SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
As result of the rise of environmental awareness in the United States, particularly in connection with the more widespread sensitivity to the aesthetic dimensions of the environment, land management agencies have been encouraged to broaden their responsibilities for resources occurring on the public lands. The Wilderness Act of 1964, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, and the National Trails System Act of 1968 were only the elaboration and explicit extensions of the spirit motivating the earlier multiple-use acts that sought to extend the concept of resource management beyond commodity resources to amenity resources as well. The Environmental Policy Act of 1969 not only added emphasis to this concept but also provided the means by which concerned citizens might challenge the responsiveness of the resource management agencies to the new directives contained in the legislation.
As new public interests evolve to challenge traditional interests in the use of a given tract of land or reach of river for a purpose that is incompatible with amenity uses, it is to be expected that controversies over the allocation of resources should arise. This is because resources in the public sector are allocated by specific administrative decision rather than more impersonally by the market. Thus we have seen the land and water resource management agencies brought to court under the National Environmental Policy Act by various conservation and environmental organizations. Moreover, because of the elevation of the status of common property resource claimants before the courts, quite independently of NEPA, actions are being taken by citizens' groups who feel deprived of rights without due process.
Some of this activity may be due to the difficulties of managing well an interrelated complex of resources, with their mix of overlapping private and common property claims. But in addition, there is the possibility that the