OCR Text |
Show well established market systems and prices do not exist. As a result, prices for public land goods and services in this category must be uniform and be set at levels that do not discriminate against users in terms of their economic status and ability to pay. Generally, the cost of public land administration and management should not be used as the basis for determining price to be paid for public land goods and services. This standard has at times been used as the basis for pricing. Since the cost of processing a permit or lease bears no relation to the value received, it results in inequitable treatment of users and should not be used for price setting. Deviations from fair-value return pricing objectives and equal treatment of all classes of users should be allowed only when explicitly authorized by statute. We believe the principles and guidelines offered above should, in the absence of statutory exception, be used by administrators in pricing public land goods and services. We have, elsewhere in this report, recommended deviations from these standards in some cases. However, such exceptions may involve the attainment of social and economic objectives unrelated to public land administration and must be carefully enunciated. The value judgments inherent in such deviations must be arrived at through the legislative process. We recommend that there be statutory guidelines adopted for deviations from the market-pricing standards, which we think should include, as a minimum, the following: 1. Free use of public land and its resources should be allowed only in circumstances where the value of goods received is clearly less than the administrative cost of collecting the charge and such use is deemed appropriate as a means of promoting another objective of national policy. 2. Prices for public lands conveyed or made available only for public purposes, to states, local government, other public and quasi-public entities, and nonprofit organizations should be at less than full-market value. Citizen Advisory Boards Recommendation 137: Statutory authority should be provided for public land citizen advisory boards and guidelines for their operation should be established by statute. Advisory boards have been used in public land matters for years. After the Taylor Grazing Act19 was passed in 1934 to regulate grazing on the public domain, an amendment to that act established district citizen boards made up of ranchers to develop the regulations for using the public range.20 From that 19 n. 8, supra. 20 43 U.S.C. § 315o-l (1964). 288 time on, the boards were to be consulted on all grazing matters. The Forest Service has had grazing boards authorized by statute since 1950.21 These boards are much like the Taylor Act district boards. With a few limited exceptions, the other advisory boards for public land agencies have been established administratively. There are numerous national forest multiple-use boards, and the Bureau of Land Management has multiple-use boards for each of its state offices.22 We recognize that citizen participation in an advisory role is necessary to the smooth functioning of public land programs. The individual citizen, brought into a continuing and formal contact with public land administrators as a member of a citizens advisory board, can serve the goals of good government in a number of ways. He can advise on policy matters, on continuing programs and land use plans, and on specific problems that arise from time to time. Administrators also use advisory boards as a means of testing ideas before implementing them, and as a means of communicating their ideas and proposals to the public. Citizen advisory boards can truly serve as two-way channels of communication. We note that there are some disadvantages to the use of advisory boards. It has been alleged that advisory boards in some cases have "controlled" Federal programs on the public lands. And advisory board meetings can impose a real burden on the limited time of both members and administrators. We believe that the advantages of citizen advisory boards outweigh the possible disadvantages, but that some controls on the operation of such boards are necessary. To give advisory boards the stature and role that they deserve, we propose that the public land management agencies be given clear statutory authority to use them at all levels. We recommend that they be established in all instances where they can make a contribution. In Chapter Sixteen we recommend use of boards at the national policy making level. In addition, Congress should specify any other boards that would be required and allow the departments and agencies discretion in establishing others. All advisory boards would be controlled by the provisions of the statute authorizing use of the boards. Once established, the advisory boards should be utilized by public land agencies as frequently as may be necessary to fulfill their functions. If an advisory board is not going to be used, it should be disbanded or, if established by statute, its abolition recommended to the Congress. In this connection, we note that the National Advisory Board Council, estab- 21 16 U.S.C. §580k (1964). 22 Commission staff with consultants, Organization, Administration, and Budgetary Policy. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. |