<<  <  >  >>

Public land man-

Introduction

ernment's track record as a resource owner

and finds pervasive economic and ecological

agement does not

Americans have entrusted the National

mismanagement of the federal estate. We

always deliver

Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the

then discuss how policymakers might best go

what the citizens

Bureau of Land Management with some of

about remedying the problem by privatizing

the most treasured and highest-valued land

federal land. We establish four important cri-

expect either for

in the United States as well as some of the

teria for reform plans and suggest an innova-

the treasury or for

least desirable properties on the continent.1

tive, politically realistic blueprint for divesti-

ture. Moving from public to private owner-

Approximately 630 million acres, or nearly

the environment.

ship with the right sort of divestment blue-

one-third of the land area of the United

The federal gov-

print is easier than many people might think.

States, are owned by the federal government.

ernment actually

Most of that land is located in the West. Over

one-half of the land area of Idaho, Nevada,

loses money in

The Economic

Oregon, and Utah belongs to the federal gov-

the course of

Mismanagement of

ernment. Nevada, the extreme case, is 79 per-

managing federal

cent federally owned. It is indeed odd that, in

Public Lands

a society that rejects socialism, such a clearly

land assets esti-

socialist resource policy survives with such

While most of the public supports federal

mated to be

widespread public support.

land management as a means of protecting

Public land management, however, does

the environment, few people remember that

worth billions.

not always deliver what the citizens expect

public ownership was originally justified on

either for the treasury or for the environ-

economic, not ecological, grounds. The U.S.

ment. It is remarkable that the federal gov-

Forest Service, for instance, was established

ernment actually loses money in the course

to apply scientific principles to the economic

of managing federal land assets estimated to

management of timber resources that were

be worth billions. Moreover, the federal gov-

thought to be inefficiently managed by the

private sector.2 Its original charge was to "fur-

ernment has a poor record of ecological stew-

ardship. The argument that federal agents

nish a continuous supply of timber for the

use and necessities of the United States."3

are better land managers than are private

owners is not only suspect in theory; it is

Gifford Pinchot, founder and first chief of

dubious in fact.

the Forest Service, argued, for instance, that

Given that record, we might expect

"conservation stands for the same kind of

numerous proposals to move public lands

practical common-sense management of this

into private hands, but such efforts have

country by the people that every business

proven politically elusive. One reason for the

man stands for in the handling of his own

business."4 In fact, Pinchot opposed New

difficulty in broaching the subject politically

is the widespread, but dubious, belief that the

York State's preservationist management of

federal government is more likely to preserve

the Adirondack Park because it was a waste of

good timber.5

environmental amenities than are private

owners. Another is that those who feed at the

However, we have learned since the

public trough are unwilling to give up their

Progressive Era that public ownership of

free lunches. Finally, and perhaps most

assets is less economically efficient than pri-

important, is the difficulty in drafting a

vate ownership. As Table 1 shows for fiscal

divestment plan that can appease all the spe-

years 1994, 1995, and 1996, the three main

cial-interest groups that consider themselves

land-management agencies ran large deficits

stakeholders in the public lands and that can

in every year with a total deficit in FY96

mobilize support from the much broader

exceeding $2 billion. Those aggregate losses

electorate.

came from lands managed by the three agen-

cies and valued at $150 billion in 1995.6

This study briefly surveys the federal gov-

2