PUBLIC LANDS: Report from free-market group weighs merits of state management
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter: Greenwire
Friday, March 6, 2015
Federal lands could be managed more cost-effectively and with better environmental results under a trust model used by Western states, according to a new report from a free-market think tank.
The report from the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) in Bozeman, Mont., takes no position on whether federal lands should be transferred to states, but it does warn that federal lands are "in trouble" and that managers should look to state trust lands agencies for solutions.
Its major take-home point: Trust land agencies in Montana, Idaho, New Mexico and Arizona earn an average of $14.51 for every dollar spent on trust land management, while the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service earn an average of 73 cents for every dollar spent managing their lands.
The report offers fodder to conservatives in the West who are lobbying for states to take over lands owned by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management -- a push that has incited a backlash from conservationists, sportsmen and federal officials.
PERC, whose mission is to improve "environmental quality through property rights and markets," is funded entirely by foundations, corporations and private individuals, though its website does not disclose its donors. Its president, Terry Anderson, a year ago penned an op-ed in the Missoulian calling for the privatization of millions of acres of federal grazing lands.
Jessica Goad of the Center for Western Priorities in Denver, a major opponent of federal land transfers, said the report "is exactly what you would expect from an organization that has a long history of advocating for the privatization of our American lands."
The PERC report does warn that if federal lands are transferred to states, they'd have to be managed under a trust land model -- under which their primary purpose is to generate revenues for a beneficiary, such as public schools, rather than for multiple uses -- if they are to generate more revenue.
In addition, if federal lands were transferred to states, they'd no longer be managed for all Americans. Managers of state trust lands would be accountable to their beneficiaries -- schools, universities, hospitals, and other public institutions.
"If the transferred lands are managed like state trust lands, their fiscal performance may improve, but land management practices and existing rights could be affected in important ways," the report concludes.
Report authors Holly Fretwell and Shawn Regan also acknowledge that the report does not account for what states would have to spend fighting wildfires if they took control of federal lands.
But it identifies several impediments preventing federal lands from being cash cows -- namely, "overlapping and conflicting regulations" and a lack of a clear mandate.
It compares the different statutory, regulatory and administrative systems governing more than 25 million acres of trust lands in Montana, Idaho, New Mexico and Arizona, and the more than 300 million acres in the West managed by BLM and the Forest Service.
Trust lands, which are the most common form of state lands in the West, cover some 40 million acres and are typically leased for timber, grazing and mineral development, but also recreation, the report said. They were typically granted to states by the federal government at the time of statehood and often consist of scattered, 1-square-mile parcels.
While trust managers have a clear mandate to manage lands for the long-term financial benefit of a beneficiary, BLM and Forest Service lands are managed according to conflicting statutory mandates, congressional appropriations and a comprehensive public input process, the PERC report notes.
One key difference is that revenues generated on federal lands generally cannot be retained by the agency. "As a result, the connection between revenues, beneficiaries, and long-term stewardship is unclear or missing on federal lands," the report said.
While the two federal agencies on average lost money managing their lands, there was a vast difference in the lands' profitability. BLM earned $3.11 for every dollar spent between 2009 and 2013, while the Forest Service earned a dime for every dollar. That's because BLM lands are developed more for oil and gas than Forest Service lands, which generate more timber.
The PERC report says federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act, have caused, in the words of former Forest Service chiefs, "analysis paralysis," "gridlock" and a "Gordian knot" hindering more efficient management.
But the report also criticizes federal lands agencies for charging less for ranchers and oil and gas companies to use public resources. States charge much higher grazing fees and mineral royalties and set more aggressive leasing terms than the federal agencies, it said.
"A variety of state trust land management practices, such as escalating mineral lease rates and conservation leasing, could be adopted by federal land managers to increase revenues and resolve conflicting resource demands," the report said. "Regardless of whether federal lands remain in federal ownership or are transferred to the states, we can do better."
But Goad of the Center for Western Priorities said the state trust model is wrong for federal lands. For one, state trust lands are not managed for multiple uses and have been sold off in large numbers, particularly in Nevada. In addition, the report fails to tally the economic return federal lands provide surrounding communities through clean water, recreation access for quality of life and tourism, and wildlife viewing.
"This study pulls back the curtain on what advocates of 'transferring' public lands are actually working toward -- the sell-off and exploitation of our national public lands," she said.
She criticized the report for looking at "only the narrowest use of federal lands -- to make money off of commodities."
A white paper released in January from scholars in Utah found that a Utah law demanding the transfer of 30 million acres of federal lands would require a significant shift toward commodity development, higher fees to access lands and less public input into how they are managed.
