Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 7 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
reverting to state ownership if the exchange proposal had been finally approved, the property would have still been used for “National Park purposes,” according to Jacobsen. “Can the state come in and tell us what to do with Park land as long as it’s used for National Park purposes?” he asked.
Opponents of th$ land exchange have also cited federal law as prohibiting the Rappahannock-Greene swap. They point to the 1977 amendments to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. In part, the amendments read that the Secretary of the Interior “may not alienate property administered as part of the national park system in order to acquire lands by exchange.” This restriction is included under the subsection “Boundary Changes: Donations” which also stipulates that the Secretary may make minor boundary revisions for ten years after the establishment of a National Park following “timely notice in writing to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate...and by publication of a revised boundary map or other description in the Federal Register.”
Federal Law Doesn't Apply
In answer to assertions that amendments to the Soil and Water Conservation
82.8%