| OCR Text |
Show rights to select lands as indemnity for in-place grants lost to them through no fault of their own. Preferential treatment of state land grants is justified because the grants represent an obligation to the states which should be satisfied. Also, settled ownership patterns in public land areas will aid in effective Federal agency land use planning. We recommend certain other specific measures to accomplish this objective. Certainty of Acreage The Bureau of Land Management should be required by law to specify exact acreage by type for unsatisfied grants for each state, and file a report with Congress on the results to be followed by annual reports thereafter. All problems associated with unsatisfied land grants cannot be solved by changes in the law alone. However, the process of satisfying the grants can be speeded up and some of the problems alleviated. Failure to agree on the extent of unsatisfied grants has caused state officials to question Federal acreage computations, with the result that they are reluctant to complete their selection programs in the absence of agreement. Discrepancies should be cleared up and a firm figure established for all unsatisfied grants. This would serve to remove the distrust of Federal records by state officials. An audit should be made of unsatisfied grants and firm acreage figures established in cooperation with the recipient states. The figures should be kept current with an annual audit, the result of which should be reported to Congress. Segregation Upon Selection State selections should segregate the selected land from all forms of entry and from any form of withdrawal, classification, or conflcting disposal. State selection does not segregate land against Federal agency withdrawals or third-party entries under other public land laws. To provide for such segregation would demonstrate a good faith intention on the part of the Federal Government to honor the commitment of state land grants. It would encourage state authorities to proceed with the administrative work required on the part of the state to complete the selection process and satisfy outstanding grants. Priority for Surveys Priorities should be given to surveys needed to complete state selections, including allowing the states to provide their own surveys to complete land grants. Any program designed to complete the satisfaction of grants to the states requires an accelerated survey program. The assignment of cadastral survey personnel to Bureau of Land Management offices has been rigid. Consequently, there are shortages of personnel in some areas where sizable state land grants are outstanding. There should be flexibility in the assignment of survey personnel, such as the transferring of crews from low to high priority states. Furthermore, it appears unnecessary with modern methods of protraction surveys to require line surveys as a condition to conveyance of title. Later, on-the-ground surveys can and should be made to assure the certainty of boundaries. Fixing a priority for the satisfaction of state grants in surveys of grant lands will not in itself solve the problem of unsatisfied grants. Other programs will require surveying priority, and budgetary considerations may dictate that those programs be given precedence. Therefore, there appears to be no good reason for not permitting the states to supply their own surveys under careful supervision of the Bureau of Land Management when they so desire. State Participation in Programs The major recommendation for a program to liquidate the unsatisfied grants is practical. Nothing in this recommendation would preclude a state from suggesting an area for consideration by the Secretary, nor is there valid reason why the Department of the Interior and the states should not reach a good faith agreement in 10 years. Failure to complete surveys and lack of agreement on lands eligible for selection have been the chief sources of delay in the past. In some instances it appears that the states have not moved forward as vigorously as they could have in making selections. Neither side would appear to have any advantage to gain from further delays. All that is required are prompt action and mutual efforts. Removal of Limitations Recommendation 106: Limitations originally placed by the Federal Government on the use of grant lands, or funds derived from them, should be eliminated. Land grants to the states were made for a variety of purposes. The hasty and ill-considered disposition of much of the land included in early grants led Congress to impose more specific and stringent conditions on later grants. The earliest, and some of the largest, grants were made for the support of education. The common 247 |
