OCR Text |
Show public lands available for exchange. The Bureau of Land Management program authority is the narrowest, permitting only the exchange of unreserved public domain lands within the same state as those offered, or 50 miles into an adjacent state. With respect to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife on the other hand, the Secretary of the Interior may exchange acquired lands or public lands under his jurisdiction which he finds suitable for disposition without any geographic limitations. The Forest Service may exchange lands only within the national forests in the state where the acquired land is located. The numerous statutes relating to the various units of the National Park System display the greatest variety of treatment, apparently the result of particular pressures applicable to a proposed park. For example, some statutes make any Federal land available for exchange, but require that it be in the state where the project is located. Others provide that any lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior may be exchanged, but vary with respect to whether the lands must be in the same state, the same or adjacent states, or anywhere in the nation. The general exchange authority for the National Park System enacted in 1968 authorized the Secretary to exchange "any federally-owned property or interest therein under his jurisdiction which he determines is suitable for exchange or other disposal and which is located in the same state as the non-Federal property to be acquired." 16 The legislative history of most of the exchange acts indicates that a principal reason for geographic restrictions is to prevent the depletion of the tax base in one state for the benefit of the tax base and the economy in another. As in several other problem areas, implementation of the Commission's recommendation for a new payments-in-lieu-of-taxes system should eliminate this concern. However, objections also have been made to disposal to private parties without giving the state and local governments an opportunity to assert their public needs, which might better be served either by transfer to those governmental entities or retention in Federal ownership. We believe that the improved planning procedures we recommend in Chapter Three, particularly those dealing with public participation, will largely take care of these objections. The agencies are encouraged to place greater emphasis on public information practices and public participation where a large-scale exchange program involves substantial disposals in one state for the benefit of a Federal program in another state. The program of this kind carried out by Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service, in con- 16 U.S.C. § 4601-22 (Supp. V, 1970). nection with the proposed acquisition of land in California for the Point Reyes National Seashore in exchange for public lands in Nevada, is commended on this score. Public meetings or hearings in such cases should be made mandatory upon request of the state. Appraisals All of the foregoing disposal, acquisition, and exchange transactions involve some estimate by the Federal Government of the value of the land involved-i.e., an "appraisal," whether formal or informal. We did not look into the broad question whether recognized appraisal principles are faulty. Our study was concerned generally with techniques and procedures, including the organizational structure and administrative procedures for the performance and review of appraisals, and whether statutory and administrative guidelines are adequate to assure that recognized appraisal procedures are utilized. Formal Appraisal Not Always Required Recommendation 127: Public land administrators should be authorized by law to dispense with the requirement of a formal appraisal: (1) In any sale or lease where there is a formal finding that competition exists, the sale or lease will be held under competitive bidding procedures, and the property does not have a value in excess of some specified amount set forth in the statute; and (2) whenever property can be acquired for less than some specified price set forth in the statute, provided a formal finding is made that the property to be acquired has a value at least equal to the amount the government would be paying in either a direct purchase or exchange. A formal appraisal need not be made in every instance when the United States seeks to obtain full or market value for land being disposed of, or to assure that it is getting fair value when it acquires land. There are a number of steps a land-managing agency may take in order to satisfy itself that it is obtaining full value in its land transactions, and a formal appraisal is only one possible procedure that may be adopted for this purpose. There are many instances where the cost of obtaining a formal appraisal will exceed the value of the property being disposed of or acquired. At best, formal appraisals are very time consuming exercises. Accordingly, 272 |