 315 et seq. (1964). "43U.S.C. §§ 1411-1418 (1964). |