and local governments. The concept in this bill is not only to bring Federal dollar exposure to within reasonable limits, but also to encourage the preservation of this recreational resource (and by extension, others) in a way that would use all the tools of recreational land preservation-fee purchase, less than fee acquisition, and, importantly, land-use controls. The Santa Monica bill, S. 1640, is not merely an ad hoc response or a "compromise". The implications of the bill are such that it should be evaluated in a larger policy framework. In fact, the direction pointed to in this legislation may, if thoughtfully developed, suggest a major new policy departure for the Federal Government in helping to provide outdoor recreational opportunities in urban areas throughout the country. The response of the Administration to this approach has been distressing. On successive days the Administration testified in opposition to an increase in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which would have provided funds to the State of California for the preservation of the Santa Monica Mountains area, and other areas; to S. 1640, which sought to provide a balanced Federal-State-local effort at Santa Monica; and to S. 759, which would create a Federal National Park in the classic form. As I stated in my remarks on S. 1640: I am extremely disappointed in the position adopted by the Administration on this legislation. When you take the position enunciated yesterday on S. 327, the Land and Water Conservation Fund bill, and compare it with today's position, I begin to wonder whether the Administration really cares about what is happening to our urban areas. The three bills: S. 759, S. 1640 and S. 327 cover the spectrum from total Federal efforts to joint Federal-local efforts to basically local efforts with Federal support. The Administration has recommended against all three. The Department report does not offer constructive criticism of any of the bills. It does not offer any advice on Federal policy. Rather the Departmental report would have the Congress believe that everything is progressing very well and that if we do nothing, our urban problems will be resolved. I would like to state that this is not a partisan proposal nor an attempt to set the Congress against the Administration. We on the Committee are all concerned that increasingly we are being forced into massive projects such as Big Cypress or Cuyahoga for lack of an acceptable method of meeting our urban needs. What we need from the Department is advice. Tell us what you have learned from Golden Gate and Gateway National Recreation Areas and provide us with an affirmative proposal and I can assure you that we will consider it. The response from the Department has at least been consistent: No increase in the Land and Water Conservation Fund to assist the States, no National Park to preserve the area, no joint efforts. Something must be done. I think the Nation would be better served if the Department would choose to assist the Congress in formulating a strategy and making available the invaluable expertise in the Park Service and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. I would like to say again that I am disappointed by the Department's failure to respond affirmatively to any of these proposals. In view of the Administration's unwillingness to provide either alternatives or constructive criticism, I requested Subcommittee Counsel, Mr. James P. Beirne, to direct the preparation of an issue paper which would begin the process of comprehensive policy analysis needed to evaluate properly the implications of S. 1640 and similar measures. Accordingly, at my request, Mr. Charles E. Little, Specialist in Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service, has prepared this background report on what he calls the "Green-Line Park" concept, summarzing the need for this new approach to urban park acquisition and management, reporting on the precedents and antecedents of the approach, and analyzing the implications of the Santa Monica legislation for national application. It is clear to me that the Congress has an opportunity, through the concept contained in S. 1640, to escape a paralyzing double-bind which poses a diminished Federal purse against an increased national demand for outdoor recreation opportunities in or near to urban areas. In my view, this concept provides a new kind of program possibility that this Committee and the Congress should study, debate, and act upon. Mr. Little's analysis will be helpful as we move forward with this task. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation. CONTENTS Page Urban parks, recreation, and open space: A Federal dilemma. The Santa Monica "compromise". (VII) GREEN-LINE PARKS: AN APPROACH TO PRESERVING RECREATIONAL LANDSCAPES IN URBAN AREAS SUMMARY In April 1975, Senator Bennett Johnston, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Senate Interior Committee, introduced S. 1640, a bill to preserve a 200,000-acre natural area in the Los Angeles urban region. The area, the Santa Monica Mountains and related seashore, had been proposed in Congress since 1971 for inclusion in the National Park System. Senator Johnston's bill is an effort to avoid over-extending the Park Service and to limit Federal financial exposure to burgeoning demands for National Recreation Areas near cities by applying the concept of a fixed amount of "front money." This money, to be supplied from Federal sources, constitutes a grant to enable a State commission using comprehensive planning techniques as well as all the tools of land preservation-land purchase, easements, and land-use regulations-to preserve the area as a coherent recreational landscape. This concept would break new ground in Federal response to urban outdoor recreational needs. It is, however, part of a general trend in creating resource-oriented recreational areas containing a mix of public and private land. Relatively unknown in this country, the concept is akin to national park practice in England and Wales where landuse controls and access agreements are used rather than land purchase to preserve major outdoor recreation resources. În the United States, the concept has its most outstanding expression in New York's Adirondack Park. The "Park", some six million acres, is publicly owned (in scattered parcels of forest preserve land) only to the extent of 38 percent of its total land area. The remainder is subject to stringent land-use regulation established through carrying capacity assessments which have produced defensible limitations on land-use changes that would vitiate its utility as a recreational resource. More than half the private land in the Adirondack Park is limited to an aggregate of one principal building per 43 acres. Because of this precedent, and because valuable lessons can be drawn from Britain's experience in managing private land for public recreation, Senator Johnston's Santa Monica bill suggests the possibility of a general programmatic application for the protection of recreational landscapes associated with urban areas throughout the United States. In this paper, these places are described as potential "greenline parks." The rubric is derived from a "blue line” drawn in 1892 by the New York legislature around the Adirondack region and which now describes the 62 percent privately-owned, 38 percent publicly owned land of the Adirondack Park. Similarly, a green-line park would be a resource area containing a mix of public and private land which is comprehensively planned, regulated, and managed by an independent State agency set up spe (1) |