Is transferring federally-owned and managed land to the state a bad idea? Here’s what those who oppose the idea are saying:
• Montana Senator Jon Tester promised to oppose “efforts to sell or transfer federal lands” — Flathead Beacon, Feb. 8, 2017.
• Former Secretary of the Interior in the Obama administration, Sally Jewel, calls the idea a land heist that “leaves states with lands that you’re going to have to support either through increased taxation or by selling the land to the highest bidder, and we think that’s dead wrong.” — outsideonline.com, Jan. 22, 2016.
• “Right now, powerful special interests … are waging an aggressive campaign to sell off public lands in the west. This public land heist threatens hundreds of millions of acres of national forests, rangelands, wildlife refuges, parks, wilderness areas, and historic sites, but it also threatens the fundamental American notion that our public lands belong to everyone.” — protectourpublicland.org.
• “The catch is, when a state owns land, it no longer belongs to the public. It can be sold off, developed, exploited, or turned into private real estate.” — protectourpublicland.org.
The real catch is, all the above assertions are completely false. There should be a reasoned debate about such an important topic, rather than such sophistry and disinformation. There may be some very good reasons for us to rationally consider this notion of transferring Federally-owned land to its domicile state.
Scott McLean, a candidate for the Montana State Senate, makes this bold assertion: “While the Federal Government manages our forests at a loss, Montana will manage our forests at a net revenue gain, while simultaneously providing jobs and revenue to our state, county, and municipal governments.” — mcleanforsenate.com.
So, who is right? Would transferring federal land to the state be an excessive financial burden, requiring liquidation of some of the land to cover the extra costs — such as for firefighting? Or, would the state be able to make a profit by the better way it manages the land?
Federal land agencies lose taxpayers nearly $2 billion per year, on average, while annual net revenues from state-managed land exceed $220 million on average. Federal land agencies outspend states by more than six times higher per acre than state expenditures.
The federal government owns 27 million acres of land in Montana (29%), while the state manages a little over 5 million acres (5.5%). In the 5-year period between 2009 and 2013, the U.S. Forest Service lost 90 cents on every dollar they spent on Montana land management. In the same period, Montana profited $8.65 for every dollar spent on Land Trust management (a net gain of $107 million).
In the same 5-year period, the BLM and Forest Service lost an average of $173 for every 1,000 board-feet of timber it sold from managed land. By contrast, Montana profited $61 for every 1,000 board-feet it sold from the Land Trust.
The main reason Montana profits from the land management, and the federal government loses money from their land management, is Montana has a fiduciary duty to profitably manage the Land Trust for the beneficiaries of the Trust: Montana’s schools, universities, Veteran homes, public buildings, and other institutions. The federal government is not required to manage their land profitably. Quite the opposite.
They have strong incentives to spend all their budget so their operations will be rewarded with the same or larger budget the next year.
Apparently, Montana could easily cover the costs of managing the transferred land and expect to make a handsome profit.
Don’t worry about them selling off the land to the highest bidder — they can’t. The land is a Trust asset whose value, by law, cannot be removed from the Trust. Don’t worry about losing our national parks, wilderness areas, or historic sites either. They would be excluded from the land transfer and remain under federal management.
Dennis W. Hicks
Hamilton