Questions on the Acquisition of Land by the Armed Services

Highlights

This decision regards two questions relative to the acquisition of land by the armed services under Public Law 155 and 534, 82d Congress, and two questions relating to the general authority of the armed services to acquire land. 1) Does GAO take exception to the acquisition of land at the Naval Air Station, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, under the authority of Public Law 155, 82d Congress, 65 Stat. 365, 345, assuming that the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives approved the pending project in accordance with the requirements of section 601 of that act, 65 Stat. 365, and assuming further that an appropriation therefore is available? 2) Do Sections 401(a), Public Law 534, 82nd Congress, a501(a), Public Law 155, 82nd Congress, constitute "general authority" for the acquisition of land? 3) In what circumstances do the Acts of August 18, 1890, as amended, (50 U.S.C. 171) and of August 12, 1935, as amended, (10 U.S.C. 1343) constitute authority for land acquisition in instances where the acquisition is not otherwise authorized by law? 4) Does Congressional authorization for construction carries imply authority to acquire the land necessary for such construction?

GAO concluded: 1) The authorization for additional aviation facilities as the Will Grove Air Station as contained in Public Law 155 properly may not be construed as including authority for the acquisition of land at Willow Grove. 2) GAO concurred with the Committee's position that the sections here in question should not be regarded as general authorizations for land acquisition, but as merely permitting such procurement, where otherwise authorized in the respective acts, without regard to the advance-payment prohibition contained in section 3648 of the Revised statutes, and as permitting the commencement of construction thereon without obtaining prior approval of title to the land by the Attorney General as required by section 355 of Revised Statutes. 3) This provision is procedural in nature and merely provides the method whereby land may be acquired where there exists a separate authorization to acquire and pay for such land. 4) Because in the interpretation of statutes the legislative intent is the all important and controlling factor and an implication may not be read into a statute which the language of the statute does not warrant and which was not intended to be there, and since no implication that purchase of land is necessary where, as in case of Willow Grove, the project authorization is one for "additional aviation facilities" which presumably can be constructed on land already available, we conclude that there is no implied authority to acquire land for that and similar projects.

We conclude: 1) The authorization for additional aviation facilities as the Will Grove Air Station as contained in Public Law 155 properly may not be construed as including authority for the acquisition of land at Willow Grove. 2) We concur with the Committee's position that the sections here in question should not be regarded as general authorizations for land acquisition, but as merely permitting such procurement, where otherwise authorized in the respective acts, without regard to the advance-payment prohibition contained in section 3648 of the Revised statutes, and as permitting the commencement of construction thereon without obtaining prior approval of title to the land by the Attorney General as required by section 355 of Revised Statutes. 3) This provision is procedural in nature and merely provides the method whereby land may be acquired where there exists a separate authorization to acquire and pay for such land. 4) Because in the interpretation of statutes the legislative intent is the all important and controlling factor and an implication may not be read into a statute which the language of the statute does not warrant and which was not intended to be there, and since no implication that purchase of land is necessary where, as in case of Willow Grove, the project authorization is one for "additional aviation facilities" which presumably can be constructed on land already available, we conclude that there is no implied authority to acquire land for that and similar projects.