Western Lands; the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The history of federal land ownership in the West is long and complex. In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase established the federal government as administrator of vast stretches of land not already under control by states. In 1862, the federal government attempted to transfer some of that control back to the populace through the Homestead Act, which provided settlers with 160 acres of public land.
Models similar to the Homestead Act had great success in the eastern part of country, where the federal government today owns only 4 percent of the land, but this proved impossible to replicate in the West, given the significant differences in geography and economy. The parcels of land provided by the Homestead Act for the agricultural-based West were simply too small and water resources too scarce to be economically viable. As a result, numerous parcels were abandoned and once again fell back under Washington’s control.
Today, the federal government owns 47 percent of all land in 11 continental western states. The great majority of this land is controlled by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Together, these two agencies control more than 300 million acres, which are used for timber harvesting, livestock grazing, recreation, and energy development. For every dollar spent on land management, the government generates only 73 cents in revenue, resulting in losses of approximately $2 billion per year.
Western legislators have long fought for more control of these lands, which they believe their states could better manage. State agencies lease approximately 40 million acres of public lands for private industries and recreational purposes. However, unlike federal agencies, states earn a profit. A March 2015 report by the Property and Environment Research Center shows that between 2009-2013, the average annual net revenue for state trust lands was $225 million, and states earned an average of $14.52 for every dollar spent. Federal land expenditures are six times higher per acre than state expenditures.
States outperform federal agencies in every relevant activity, including timber, grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Between 2009-2013 (adjusted for 2013 dollars), the Forest Service generated 32 cents for every dollar spent on timber management, while the BLM received 38 cents. On the other hand, state trust agencies earned $2.51 on average for every dollar spent on timber activities during that period of time, or $2.22 more than the average of the two federal agencies. Grazing was also a better deal at the state level. The BLM earned $0.14 per dollar spent on rangeland management, while states averaged $4.89 per each dollar spent, a difference of $4.75. Minerals generated $19.76 per dollar spent for federal agencies, while state trusts generated $138.08, a difference of $118.32.
This large discrepancy between federal and state land management results can be explained in part by the fact that state trust lands are required to generate positive revenue. The money remains in state agency budgets, which encourages states to continue generating revenue. On the other hand, federal agencies do not keep the generated revenue. The collected money is transferred to the Department of the Treasury. Furthermore, federal budgets are typically allocated on a use-it-or-lose-it basis, meaning that money that is not used in each fiscal year is often deemed as unnecessary and may not be re-appropriated in following years.
In addition, the regulations for state forest plans are significantly shorter and less prescriptive; despite this difference, a December 2014 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation report showed no evidence for the claim that state forest management resulted in more negative impacts on the environment. In fact, according to an April 2009 Forbes article, states have a better environmental record than the federal government.
While the federal government once held an important role in obtaining and managing Western land, it is clear that states are doing a significantly better job today. This should encourage lawmakers to allow the states to take over larger portions of public land. In addition, states should be allowed to impose higher lease rates, increase leasing competition, and charge modest fees for recreational access, since these changes have historically brought greater revenue and efficiency.
The evidence is clear: When it comes to public land management, states have shown that they can outperform the federal government in every aspect, including higher standards of environmental safety, greater revenue, and lower expenditures. As a result, states should have an increased role in stewardship of Western lands.
— Filip Cukovic
