Land grab: Too much federal real estate
The bureaucracy that manages federal lands is thicker than any of the forests under Washington’s control. A top-down, retributive power structure can’t possibly address the diverse local concerns that affect thousands of public sites, let alone respond to urgent issues.
Increasingly, that appears to be the whole point of the expanding, centralized set-up.
The growing movement to establish local control over federal lands was on display Monday when the House Resources subcommittee held a hearing at the Elko Convention Center to examine the explosion of federal land regulations. The hearing was requested by Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., because of sharp criticism of U.S. Forest Service plans to greatly restrict off-road and dirt-road travel across the West.
Time and again, federal employees decide the land they control must be protected from the people who own and use it. Those decisions are hurting states’ efforts to recover from the economic downturn, put their residents back to work and restore cuts to essential public services.
Utah and Arizona are leading the charge to wrest control of federal land from Washington. Their legislatures are pushing bills that urge Washington to hand over their vast holdings to the states within a couple of years.
Utah and Arizona have plenty of incentive. Only 30 percent of the land in each state is privately held. Boosting that percentage would allow the states to potentially put millions of acres on property tax rolls, or at least make management decisions that better reflect local priorities and the needs of local industries, from ranching to mining to tourism.
In a Saturday editorial, The Salt Lake Tribune pointed out that efforts to boost energy production in Utah have been stymied because the federal government controls parts of the state that are rich in natural resources. Those decisions are costing the state jobs and revenue. Meanwhile, the editorial noted, Washington owns just 3 percent of North Dakota, giving that state the freedom to tap its vast oil fields, create thousands of jobs and pour tax money into education.
Nevada has a greater stake in this debate than any other state. Washington oversees one-third of the land in this country, but controls about 85 percent of the state of Nevada.
Environmentalists argue that private or state ownership would inevitably destroy entire ecosystems. But under federal stewardship, public lands have been overgrazed, overgrown forests have burned down, fire suppression policies have harmed wildlife diversity, and species "management" has led to overpopulation of selected species in many areas. Local stewards and private owners couldn’t do much worse, and they have far more incentive to protect their property’s value.
Besides, Utah’s bill exempts wilderness areas, national parks and military installations, and Arizona’s takes a similar approach. Arizona’s bill would use the proceeds from any land sales to pay down the national debt.
Nevadans already voted in 1996 to amend the state constitution to remove a clause that gives Washington control of unappropriated land. But new legislation would back up our neighbors and provide a powerful reminder to Washington that Nevadans want the freedom and sovereignty to make choices for themselves.