Summary: A request was made for an examination of the policies and practices of the three Federal agencies with major land management and acquisition programs: the Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture, and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service under the Department of the Interior.
The three agencies generally followed the practice of acquiring as much land as possible without regard to need and alternatives to purchase. Consequently, lands unessential to project objectives have been purchased, and often before planning how it was to be used and managed. Government acquisition of private lands for protection, preservation, and recreation is costly and usually prevents the land from being used for resource development, agriculture, and family dwellings. Furthermore, the cost of many projects has doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled from original estimates and authorizations. The Federal Government has no overall policy on how much land it should protect, own, and acquire. Alternatives to ownership could be used to protect land, such as easements, zoning, and other regulatory controls which have proven to be feasible and successful. The use of alternatives would reduce costs to the Federal Government, as well as reduce the loss of tax revenue to localities, allow residents to retain their homes, and keep agricultural land in production with the scenic values protected. While in some instances land must be purchased if they are essential to project objectives, these alternatives could be used where appropriate.
