OPEN BEACHES The proposed Open Beaches Act stated that because of their uniqueness, sea beaches "require separate consideration from other lands with respect to the elements and consequences of title in littoral owners." Public interest in these beaches would be protected by declaring that "the public shall have free and unrestricted right to use them" consistent with the absolute Constitution protection of property rights. RECREATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Two proposals were made toward using the development of recreation potential as a means of stimulating overall economic growth in certain areas. One proposal would have authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make or insure loans not exceeding 90 percent of the cost of recreational enterprises needed for the development of rural communities. The other would allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist in the acquisition and development of land in underdeveloped areas for recreational purposes. This bill would have assured the availability of credit to finance construction or rehabilitation of recreational facilities. RECREATION AND HIGHWAYS Parks and recreation lands frequently become the location for new highway rights-of-way. An amendment to the Federal-Aid Highway Act was proposed to alleviate this problem through establishment of local highway planning commissions. Approval by these commissions would be required before any Federal funding of highway projects could be authorized within the commission's jurisdiction. RECREATION AND PUBLIC WORKS A method of avoiding the loss of park and recreation lands to public works projects was proposed. It would have forbidden use of any such lands for nonpark purposes by any Federal agency until that agency had made available "lands of like kind (comparable in value, quantity, and quality) as a replacement for the lands to be utilized." RECENT REPORTS AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. 91st Congress, 1st session. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Hearings on the Everglades National Park, Washington, D.C., June 3 and 11, 1969. One of the most meaningful contributions to a fuller awareness of threats to the Nation's recreation land came not from a report but from a hearing. On June 3 and 11, 1969, the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee held informational hearings on the controversy which was taking place near the Everglades National Park, Fla. Primary among these problems was the threat posed by the construction of a large jetport close to the park. In his opening remarks the committee's chairman stated that the committee's interest was twofold: First, to receive an up-to-date status report on the alternatives, the planning and the negotiations which are now underway, and second, to review the process of Federal involvement and Federal decisionmaking which has contributed to the conflicting patterns of land and water use which now threaten the continued life of the park. He continued: Finding a satisfactory resolution to the problems faced by the Everglades National Park is important because the many unique recreational, scenic, wildlife, and scientific values found in the park are not found anywhere else on earth. We cannot allow these values to be destroyed. Congress decided to protect them in 1934, when the park was authorized, and we must see that they are preserved for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Everglades National Park and the problems we will be discussing are of importance for still another reason. They provide a classic case history of what is happening all across the Nation under the pressures of population expansion, and the development and applications of new technology. If we cannot learn to deal with the problems presented here, there is little hope that we will be able to deal with them in the future. I am hopeful that the representatives of the administration and the State of Florida who are here will be able to present us with some alternatives to the present patterns of conflict which are emerging. The proposal for the jetport near the park was subsequently eliminated by administrative action. 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Islands of America, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. This report was based on a 2-year study to inventory and determine the recreation potential of the Nation's islands. Resource and ownership data on 26,000 islands (in excess of 10 acres) was compiled. The report identified the required action by Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector. A system of "island trusts" administered by a commission made up by representatives from all the above groups was cited as one means of attaining the needed degree of island conservation. The actions proposed for Congress and the Executive were: (a) Issuance of an Executive order requiring Federal agencies to evaluate any possible detrimental effects of their programs on recreational and environmental qualities of the islands. (b) Identify appropriate action for island protection and development for recreation by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation as part of its planning functions in the formulation of the nationwide outdoor recreation plan. (c) Congressional action to authorize Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wis. Kauai National Park, Hawaii. Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Fla. (d) Study for inclusion in the national seashore trust of additional specified areas. EVENTS PERTINENT TO PARKS AND RECREATION In January 1969 President Johnson added 384,000 acres to the National Park system by Executive order. Three existing National monuments were enlarged and one new Monument was created. In Yosemite National Park, automobiles were banned from the Mariposa Grove of redwoods. A specially designed tourist bus went into operation to carry visitors through the area. The experiment was later expanded by barring use of cars in the east end of Yosemite Valley. Bumper-to-bumper traffic, accidents, smog, and noise were among the reasons for the innovation. Addressing the National Parks and Recreation Association in 1969, Secretary of the Interior Hickel outlined a major new thrust for Federal recreation policy-a $6.3 billion program to develop recreational opportunities in and near urban areas. However, hopes for prompt funding of the program appear dim. The Park Service continued to fail in meeting the timetable of the Wilderness Act of 1964, despite prodding from Secretary Hickel, the Congress, and the public. In January 1970, an agreement was signed between the Secretaries of the Interior and Transportation, the State of Florida, Dade County Port Authority, and Collier County, Fla., to seek a new site for the jetport which had threatened Everglades National Park. The Sierra Club filed suit in June 1969 to stop development of Mineral King Valley by the Disney Corp. The site is on Forest Service land but the only access road cuts through Sequoia National Park. Development of the tract as a major sport and recreation facility will require improvements of the park road, and will greatly modify natural conditions in the valley. The suit was dismissed in September 1970; the court held that the Sierra Club lacked authority to bring suit. The Izaak Walton League filed suit in December 1969 to enjoin mineral exploration in the Boundary Water Canoe Area in Minnesota. The 7,000-acre area has been classified as wilderness. It consists, in part, of lands purchased by the league and donated to the Federal Government. Controversy arose in Idaho over a proposal to allow molybdenum mining in the White Cloud Mountains. The area is a "de facto" wilderness area in the Challis and Sawtooth National Forests, but there is no special protective status against mining under the mineral law of 1872. Late in 1969, the Oregon Supreme Court unanimously upheld a State law reserving to the public all dry-sand ocean beaches, even those under private ownership. The decision ranks as a landmark in efforts to provide public access to ocean beaches. It is expected that numerous other States will use the precedent in making their beaches open to the public. Several incidents of civil disorder took place in units of the Park Service, especially Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks in 1970. Some personal injuries and damage to property resulted. State and local parks experienced similar incidents. ALASKA* No specific environmental policy legislation for Alaska was enacted during the 91st Congress. Two major problems focused congressional attention on Alaska's environment. One of them, the century-old controversy over possessory rights of Alaskan natives to land they have occupied for thousands of years, involved the State of Alaska, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Congress. The other problem, of recent origin, involved the construction of a pipeline to transport oil from the State's North Slope. ALASKAN NATIVE LAND CLAIMS The United States purchase of Alaska did not include the land itself, but only its right to tax and to govern. The Government recognized at that time, in accordance with longstanding Federal policy and Supreme Court precedent, that the land belonged to the original occupants the native Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts. By the Organic Act of 1884, Congress established a territorial government and acknowledged the natives' rights to the land, stating: "The Indians *** shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupancy or now claimed by them." Congress, however, postponed the matter of conveying title to the natives, and still has not done so. Until the Statehood Act of 1958, there was no great threat to the native land rights. In that Act, Congress provided that the "State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title *** to any lands or other property (including fishing rights), the right or title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts." But in the same Act, Congress granted to the State the right to select 103 million acres of land from the public domain, which at that time made up almost 99 percent of the total area of Alaska. Subsequently, the State selected lands clearly used and occupied by native villages, and proceeded to claim, under the Statehood Act, royalties from Federal oil and gas leases on the native lands. The natives protested; in 1962 they organized their own newspaper to voice their aspirations and protect their interest, and in 1966 formed the statewide Alaska Federation of Natives. The conflict was heightened by the large-scale oil strike on the North Slope on land the State had claimed from Eskimos at Barrow. In January 1969, Secretary Udall issued a 2-year "land freeze" (Public Land Order 4582), which said, in part: This action will give opportunity for Congress to consider how the legislative commitment that the natives shall not be distrubed in their traditional use and ocupancy of the lands in Alaska should be implemented. *Prepared by Elmer W. Shaw, Analyst, Environmental Policy. Division. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in both the House and the Senate considered bills related to this problem. In the Senate, a bill proposed creation of an Alaskan Native Corporation, granting to it a cash payment of $100 million, plus 10 percent of the income from leasing and sale of minerals from Federal lands for 10 years. Each native village would be given land equivalent to one township, or a total of 5 million acres. A later amendment doubled the size of the land acreage to be given the villages. The administration also submitted a proposal designed to resolve the problem. Hearings were held by both Houses, some of which were in the field. Secretary Hickel, in hearings before the Senate committee, proposed that the natives receive a total $500 million over a period of 10 years, but no royalties. A compromise measure would give the natives $100 million the first year, $50 million each year for the next 8 years, 40 million acres of land, and a perpetual 2-percent royalty. Other compromises were also considered. After two days of floor debate, the Senate passed the Senate bill with amendments, on July 15, 1970. The bill, as passed by the Senate, would provide for payment of $1 billion and the transfer of more than 10 million acres of land to the 80,000 Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut natives of the State. The proposed settlement would amount to 2 percent of Alaska's land area, and about $12,500 for each native. Half of the $1 billion settlement would come from direct Federal payment over a 12-year period. The other half would be derived from an overriding 2-percent royalty imposed on mineral production from public land held by the State. The $1 billion would be used by two native agencies for investment projects benefiting native peoples and for loans and grants for health, education, and welfare and for job training programs. Over half the 10 million acres in the settlement would be divided among 200 native villages at the rate of one 23,000-acre township for each 300 residents, with the remaining acreage set aside for timber production and for the traditional pursuits of hunting, fishing, and trapping. At the close of the 91st Congress, Congress had not taken final action on the measure. ALASKA PIPELINE The proposal by Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) to construct an 800-mile pipeline across Alaska generated considerable conflict and concern. Conservationists were concerned about possible damage to the Arctic's fragile environment, and the Alaska natives were anxious about their unsettled land claims which cover much of the area through which the pipeline would be built. Congress, the Department of the Interior, and the State of Alaska continued to work toward a solution to the highly complex problem which developed after the discovery of huge oilfields at Prudhoe Bay in July 1968. On January 17, 1969, Secretary Udall issued Public Land Order 4582, which "froze" Alaskan lands under his jurisdiction until January 1, 1971. This action was taken to give Congress an opportunity to act on the Alaska native land claims before conflicts increased and before the oil problem became more complicated. The public land order also delayed the granting of necessary permits to build the TAPS pipeline. |