OCR Text |
Show engaged in onsite public services or in the protection of national park property. Virtually all of the vacation home use on the public lands is on the national forests. In 1967, there were 19,155 permits in effect in the national forests, while the National Park Service had only 169. It has been found in general that locations which are suitable and desirable for vacation homes are also likely to be suitable and desirable for present or future public recreation sites. As the demand for public recreation sites has increased, the Federal agencies have sought to cancel permits, or allow permits to expire where the land was needed for public use. The Forest Service terminated 233 permits from 1952 to 1967.8 In some instances, tracts on national forests occupied by vacation homes have been disposed of by exchange under authority of the General Exchange Act of 1922,9 where the use and character of the area has changed, through development, into a permanent type of community which affords the necessary services for yearlong occupancy. The Commission finds that a relatively small portion of the total demand for vacation homes has been served, or can be expected to be served, on public lands without serious conflict with public recreation use on public lands. Moreover, all members of the public do not have an equal opportunity to acquire a vacation home. Since current and proposed policies do not contemplate opening new areas for these uses, permits generally may be acquired only by one who is willing and able to pay to the existing permittee a premium price for the existing improvements. In view of the rapidly accelerating demand for public outdoor recreation, and the limited land suitable for intensive development, the Commission believes that public uses should not be preempted for vacation homesites by the few who could be accommodated. We recommend that there should be no additional tracts opened for vacation home use under permit or lease, and that as sites presently used under permit are needed for public recreation purposes the permits should be terminated. While the Commission recognizes that vacation home use under annual permits could be rapidly phased out by refusing to renew the permits without compensation, it believes this approach would be harsh. To provide for an orderly phase-out of vacation home use now under annual permit, it would appear reasonable, where immediate use of the site by the Government is not needed, that annual permits be converted to term permits. This should be accomplished within a three-year period. Where the sites under annual permits are needed 8 Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, n. 2 supra, at Ch. XIII. 9 16U.S.C. §485 (1964). 224 immediately for public use within the three-year priod, permittees whose permits are not renewed should be treated the same as those who were afforded the privilege of converting to term permits. At the expiration of the transitional period, permittees still holding annual permits by their own choice would not be entitled to compensation for failure to renew them. It is not intended to interfere with proper disposals under existing or proposed law. Indeed, it is our view that sites, currently under permit, for vacation homes, which are not needed for public recreation use and are not incompatible with the planned use of the general area within which they are situated, should be disposed of, provided approval is given by the local government which would be obligated to provide necessary public services. Reciprocity Recommendation 96: Land management agencies should have authority to require a reciprocal right-of-way on equitable terms as a condition of a grant of a right-of-way across public land. There are large areas of public land intermingled with private land over which access is needed to reach the public land. Without public access to public lands, intervening private owners can turn public values into private gain. For example, if private landowners are able to bar access to public timber lands, the competition for any saleable timber which must come over their land is reduced, leaving them in a position to purchase the timber at a lower price than otherwise possible. Control over access has also enabled some favorably situated owners in the guide business to have the advantages of exclusive use. The right to require reciprocity was the subject of heated controversy in the early 1960's in relation to national forest access. This culminated in an opinion by the Attorney General in 1962, which held that the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretionary authority to require that the applicant for a road right-of-way across national forest lands grant a similar right to the United States to cross his property.10 The Commission believes the requirement that an applicant agree to the grant of a right-of-way across his lands, as a condition for a right-of-way across public land, is appropriate if it is reasonable and closely related to the proper management of public lands. We recommend that Congress extend such 10 42 Op. Atty. Gen. 1 (Feb. 1, 1962). |