Old Style Conservation -- Once More Unto the Breach?

Old Style Conservation — Once More Unto the Breach?

Henry L. Diamond

ELR Dialogue is a vehicle for the easy sharing of ideas with our subscribers. ELR invites submission of materials analyzing or commenting on developments in the law, and in particular solicits responses to Articles, Comments, and Dialogue we have published. Submissions should be 500-1,000 words in length, typed double-spaced. We hope you will communicate with us and the diverse, nationwide readership of the Reporter through ELR Dialogue.

The views presented in ELR Dialogue are those of the author, not the Environmental Law Reporter or the Environmental Law Institute.

— The Editors

Mr. Diamond is a partner in the Washington, D.C. firm of Beveridge & Diamond. He was chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Policy Review Group. Copies of the Group's report may be obtained from Resources for the Future, 1755 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036 at $2.00 per copy.

[13 ELR 10126]

It is time for a fresh, bipartisan review of outdoor recreation policy in this country to close a circle begun 25 years ago. In 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) to study the nation's outdoor recreation needs. The ORRRC was composed of four members of the Senate, two from each party, and four members of the House, again, two from each party. President Eisenhower appointed seven public members, including ORRRC's chairman, Laurance S. Rockefeller.

The Commission submitted its report to President Kennedy in January 1962. That marked the beginning of a new era in outdoor recreation in America. The Commission found that there were serious shortages in the nation's supply of outdoor recreation, particularly near metropolitan areas, and recommended corrective action.

The Congress and both Democratic and Republican administrations implemented many of the Commission's recommendations. They created the Land and Water Conservation Fund to assist federal, state, and local agencies to acquire recreation land. They established the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to provide national policy leadership and advocacy. They created national systems of wilderness, rivers, and trails. They took initiatives to provide outdoor recreation in crowded urban areas.

But the most important consequence of ORRRC's report was public recognition that outdoor recreation is vital to American life. That recognition was a bridge between resource conservation and the developing new environmentalism. In may ways we have forgotten this important linkage. The prominence that environmental issues now receive sometimes obscures the groundwork the old conservation movement laid for sound land and water policy long before Earth Day.

On the 20th anniversary of the ORRRC report, a number of people and organizations, motivated by changes in long-established programs that had served the nation well, suggested that there be a fresh look at what has happened since ORRRC. These concerns came to focus on Laurence S. Rockefeller, the chairman of ORRRC. After receiving encouragement from the administration and congressional leaders in the field, Mr. Rockefeller convened the Outdoor Recreation Policy Review Group. Members were Emery Castle, president of Resources for the Future, Inc.; Sheldon Coleman, chairman of The Coleman Company, Inc.; William Penn Mott Jr., president of the California State Parks Foundation and former state parks director; Patrick F. Noonan, former president of the Nature Conservancy, now president of Conservation Resources, Inc.; William K. Reilly, president of The Conservation Foundation; and myself.Though Mr. Rockefeller insisted on being listed as an "ex-officio" member, he attended all the meetings and was, in fact, the intellectual leader of the effort.

The Policy Review Group worked for four months addressing three questions:

1. What changes in demand for outdoor recreation have occurred over the past 20 years?

2. What changes in the supply of outdoor recreation have occurred?

3. What adjustments in the outdoor recreation system are needed to meet this new demand-supply equation?

The Policy Review Group first looked at the many changes in American society over the last two decades and considered what impact they have had on outdoor recreation demand. Information about demand is poor. But, by every available indicator, demand is increasing. [13 ELR 10127] Visitation figures are up sharply. A surging interest in physical fitness is a major new force in the outdoor recreation picture. In addition, leisure expenditures nationally have grown from $58 million in 1965 to $244 billion in 1981, a 47-percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Next, the group looked at supply. If demand for outdoor recreation is increasing, how does the supply relate to present demand and what might be expected in the future? Though it is also difficult to get a good fix on supply, it appears that the nation has made remarkable progress in increasing the supply of publicly owned outdoor recreation resources over the past two decades.

The statistics are dramatic and important. Through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the federal government has acquired some 2.8 million acres of recreational land. States have added 2.9 million acres to their park systems. Municipal governments have added 1.7 million acres of nonurban park and recreation land, much of it with federal assistance. Nearly 80 million acres of wilderness are protected in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Almost 7,000 river miles have been incorporated in a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Some 680 trails totaling more than 7,000 miles have been incorporated in a National Trails System. The number of units in the National Park System has tripled, to 335 with 79.4 million acres.

While the increase in acreage available for outdoor recreation is impressive, the use of the public lands has increased faster. While federal park and recreation acreage increased three percent over the past 20 years, use has increased 138 percent. For the National Park System, acreage exclusive of Alaska has increased by about 28 percent since 1960, but visitation grew 278 percent. While the acreage in state park systems rose by 44 percent, visitation increased by 105 percent. And, while ORRRC urged that public land acquisition emphasize what it termed "effective acres" — land where the people are — there has been no significant increase in acreage per capita in the populous eastern states.

As a result of such considerations, the Policy Review Group arrived at three fundamental conclusions and a recommendation. First, outdoor recreation is more important in American life than ever. The growing interest in physical fitness and the acceptance of leisure as a goal have amplified the importance of outdoor recreation. Further, many of the concerns of the environmental movement are linked to the protection of outdoor recreation resources. Protection of outdoor recreational interests is among the objectives of major pollution control statutes, for example, the Clean Water Act's goal of "fishable, swimmable" water and Clean Air Act protection of visibility in national parks.

Second, in the face of increased demand for outdoor recreation, governments are doing less. Federal expenditures peaked in 1978, and have fallen sharply. The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, the successor to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, has been dismantled. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been sharply cut. Absent federal assistance, state and local governments also are reducing spending for outdoor recreation.

Third, the private sector is doing more, and could do yet more with government cooperation. Private recreation business has grown into a major component of the nation's economy over the past two decades, through the development of recreation areas and equipment and through operation of facilities on public lands.

Private not-for-profit organizations also pay an increasingly important role in outdoor recreation. They encourage and help the donation of lands and capital to public agencies; manage lands and facilities for public use; maintain trails and hostels on public lands; and provide volunteer assistance to federal, state, and local recreation agencies.

On the basis of these conclusions the Policy Review Group concluded there is a need to reassess the role of the federal government and other governmental and private sector providers of outdoor recreation. Perhaps government should do less. However, the dismantling of institutions and clear cutting of programs is not the answer. The Policy Review Group does not necessarily urge resuscitating old programs, but rather carefully thinking through the proper level and balance of federal, state, local, and private responsibilities for outdoor recreation.

The Policy Review Group recommended that Congress establish a new outdoor recreation resources review commission to conduct a review of outdoor recreation in America. It also recommended that the new ORRRC be modeled after the original ORRRC — a 15-member commission comprised of eight members of Congress divided between House and Senate and Democrats and Republicans, and seven public members. The commission should have an independent staff and not have to rely on borrowed bureaucrats and should work for 18 months and submit its report early in 1985.

While the new commission would focus on outdoor recreation resources, we recognized that it must be given a broader mandate. The relationship of outdoor recreation with many indoor activities associated with physical fitness must be considered. A new study also must examine outdoor recreation in the context of the many uses of leasure time. Outdoor recreation is a major goal of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other environmental legislation. Its relationship as a beneficiary and contributor to these programs should be reassessed.

Legislation implementing the Policy Review Group's recommendation has been introduced in the Senate (S. 1090). We hope that Congress will act quickly so that the new commission may begin its work this year and submit its report on schedule early in 1985.

The past quarter century since ORRRC began has been a period of profound social, economic, and political change. The role of outdoor recreation has changed, on its own and as part of the environmental and fitness movement. A new ORRRC is needed to assets that role and help Americans enjoy its benefits.

Two decades ago, outdoor recreation served as a bridge between the old conservation and the new environmentalism. The values and programs of the old conservation were the foundation of the new environmental movement. A bipartisan group with full congressional participation that works as effectively and harmoniously as ORRRC did could provide a much-needed bridge between antagonistic interests that are threatening environmental progress in this country. A successful commission on outdoor recreation resources might be seen as a modest step, but as an example, it could be a major stride back toward that bipartisan conservation-environmental consensus that has done so much for this nation's land, water, and air.