Outdoor Recreation Report Travels Bumpy Road

How much and what kinds of outdoor recreation do the American people want? Who is going to provide the desired recreation opportunities? Who is going to pay for them? How is this payment to be made?

These basic and persistent questions have concerned many people in the United States over the past hundred years. They continue to be asked now and almost surely will be posed indefinitely into the future. The answers are bound to be complex, because groups such as environmentalists, recreationists, commercial interests, and those holding rights to the use of federal land do not always share the same perspectives about these issues.

The latest inquiry into such matters was that of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, which was established by Executive Order of President Reagan in early 1985. The commission's eagerly awaited Report and Recommendations to the President of the United States (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office) was recently published amid considerable controversy. The dissension appeared to stem from concern over the makeup of the commission and from a reputed lack of opportunity for interested groups to make their views known during its fact-finding period. Yet, in many respects this commission appears to have followed closely in the footsteps of its predecessor, a considerably less controversial body.

Early groundwork

In 1959 a special act of Congress established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC). That commission's report, Outdoor Recreation for America, published in January 1962, brought about several important results. It greatly increased public awareness of the growing importance of outdoor recreation in the life and economy of the nation. It also expanded the role of the federal government in the provision of outdoor recreation far beyond its traditional role in national parks and national forests.

The ORRRC report also led to the establishment of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (later renamed the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service) in the U.S. Department of the Interior. That agency flourished for some years, but the present administration abolished it, turning over its greatly reduced functions to the National Park Service.

Finally, the ORRRC report led to the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The designated receipts and appropriations that make up the fund are disbursed to federal agencies and states for creating and managing outdoor recreation opportunities of various kinds. Although it has provided more than $6 billion for these purposes, in recent years the appropriations from the fund have been decreasing and now have nearly dried up.

In 1982, twenty years after publication of the report by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, representatives of a number of organizations directly interested in outdoor recreation established themselves as a citizens' committee to re-examine the demand for and the supply and use of outdoor recreation in the United States. That committee—the Outdoor Recreation Policy Review Group, headquartered at Resources for the Future—was led by Henry L. Diamond, who had been associated with the earlier commission. The other members of the committee were Emery N. Castle, Sheldon Coleman, William Penn Mott, Jr., Patrick F. Noonan, and William K. Reilly, with Laurance S. Rockefeller serving as an ex officio member.

The result of this effort was Outdoor Recreation for America: 1983, published by Resources for the Future in early 1983. The report recommended that a new Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission be established by act of Congress, as the original ORRRC had been in 1959. Efforts to secure legislation to establish such a commission were unsuccessful. There was a good deal of suspicion on all sides that the proposed commission might be the vehicle for the formulation and advocacy of ideas that one group or another opposed.

Grumblings over latest commission

Despairing of obtaining legislation to establish a new recreation commission, advisers persuaded President Reagan to establish a commission by executive order in early 1985. The new fifteen-member commission included four members of Congress—one senator and one representative from each party. The chairman was former Governor Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Other members included officials from state and local governments and individuals representing diverse interests in outdoor recreation. Like its predecessor, the new commission included a number of senior advisers and a substantial staff.

During the two years of its existence, the commission sponsored many public meetings around the country so that it could hear the views of interested individuals and groups. This effort to achieve wide public participation appears to have been quite successful, according to the commission's letter to the president that accompanied its report. The letter says that thousands of Americans testified at the hearings or mailed in their suggestions. It adds that the commission also benefited from the views of hundreds of experts in the fields of outdoor recreation and resource management.

Despite these outreach efforts, however, the commission's work incurred a certain amount of criticism. In fact, early rumblings of concern about its activities and perspective were growing louder by late 1986, shortly before the commission completed its work. Having finished its assigned task and written its final report (which had yet to be published), the commission disbanded at the end of December 1986. In January 1987 the National Geographic Society published Americans and the Outdoors, a concise summary of the commission's work—Gilbert M. Grosvenor, president of the Society, was vice-chairman of the commission. That summary was intended for wide public distribution.

On January 14, 1987, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a nonprofit corporation, filed suit with the U.S. District Court in Seattle to prevent the imminent release of the commission's final report. The suit alleged that the commission had failed to comply with particular procedural statutes and that, as a result, certain interests had been systematically excluded from the public involvement process. It was filed on behalf of the Center's members, including Charles S. Cushman, executive director of the National Inholders Association (NIA). (NIA is composed of individuals and organizations that hold private property in or adjacent to federal lands.)

In response to the suit, the Department the Interior, which was responsible for distributing the report, put a stop to its release. The suit was thrown out of court several months later, thus freeing Interior to proceed with distribution of the report. At about the same time, Island Press, a nonprofit publisher specializing in books about natural resources, published the full commission report under the title The Report of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors: The Legacy, The Challenge.

The real cause of the suit brought by the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise may not be as straightforward as it initially appears. While it alleged that certain interest groups had been kept out of the proceedings, in view of the numerous hearings and meetings held and the large volume of material submitted by thousands of people, this seems an unlikely point on which to attack the commission.

One cannot help but wonder if this allegation was merely a stand-in for the real issue, namely, opposition to the nature of the commission's findings. The National Inholders Association is a member of the Public Lands Group (PLG), an ad hoc affiliation of organizations with interests in recreation, various commodities such as oil and cattle, and lands and rights ownership. Many of its members either own property in or adjacent to federal land or have rights to the use of federal land for particular purposes such as grazing and drilling for oil. Besides the NIA, PLG membership includes the National Cattlemen's Association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Highway Users Federation, the National Outdoor Coalition, and other organizations.

About a month before the suit was filed, the PLG met with the chairman of the commission to express its concerns about the composition of the commission, about its staff, and about its findings. These concerns are clearly spelled out in the January 8, 1987, issue of Inholder Alert, published by the National Inholders Association. With regard to the commission staff, for example, the Alert says, "Possibly these Commissioners have simply allowed the Commission staff and senior advisors to control the report without adequate personal involvement. The staff and senior advisors are dominated by environmental groups and people who have a long history of trying to remove most inholders from the federal lands. . . ."

Whether or not the recommendations in the report actually bear out this allegation of bias is a matter for debate. But it is fair to say that the recreationists dominated the commission's findings. That is, recreationists wholeheartedly endorse and support the report and its recommendations. On the whole, although the report does not embody much that is new or novel, it is affirmative, supportive, and forward-looking in its treatment of outdoor recreation. The emphasis throughout is on local action—on what people can do to provide themselves with more and better outdoor recreation that is conveniently close to their homes.

Power and payment

Some of the recommendations in the report propose an expanded federal role in areas such as preservation of free-flowing rivers, protection of wetlands, and better management of federal lands for recreation. If, as is suggested here, the controversy over the commission findings in reality stems from perceived threats to the interests of particular groups, it could well be that the recommendations seeking increased federal involvement are the sources of alarm.

The commission report states that "recreation must be given greater emphasis on multiple use lands." The text goes on to say that "historically, some federal lands have been managed primarily for production of certain commodities, such as timber, range forage, and minerals. By law, recreation and wildlife are specifically accorded equal status with other resource values on National Forests and BLM [Bureau of Land Management] public domain lands, and should be an equal partner with commodity uses in these multiple purpose land systems. . . " (Report and Recommendations to the President, p. 125).

Several other recommendations in the report will also, no doubt, prove to be bones of contention. Perhaps inevitably, the most controversial relate to the means of paying for outdoor recreation areas and activities. Concern about payment issues will be heard from far more groups than just the National Inholders Association. For instance, the report recommends that local, state, and federal recreation and resource management agencies should charge higher visitor fees to supplement regular appropriations in order to recover a reasonable portion of operation and maintenance costs.

An even hotter potato is the recommendation that the Land and Water Conservation Fund (established at the recommendation of the earlier commission and due to expire in 1989) be succeeded by a dedicated trust. It is recommended that this trust provide a minimum of $1 billion a year to help pay for federal, state, and local land acquisition and for the development and rehabilitation of state and local outdoor recreation facilities. It is suggested that Congress consider creating the proposed trust as an endowed trust, which, over time, would become self-sustaining. In this way, the source of annual funds would be immune to any efforts by the president, executive branch agencies, or the Congress to reduce the amount of support.

Because of this immunity, the concept of an endowed trust was not the most popular of recommendations even from the start. Two commission members, Senator Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.) and Congresswoman Barbara F. Vucanovich (R-Nev.), refused to support it (Report and Recommendations to the President, p. 191). It was eventually included among the recommendations on the basis that it represented a consensus of the commission. The idea of immunity to the regular appropriation process continues to be strongly opposed by many individuals and agencies.

Perhaps the most novel idea among the commission's recommendations is that of establishing a network of "greenways"—local natural areas that provide access to open spaces close to where people live. Examples include biking trails along abandoned rail lines, belts of grasslands surrounding cities, and working farms in urban neighborhoods. The commission suggests increasing the number of existing green-ways to eventually create a "nationwide network." While the emphasis in the recommendation is clearly on local action, the network concept has been seized upon by some critics as being a subtle wedge for increased federal action, which they oppose.

What next?

Efforts were begun, while the commission was still in existence, to develop a coalition of interest groups to support its findings and to translate its recommendations into action. Bills to implement the commission's recommendations, including the establishment of the billion-dollar trust fund, have been introduced in the Congress.

However, these are not times that encourage expectations of a positive response to the commission recommendations. Budget stringencies will operate against any new expenditure of $1 billion annually, and there will be special opposition to the appropriation of funds or the diversion of receipts to establish a trust fund large enough to yield that amount. In addition, the present administration and the Congress have other, seemingly more pressing matters occupying their time and absorbing their political resources. Even the recreation and conservation interest groups have more urgent demands on their time and energy than the promotion of commission recommendations. Thus, it appears doubtful that any substantial action on the commission's recommendations will take place until after the 1988 elections—and even then the outlook is far from clear.

In retrospect, many may agree with the observation in the foreword to the Island Press edition of the commission report: "The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors began and ended in controversy." Undeniably, the commission stirred up the country much more than had the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission of a generation earlier. This was due in part to its many public meetings and its active solicitation of views which in turn focused the spotlight, inevitably, on potential areas of conflict among interested parties. Nevertheless, the work of the Commission on Americans doors is is likely to affect attitudes, political positions, and administrative actions for some time.