| OCR Text |
Show We have considered carefully whether the Federal Government should use its power to grant or withdraw land use privileges to require, as a condition of the lease or permit, that the lessees give rights-of-way and permit public entry through their property to the public lands. The Commission has concluded that such a requirement should not be a mandatory condition of all leases and permits issued. It is unnecessary in most cases and is undesirable as a matter of principle. Congress should, however, provide general authority to the administrator to require that such rights-of-way be made available as a condition of extending, renewing, or initially obtaining a lease or permit in circumstances where, because of topography, relief, or geographic conditions, the landowner controls key access to significant areas of public land and willfully blocks an important access route. Such authority would be exercised with careful discretion and with consideration of the rights and privileges of the landowner. Compensation should be afforded in the form of reduced charges for public land use or otherwise. Provisions would be made for appropriate control of the public entering and crossing the property, and for public financing and maintenance of the road or trail made available. Land Acquisitions Recommendation 87: The direct Federal acquisition of land for recreation purposes should be restricted primarily to support the Federal role in acquiring and preserving areas of unique national significance; acquisitions of additions to Federal multiple use lands for recreation purposes should be limited to in-holdings only. The Commission believes that the Federal role as a direct supplier of recreation land suggested by ORRRC, which we endorse, be reflected in its land acquisition policies for recreation purposes. Federal purchases of land should be limited to new national parks, additions to the wilderness system when necessary to round out or protect a unit, additions to the system of national trails and wild and scenic rivers, and of other areas designated as being of national significance, e.g., national seashores. We have suggested earlier that the states participate more actively and directly in a program to meet regional, interstate recreation needs, and that the current role of the Federal Government in this program be modified to provide financial aid in land acquisition and development. We believe the states should acquire and manage these areas. Adoption of this policy would substantially reduce the current level of Federal expenditures from Land and Water Conservation Fund allocations, and this expenditure would be shifted to support joint Federal-state efforts. We have recommended that Federal public lands generally administered under multiple-use policy be made available to state, local governments, or private concessioners for intensive use types of development; administering agencies should develop such lands for extensive, resource oriented recreation. We recommend that additions to these multiple-use lands by direct acquisition for recreation use should be confined to inholdings or boundary adjustments to facilitate resource oriented recreation use of the Federal public lands. Land and Water Conservation Fund Recommendation 88: The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act17 should be amended to improve financing of public land outdoor recreation programs. During the interim period until the recreation land use fee we recommend is adopted, the Golden Eagle Program should be continued. After essential acquisitions have been completed, the Land and Water Conservation Fund should be available for development of Federal public land areas. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 to assure a more certain method of financing both Federal grants of monies to states for recreation, and various Federal recreation programs. The premise of this law is that the fund would be continuously replenished by revenues from fees paid by the users of federally administered recreation areas, and from certain other sources. These replenishment arrangements have not worked well. Income from user fees and charges is running about 10 percent of total annual outlays from the fund, which was budgeted at $124 million in fiscal 1970. Income to the fund from other sources (motor boat fuel taxes, etc.) has been inadequate to finance the balance, and, as a result, the fund has operated in debt by borrowing from the United States Treasury since its inception. We believe that, in the period for which it was established, the Land and Water Conservation Fund should be retained as the principal mechanism for financing both Federal-state aid and Federal land recreation programs. A more reliable means of replenishing the fund to assure its solvency must be adopted. In 1968, Congress amended the L&WCF 17 n. 3, supra. 215 |
