PARK, PARKWAY, AND RECREATIONAL-AREA STUDY ACT OF 1936

At the request of the National Park Service through the Department of the Interior, the Seventy-fourth Congress enacted legislation whereby the service was empowered to continue on a permanent basis the cooperation with the states it had established during the CCC period. A nationwide study was then made to secure basic data so that the service and the states and their civil divisions could develop integrated park and recreation systems based on the best experience in the nation. Success depended on the mutual efforts of all agencies concerned with the public park and recreation movement.

The importance of comprehensive park, parkway, and recreational-area planning has long been recognized and was repeatedly demonstrated during the emergency programs, particularly in selecting and developing additional park and recreation areas to round out park systems. But in the spring of 1933 when the National Park Service, through its Branch of Land Planning and State Cooperation, began collaborating with the states and their divisions in emergency programs, planning information for such programs was extremely meager on the state level. Recreational programs had been in operation for some years in a number of states, but only in a few cases had long-range plans been formulated on the basis of in-depth studies of land uses and recreation needs. It is a well-known fact that leisure time needs increase with economic growth and social advances as well as with population growth. Before the opportunities to fulfill these needs can be provided, however, recreational resources must be appraised and recreational needs estimated, and only on the basis of comprehensive surveys is it possible to establish and maintain standards that are both adequate and feasible in terms of available resources. It was this lack of planning information and the increasing need for recreational facilities that led to enactment of the 1936 law. The national study would have to include an inventory and analysis of existing park, parkway, and recreational facilities, whether federal, state, county, municipal, or private. It would also have to bring together the plans or proposals for future park development that had been drawn up at these various levels, including areas studied for possible acquisition or development, an analysis and appraisal of findings, and recommendations.

The Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study Act plays a key role in the history of parks in the United States, and for this reason I have included the complete text of the act below:

An Act to authorize a study of the park, parkway, and recreational-area programs in the United States, and for other purposes, approved June 23, 1936 (49 Stat. 1894).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") is authorized and directed to cause the National Park Service to make a comprehensive study, other than on lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, of the public park, parkway, and recreational-area programs of the United States, and of the several States and political subdivisions thereof, and of the lands throughout the United States which are or may be chiefly valuable as such areas, but no such study shall be made in any State without the consent and approval of the State officials, boards, or departments having jurisdiction over such lands and park areas. The said study shall be such as, in the judgment of the Secretary, will provide data helpful in developing a plan for coordinated and adequate public park, parkway, and recreational-area facilities for the people of the United States. In making the said study and in accomplishing any of the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is authorized and directed, through the National Park Service, to seek and accept the cooperation and assistance of Federal departments or agencies having jurisdiction of lands belonging to the United States, and may cooperate and make agreements with and seek and accept the assistance of other Federal agencies and instrumentalities, and of States and political subdivisions thereof and the agencies and instrumentalities of either of them. (16 U.S.C. sec. 17k.)

Sec. 2. For the purpose of developing coordinated and adequate public park, parkway, and recreational-area facilities for the people of the United States, the Secretary is authorized to aid the several States and political subdivisions thereof in planning such areas therein, and in cooperating with one another to accomplish these ends. Such aid shall be made available through the National Park Service acting in cooperation with such State agencies or agencies of political subdivisions of States as the Secretary deems best. (16 U.S.C. sec. 17l.)

Sec. 3. The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to negotiate and enter into compacts or agreements with one another with reference to planning, establishing, developing, improving, and maintaining any park, parkway, or recreational area. No such compact or agreement shall be effective until approved by the legislatures of the several States which are parties thereto and by the Congress of the United States. (16 U.S.C. sec. 17m.)

Sec. 4. As used in sections 1 and 2 of this Act the term "State" shall be deemed to include Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. (16 U.S.C. sec. 17n.)

Shortly after approval of the 1936 act Secretary Ickes addressed the following letter to the governors of the states:

I am enclosing for your consideration a copy of "An act to authorize a study of the park, parkway, and recreational-area programs in the United States, and for other purposes" approved June 23, 1936. You will note that the Act provides for cooperation between the Federal Government, through the National Park Service, of this Department, and the several States and local civil divisions thereof, in making comprehensive studies as a basis for State and local planning for park, parkway, and recreational-areas and facilities and in aiding in the planning of such areas.

Prior to the passage of this Act, many of the States, through various agencies, such as planning boards and commissions, had initiated studies for the purpose of establishing and extending State park and recreational systems.

Now that there is definite authority for a closer cooperation between the Federal Government and the several States, it is expected that State and local park, parkway, and recreational-area planning will receive greater consideration and that the work will be systematized and correlated on a State, regional, and Nation-wide basis.

Plans are now being made to carry out the provisions of the Act, and I shall appreciate knowing whether your State wishes to avail itself of the cooperative assistance of the National Park Service in studying and planning park, parkway, and recreational-area facilities within the State, and in coordination with similar facilities in the other States. Approval by the State of of such cooperation with the Federal Government will aid in the development of a coordinated plan for the Nation.

Sincerely yours,
Harold L. Ickes
Secretary of the Interior

Retired Justice William O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court, left, lunches with a boy scout troop and Park Service officials at Great Falls in Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park. Douglas has hiked the entire 184 miles of the canal between Washington, D.C., and Cumberland, Maryland, in the interest of preserving the canal.

The secretary received a favorable response from all the states, and in January, 1937, the Park Service issued a brochure on how this program with the states would be carried out.

The Park Service brochure informed the states that the service was in the process of making several related studies that would be of help in the cooperative effort authorized by the act. First, there was state legislation for parks and recreation to be considered. The Park Service had been making a compilation of laws pertaining to park conservation and recreation and had announced that when that study was completed it would be made available for wide distribution (see the final section of this chapter). Second, the service was studying areas proposed as additions to the national park system, and the results indicated that some of the lands studied would be more suitable for state park systems. That information would be turned over to the sponsors of the appropriate state recreational studies. It was hoped that any areas that the states found in their park studies to be more suitable for the national system, particularly historic sites, would be made available to the National Park Service. The third study was of municipal and metropolitan parks. It was reported that an inventory of municipal, metropolitan, and county parks and recreation areas and facilities was being conducted jointly by the National Park Service and the National Recreation Association and that the tabulation was expected to be ready for publication in early 1937. This information would be available in manuscript form before then, for use by the states in connection with their studies under the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study Act.

The service's brochure discussed the problem of land use in a comprehensive study. It observed that conservation could be defined as the dedication of particular natural resources to the use for which they were best suited and that lands put to recreational use were part of the general conservation program. As the study of these lands indicated, recreation may be the highest or the only use that should be made of some areas, but it may be only one of several concurrent uses of other areas. It went on to say that as the need for park, parkway, and recreational areas becomes more widely recognized, the recreational uses will tend to supersede other uses in many cases.

The brochure gave a brief history of America's public land use. In 1641 the Boston Bay Colony decreed that the great parks were to be forever open and free to the public for fowling and fishing. This was a forerunner of land conservation by the states for recreation purposes. Toward the end of the eighteenth century plans for the national capital city set a new standard for parks and open spaces. At the close of the colonial period and toward the first part of the nineteenth century, interest in the recreational use of natural resources lapsed and commercial exploitation of resources became the order of the day. The demand for open space for recreational use by city populations was not revived until the middle of the nineteenth century, coincident with the period of rapid urban growth. Central Park was established in New York City in 1852. and the park movement spread to other cities. But it wasn't until 1872 that the federal government began to take an interest in the conservation of natural resources for recreational purposes. In that year it established the first national park in the world, Yellowstone. Several states, notably New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, had established state park systems during the twenty-year period ending in 1890, but this movement had been slow.

At the time the brochure was published in 1937 there were eighty-one areas in the national park system, which, along with the National Capital Parks, totaled approximately sixteen million acres. With the beginning of the CCC program in 1933, several of the states, including Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia, established state park systems and acquired park areas. By 1937 practically every state had a state park program.

It is interesting to note that, between the beginning of the CCC and the time the brochure was written, the number of acres of land in state park systems, exclusive of the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains in New York (which were really part of the state preserve and contained some 2,373,000 acres), had grown from 887,000 to 1,486,000 acres, an increase of approximately 600,000 acres, or better than 67-1/2 per cent. The impetus provided by the CCC program was responsible for much of this growth. A good part of the 600,000 acres was donated by public-minded citizens who wanted CCC camps to turn the land into parks in the interest of conservation and community improvement.

The brochure briefly listed the types of recreational activity that should be considered in parks: (1) Physical: sports of all kinds—hiking, riding, etc. (2) Aesthetic: appreciation of beauty as manifested in nature, art music, drama, etc. (3) Creative: self-expression through handicraft, writing, painting, etc. (4) Intellectual: avocational pursuits such as study of history, archaeology, geology, etc. (5) Social: group or family gatherings, games, and the like.

The classification of recreational areas was next described. The customary designation of recreational areas in terms of administrative jurisdiction—national parks, state parks, etc.—had led to some confusion in the real meaning of the term park. In order to provide an adequate classification of recreational areas on the basis of use, a special subcommittee of the National Resources Committee was appointed to study the question. After reviewing the terms and definitions in use by federal and other agencies, the committee proposed the classification of recreational areas under four principal headings: primitive, modified, developed, and scientific.

The first part of the Park Service's brochure had set forth the basic approach and the need for a comprehensive study of the nationwide system of parks. It concluded with a look at the necessary data that study would have to consider: climatic, economic, biological, historic, archaeological, social, and other factors.

The second part of the brochure went into considerable detail on organization and procedure. That part of the booklet was devoted to forms, enumeration of considerations, graphics, and all the tools necessary to carry out the plan to develop state park systems and tie them together into a nationwide system.

The Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study Act, though weak in many respects, became very effective through mutual understanding and cooperation between all the agencies involved. This team spirit was undoubtedly inspired by Secretary Ickes's letter to the states. In the thirties no regularly appropriated funds were allotted to the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study by the federal government. But the study was felt to be so important to the implementation of a successful emergency program, especially the CCC program, that most of the study was financed with federal CCC funds. Some forty-six states completed comprehensive state park system plans. Technicians were either assigned to them from the National Park Service or employed with CCC funds allotted to the states through the service. The comprehensive plans and the states' written reports (not federal government reports) were products of state and federal collaboration. The allotment of CCC camps to the states also influenced the development of the state park systems, for if a state park was not part of an overall state park system, in accordance with the study, there were grave questions raised as to whether that park could be allotted a camp.

Because of its great interest and experience in planning and developing recreational lands, the National Park Service had been asked by the National Resources Board to prepare a report on "Recreational Use of Lands in the United States." This 1934 report, published as part of the board's report on land planning, was an attempt to produce on very short notice an overall picture of recreational land use and the problems that must be faced in providing land to satisfy the needs of the people. It got us started on a second report, which was printed in 1941. By the time we were assembling and writing the 1941 report, over thirty-four states had completed detailed studies that showed not only what provisions were currently available for nonurban recreation in various land categories but also what was still needed.

The term recreation was very rarely used in the 1934 report. In contrast, the 1941 report endeavored to use the word consistently in its broad sense rather than in the narrow sense of mere physical exertion. The dictionary defines recreation as "the act of recreating, or the state of being recreated; refreshment of body or mind after toil; diversion; amusement." There is justification within that broad definition to classify national parks and monuments as recreation areas. The act of 1916 creating the National Park Service states that such areas are to be conserved for enjoyment, which surely includes refreshment not only of body and mind but of the spirit as well. The service has consistently maintained that its dominant purpose has been to stimulate refreshment of mind and spirit; that this purpose can be fulfilled only if the inspirational qualities of the areas it administers, whether based on natural scenery or on scientific, historic, or prehistoric values, are safeguarded to the utmost; and that provisions for physical recreation should be limited so that they do not impair inspirational qualities.

The 1941 report was comprehensive, covering the recreational habits and needs of the people; aspects of recreational planning; existing public outdoor recreational facilities on city, county, state, and federal lands; administration, including organization, operations, personnel, budget, public relations, and so on; finance, including the history and current situation of financing recreation and park work, cooperative financing, nonprofit corporations, and so forth; and legislation at all levels of government. The report also had a brief description and a map of each state, giving physical characteristics and indicating the existing condition of the state parks. And it proposed developments and additions to state park systems.

Secretary Ickes wrote the foreword, which stated in part:

The proper use of leisure time is a fundamental problem of modern society. The industrial age has given the people of the United States more free time and greater opportunities for employing it to good purpose than any previous era, but the very circumstances which shorten working hours also speed up production, intensify the strain of present-day living, and create a need for periodic relief. Outdoor recreation answers this need.

Although this report was finished in 1941, it didn't get off the press until after we got involved in war. And so the secretary inserted a supplemental foreword, dated February 10, 1942, which is very interesting because it leads on to another principle.

The accompanying report is presented at a time when our energies and resources are centered in one objective—victory in war. Although it was prepared and printed prior to our involvement, it is timely with respect to the Nation's immediate recreational needs and its value with respect to long-range problems remains pertinent.

While our present war effort must take precedence over all other activities, planning to meet our park and recreational requirements must continue to receive consideration. The inspiration experienced through visiting the Nation's scenic wonders and historic shrines instills a love of country and maintains morale, and participation in recreational activities is vital to the welfare of the people, both military and civilian.

The war was on and money was in short supply as far as the Park Service was concerned. But with what we had we kept on working in close relation ship with the states, mostly thinking and planning for the future. We had hopes that we could review our plan of 1941 and bring it up to date every five years. There was definitely a joint effort between the states and the federal government to present a comprehensive plan that required implementation—a program of detailed land planning, land acquisition, development, administration, and maintenance.

We also felt that there should be a definite grant-in-aid program by the federal government to the states and, through the states, to their political subdivisions. Such a program required additional legislation. By 1945 we had worked up a draft of a bill that Representative J. Hardin Peterson of Florida, chairman of the Public Lands Committee, introduced on October 16, 1945, as H.R. 4395 of the Seventy-ninth Congress, first session. Its title was "To provide that the United States shall aid the States in the acquisition and development of systems of State parks, and for other purposes." The first section of that bill read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to aid in the acquisition and development of systems of State parks for use by the people of the States of the Union, and in the construction and improvement of facilities in such parks the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary), acting through the National Park Service, is hereby authorized to cooperate with the States through the respective State park agencies, by making grant-in-aid of projects as hereinafter set forth in this Act.

I was the principal advocate of the bill in the National Park Service, but twelve days after the bill was introduced I left for Vienna, Austria, on an assignment by Secretary Ickes. Nothing really happened to that piece of legislation after my departure.

Twenty years later the pressures for open spaces, parks, and recreational areas, as well as for the preservation of wilderness areas, became so great that the president of the United States recommended and Congress authorized establishment of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Its broad concept was similar to that of the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study Act of 1936, except that it required the full cooperation of all federal agencies. The ORRRC spent the better part of four years making a very full and well-organized analysis of our open space needs. Among its main recommendations were the establishment of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation as an agency of the Interior Department distinct from the National Park Service and passage of the Land and Water Bill, an authorization act that would provide for funding certain items for federal, state, and local park systems. The bureau allots funds for planning, land purchase, and development of state and local park systems and for land purchase by federal bureaus. We in the National Park Service were disappointed that BOR was set up as a separate agency in the department but pleased to know that finally the nationwide park and recreation requirements were receiving proper attention and that federal aid was being provided. The disappointment became even harder to bear when the new bureau was established on the authority of the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study Act of 1936, before it got its own basic legislation. The National Park Service was obliged to transfer its personnel who were then cooperating with the state park people along with $1.5 million in funds to the new agency.

It is only right that I clarify the record about the so-called final report of the National Park Service in the series that was started at the request of the National Resources Board in 1934. The first report was entitled "Recreational Use of Lands in the United States." The second, called "A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem of the United States," came off the press early in 1942 but had actually been completed in 1941 before we got involved in the war. Both were financed with CCC funds. The third, the "service's last report," was a Mission 66 project started in 1957 and completed in the spring of 1961. The Department of the Interior, however, refused to let it be released pending the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which came out in January, 1962. "Parks for America," finally released in 1964, had input from every state in the union.

It had a foreword by Secretary Stewart Udall that was anything but favorable. Nowhere in his foreword did the secretary say a good thing about the report. He did say it might be a tool that BOR could use. His foreword was a slur on the Park Service and the states that helped, over a period of six years, to put the report together. It was disconcerting that a new bureau was established to do the work that the service had been doing since 1921, especially since we hadn't even been consulted on the matter. We were further upset to learn that a man who had no park and recreation planning experience was appointed its director, though he was well qualified as a career forester.

Despite all this, it was my most sincere hope that BOR would provide the grant-in-aid help that is so necessary for the nation's open spaces to be preserved and developed for the benefit of the people. Perhaps the best way to indicate my true feelings on this matter is to quote from a letter I wrote to some two dozen senators in 1964 in support of BOR.

The Land and Water Bill, H.R. 3846, has passed the House and is now before the Senate. There is no question but that this bill, if it becomes law, will be one of the most important pieces of permanent legislation that have been enacted in the field of conservation of our natural resources, for the benefit of our human resources, and for the enjoyment of a fuller life, for years to come, by the people in all the communities of our country. Further, never in our history has it been so important to give serious and profound attention to this matter. To delay further will be not only more costly in a monetary way, but could deal a blow to the nation's welfare from which we may not be able to recover fully for years to come.

This may sound like strong language—it is intended to be just that. But it is no stronger than the language used by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in one of its decisions made over thirty years ago, when it said: "An unwritten compact between the dead, the living, and the unborn requires that we leave the unborn something more than debts and depleted natural resources." Some of the "unborn" then referred to have since been born, and more unborn are still to come, but we continue merrily along our way, with no definite comprehensive program devoted to caring for people and their God-given right to understand, enjoy, and obtain inspiration and healthful benefits from the very land, water, and air from whence all have sprung. . . .

H. R. 3846, if it becomes law—and I pray that it will—will be a real advance, providing the first step toward setting up the necessary machinery around which all governmental agencies can work hand-in-hand, to rid ourselves of the cancerous disease of self-destruction. Congress provided the funds and incentive through the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, chaired by Laurance S. Rockefeller, to check into what was recognized as a national problem and to recommend a solution. Congress took the first step by establishing the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. H.R. 3846 would give the Bureau the tools necessary to start carrying out the findings of ORRRC, which I understand is the intent of Congress.

There is little doubt in my mind but that additional legislation will be needed as time goes on and as experience dictates. Perhaps this legislation is not perfect, but at least it will give, to the agency to which Congress has assigned the responsibility, a chance to carry out that responsibility, and to report back to Congress, with recommendations, the results of its efforts.

. . . The nation must provide its people with a means to insure a fuller, more enjoyable life, and one that will provide satisfying outdoor recreation opportunity for all. If we don't, our troubles will forever increase.

Unless somebody has a better idea, I believe that a park and recreation program for the entire nation is our best solution. I felt that way when Congress enacted the Park, Parkway and Recreation Study Act in 1936. I feel that way now, except that it is presently many times more important. However, now we have H.R. 3846 under consideration, which, if it becomes law, will give the B.O.R. some real tools to work with, tools which were not provided under the 1936 Act. . . .

My closing remarks are: Please pass this legislation (H.R. 3846) during this session of Congress. To delay another year or two will gain us nothing but a deeper rut out of which to climb. . . .