In his February 23 message to Congress, entitled "Preserving our Natural Heritage," the President called attention to the "spiraling cost of land acquisitions by the Federal Government, particularly for water resource and recreational purposes," and asked for an interdepartmental study looking towards remedial action. Such a study was nearing completion by the end of 1966. If any demonstration of the appropriateness of such a study was needed, testimony developed in Congressional hearings on cost of land for Point Reyes National Seashore strikingly provided it.
Authorized in September 1962, with a ceiling of $14 million, Point Reyes, just north of San Francisco, was to consist of some 50,000 acres of seashore land, of which about half was to be left in its natural pasture condition, to be acquired by the government only in case that condition was altered, and then only with owner's consent. On the assumption that the contingency would not arise, the acquisition ceiling set by the Congress did include funds for the exercise of this authority. But in the course of four years it has become clear that large government purchases in the pastoral zone will be needed to preserve the character of the area. Meanwhile, prices have soared. In hearings held in mid-1966 proposals were made to raise the ceiling to anywhere between $44.5 and $57.5 million or to set no ceiling at all.
Action was taken, but only to the extent of raising the authorization by $5 million for immediate relief in connection with binding commitments. Thus, the problem of how to establish the seashore area true to its original concept carried over to plague the 90th Congress.
The dilemma is not confined to Point Reyes, nor is it clear to what extent price increases can truly be termed "speculative." With land prices generally rising 6, 7, and 8 percent per year, and the government competing with individual buyers as well as with developers for prime recreation land, it is not easy to judge the degree and impact of speculative transactions. But experience in 1966 has made it increasingly urgent to mount studies that will reveal the causal relationships in this market, and to devise policies and mechanisms that minimize price escalation, above all by eliminating the opportunities created therefore by the gap between establishment of recreation areas and land purchases.
During the Point Reyes hearing the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation listed no less than eighteen existing areas in the National Park System where it is now known that the fiscal ceiling for acquisitions set by Congress will be inadequate; it must, in fact, in the aggregate be more than doubled to achieve the intent of the basic plans. There are two dozen or so more for which this factor not yet been estimated.
If there is little doubt that repeated trips to Capitol Hill in search of higher ceilings to accomplish acquisitions previously authorized will tax Congressional patience, there is even less doubt that more and more such trips will be required unless ways and means are found to deal with price escalation.
