The Commons Blog: Why Keep All Federal Lands in Federal Hands?

Why Keep All Federal Lands in Federal Hands?

Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 6 August 2004 · Federal Lands and Parks

The Bush Administration is supporting proposed changes to federal law that would encourage the Bureau of Land Managment to sell off wasteful and unnecessary federal land holdings by allowing the agency to direct the resulting revenue to other projects, including environmental conservation. (See stories here.) Explained Assistant Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett explained the value of the change to Grist:

There has long been a concern that BLM really didn't have any incentive to sell [portions of its holdings] that are unmanageable and not germane to its mission. . . . There's a lot of work involved in doing the surveys and appraisals and so forth that are necessary to sell land, and as long as the revenues from the sale go straight off to the Treasury, it's all cost to BLM and not necessarily much benefit.

Allowing the BLM to keep the revenues would encourage it to consider the opportunity costs of maintaining unneeded parcels in the federal estate.

A 2000 survey by the Clinton Administration identified over three million acres owned by the BLM worthy of sale. Maintaining these lands in federal hands, the Administration concluded, was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Nonetheless, establishment environmental groups are skeptical, and decry any effort to divest any federal land-holdings. Indeed, some are upset that the Bush Administration supports a requirement that only 60 percent of the revenues from federal land holdings be devoted to federal land acquisition. (Just how much land does the federal government need to have?!?)

Allowing federal land agencies to keep the proceeds of land sales is a positive step forward in federal land management, as is not requiring that all of the money from such proceeds be spent on acquiring more land. Yet there is far more to do. Given the federal government already owns approximately one-third of the continental U.S., a "no net loss of private property" provision requiring the federal government to offset any new land acquisitions with the sale of equivalent-sized parcels would be a welcome next step.

TrackBack (40)

While there may well be a few acres here and there that could be sold off without harm, we would have to guard against the land agencies making land sales based on the short term need for funding.

I do have to mention one thing. The land doesn't "belong" to the Federal Government, it belongs to the people of this country - hence the term public land. If we decide we like having large chunks of open space that are broadly funded (fee-demo - RIP) and generally accessible, then we should and will have it.

We do need an open and honest debate on our public lands. If we do I have do doubt that we will wind up with a whole lot of public land.

Posted by: alan aronson at August 9, 2004 03:04 AM

Remember that all the land was originally "owned" by the sovereign state. The only reason the sovereign exerted control over much of it in the beginning was because no one else wanted it or could use it for anything and control over the unused territory was necessary to protect the land that could be used from enemies. When it became feasible to build towns, homes and factories on a piece of land, the sovereign was morally obligated to grant this land to its citizens. For the sovereign to hold onto any land that could be used by citizens, except for its own strictly limited military purposes, is nothing short of oppression. And fifty-one per cent of citizens can not morally force the other forty-nine per cent to accept such tyranny.

Posted by: Robert Speirs at August 9, 2004 02:36 PM

Robert, you are a fricking loon.

The federal government is not "the sovereign." It's you and me. Taxpayers. That's land we've chosen to own and protect in common, because it has common value -- much like the interstate system and the airwaves and etc. etc.

You loons sure do see socialism and tyranny behind every corner, don't you? In the most free land on the planet. Ironic.

Posted by: Realish at August 9, 2004 07:37 PM

The only people who benefit from the government owning all of that land is federal bureaucrats. They do make-work to control the use of that land.

The rest of us Americans get screwed because we have to foot the bill for that foolishness.

Posted by: Jake at August 9, 2004 08:49 PM

Jake, just a suggestion. Assuming you live in the West, consult a map and just take a drive. Park your car. Take a walk, enjoy yourself. If it's the right time of the year take along a rifle or shotgun and maybe you'll get lucky. Only somone who has no first hand knowledge of public lands could write what you did.

Posted by: alan aronson at August 10, 2004 03:01 AM

By Author:

By Category:

By Month: