OCR Text |
Show though they involve "acquisition" in exchange for Federal land. Bureau of Land Management exchanges are subject to no supervisory review outside the Department of the Interior. Finally, certain Forest Services and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife acquisitions require state consent. There are at least three reasons that have prompted Congress to employ these various devices to keep acquisitions within reason. They are to avoid unnecessary (1) reduction of the available tax base for state and local government; (2) preemption of lands suitable for generating economic activity for non-economic purposes (recreation areas, fish and wildlife refuges, etc.); (3) disruption of existing economic activity and dislocation of residents. These three concerns are still with us, and were expressed at the public meetings and by some of our advisers. What appears to be needed is an effective institutional mechanism to exercise meaningful oversight over public land acquisitions under general legislative authority with stricter justification guidelines for such acquisitions. Independent Agency Review We have questions as to whether the National Forest Reservation Commission and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission adequately serve the oversight role Congress intended for them. Although we gave careful consideration to whether a full time, independent, adequately staffed commission might better carry out this purpose, it is our conclusion that the stronger review function that we believe is needed does not justify a new independent agency solely for that purpose. However, the existing review mechanism ought to be broadened and strengthened. State or Local Consent Both the Weeks Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act require state consent to purchases by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife under those acts.13 Similarly, for a number of years Congress included provisions in annual appropriation acts requiring the consent of county governments to certain Forest Service acquisitions, but discontinued that practice after the controversy over the Sylvania Tract acquisition in Michigan by the Forest Service in the mid-1960's. No such state or local consent provisions are applicable to the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service acquisitions. We feel that such provisions are unnecessary and undesirable if the Federal agencies will coordinate 13 16 U.S.C. §§516, 715f (1964). 270 their land use and acquisition planning more closely with state and local governments as part of the improved land use planning coordination we recommend elsewhere in this report. One of the principal reasons underlying "consent" provisions is to afford the states and local governments some protection against undue depletion of their tax base. State and local governments have not hesitated to withhold their approval until favorable revenue sharing or payment-in-lieu-of-taxes arrangements or other concessions from Congress and the executive agencies could be assured. Congress generally has been reluctant to grant the states veto powers with respect to Federal land and natural resource development, and many of our recommendations herein are in accord with that policy. If the Commission's recommendations for an equitable payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program are implemented, the most significant aspect of legitimate state and local concern over Federal land acquisition will be met. Consequently, all existing provisions permitting the states to veto land acquisitions for approved Federal programs should be repealed. Provision should be made for a hearing before the existing acquisition review boards upon petition by a state or local government unit in opposition to a particular acquisition. Land Exchanges Almost all Federal land management agencies have authority to make land exchanges, i.e., to dispose of public land under their jurisdiction in exchange for non-Federal land. It has been a useful management tool, and we favor its continued use. Our study has identified several problem areas, however, which should be remedied. Use of Land Exchanges Recommendation 124: General land exchange authority should be used primarily to block up existing Federal holdings or to accomplish minor land tenure adjustments in the public interest, but not for acquisition of major new Federal units. Congress should limit the use of general exchange authority to situations in aid of land management programs on existing Federal areas. Thus, while it should be available to acquire inholdings in existing national forests and units of the National Park System or national wildlife refuges, and to promote more efficient management of existing holdings, it should not be used to accomplish major new additions to those systems. Congress should specifically authorize |