Sale of Federal Lands

[shelbo]

So, at the same time the House Republican leadership is struggling to come up with a budget that they all can support, certain members are pushing yet another massive gift to industry. The oil companies got their billions in the recently passed energy bill. Now its the mining interests turn.

A House bill would let mining firms and others buy federal acreage at a deep discount.

I’ve always been opposed to the cut rate rentals, grazing rights fees, mining fees, etc., charged to those that use federal land, that have acted as defacto corporate welfare for years. This bill would make all that look like a drop in the bucket – a massive give-away to the mining interests and others.

Can anyone defend this bill? (Industry types welcome?)

[Renob]

Of course it’s defensible. In fact, I think it’s one of the best ideas Congress has come up with in a while.

The federal government owns huge amounts of land in the West. Idaho, for instance, is over 60% owned by the feds. Nevada is over 90% federal land. This, in general, is horrible for local communities. For one, local governments cannot tax federal land so they lose out on huge amounts of revenue that could be going to pay for local services. The feds do have a program that pays counties a percentage of the revenue that comes from this land, but it’s miniscule in comparison to what would be gained by property taxes if the land were private. Two, the federal ownership means that the decisions about what happens on this land are made in Washington, DC, not in the local community. In towns that are heavily dependent on natural resource industries this can be disastrous. For example, many towns in the West were devastated when the feds in the early- to mid-nineties cut back on logging in national forests. These towns were further hurt when the Clinton Administration started restricting access to public land, making recreation on that land more difficult.

Of course, there are other reasons why the land should be sold. For example, it is a huge potential money-maker for the feds to sell the land. The government is short on money right now, so why not sell off some assets? While some land should always remain in the hands of the feds (Yellowstone, for instance), I don’t think that it’s necessary for them to own 90% of Nevada. Of course, this also presupposes that there are people who would want to buy the land. Much of it is in the middle of nowhere and I doubt you’d find a buyer.

Another reason for selling the land is that the feds manage it very poorly. National forest land, for instance, is much more prone to forest fires than private land. The feds have for years pursued policies that encourage fires (suppression of small fires and reduction of logging) and if this land were in private hands it would likely be better managed.

I say the feds should sell pretty much all the land they own in the West. If they can’t sell it, give it away. It would reduce the cost to the Treasury of managing it, it would provide much needed property taxes to local counties, it would be better managed than it is now, and the decisions made about its use would be more reflective of local will than is now the case.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Renob

Of course it’s defensible. In fact, I think it’s one of the best ideas Congress has come up with in a while.
<snip>
I say the feds should sell pretty much all the land they own in the West. If they can’t sell it, give it away. It would reduce the cost to the Treasury of managing it, it would provide much needed property taxes to local counties, it would be better managed than it is now, and the decisions made about its use would be more reflective of local will than is now the case.

I’ll not argue that you don’t make some good points in general, but the devil is in the details. You did not address the actual question - can you defend this bill? You would need to address:
[ul]
[li]While the patent fees would rise from $2.50 or $5 an acre to $1,000, the price would continue to exclude the mineral worth, which can amount to billions of dollars. Is this proper recompense or a giveaway to mining companies?[/li][li]…former Interior officials say the measure would open the door to the widespread privatization of federal lands used by millions of people for hiking, hunting, and off-road driving. Is not part of the government’s role to maintain a national infrastructure that all can enjoy?[/li][li]Park officials are worried that other parts of the proposal could overturn Mojave National Preserve protections that restrict patent claims to minerals and prohibit private acquisition of the land in which the minerals are found. Are there detrimental effects of opening preserves and national parks?[/li][/ul]
Additionally, I’d make the claim that local management of the land typically exhibits a “tradgedy of commons” outlook. In other words, at a local level, why not exploit (i.e., damage) the land for as much as it is monetarily worth? It’s only one little sliver of land in the grand scheme of things.

Not only that, but – and this is my opinion – I believe privatization is in direct conflict with many environmental issues; monetary gains are not the primary factor for deciding land use. A proper role of the federal government is to keep lands undeveloped, for the benefit of everyone. We might argue about the proper amount to be set aside, but I think that selling “pretty much all the land they own in the West” goes way too far.

[Renob]

@Digital Stimulus

While the patent fees would rise from $2.50 or $5 an acre to $1,000, the price would continue to exclude the mineral worth, which can amount to billions of dollars. Is this proper recompense or a giveaway to mining companies?

My expertise is not in mining policy so I can’t talk about this specifically. However, I will say that with issues like this there is often much more to the issue than news reports suggest. For example, I don’t think the mineral worth of many of these areas is known. It takes a lot of money to explore for minerals and when companies buy these fees they are basically engaging in speculation.

That being said, I don’t have a problem with this even if it amounts to a “giveaway” to mining companies. It will create jobs in the local area, the minerals are better utilized when extracted than when sitting in the ground, and the government shouldn’t be in the job of extracting minerals. Why let the ground sit idle when it can be better utilized by private companies?

[quote]
[li]…former Interior officials say the measure would open the door to the widespread privatization of federal lands used by millions of people for hiking, hunting, and off-road driving. Is not part of the government’s role to maintain a national infrastructure that all can enjoy?[/li][/quote]

No. I don’t see it as the government’s job to keep land idle so a small minority can hike, hunt, or drive off-road. Even so, there are millions of acres of federal land. Even if half of it were sold, there would still be plenty left for recreation purposes. And let’s say that some national forest land were sold to timber companies. Those companies traditionally let people go hiking, off-roading, and hunting on their lands. Where I grew up we had plenty of timber company land around our place and it was never off-limits to us. In fact, over the past ten years or so it has been more likely for government to limit such uses on their lands rather than private companies.

[quote]
[li]Park officials are worried that other parts of the proposal could overturn Mojave National Preserve protections that restrict patent claims to minerals and prohibit private acquisition of the land in which the minerals are found. Are there detrimental effects of opening preserves and national parks?[/li][/quote]

Can’t address this as I’m not specific with the protections mentioned.

Additionally, I’d make the claim that local management of the land typically exhibits a “tradgedy of commons” outlook.

I think you have it backwards. The “tragedy of the commons” comes when land is owned in common (i.e., by the government) and people exploit it because no one actually owns it. To avoid the tragedy of the commons you privatize the resource and it’s almost always utilized better.

In other words, at a local level, why not exploit (i.e., damage) the land for as much as it is monetarily worth? It’s only one little sliver of land in the grand scheme of things.

Actually, it works just the opposite. If land has a private owner that person is much more inclined to take better care of the land than a government bureaucrat who is thousands of miles away from the land.

[jayjay]

@Renob

Actually, it works just the opposite. If land has a private owner that person is much more inclined to take better care of the land than a government bureaucrat who is thousands of miles away from the land.

Ah. Must be the definition of “take better care” that includes stripmining it. Are you of the opinion that mining companies would “take better care of it” than the government is doing simply by letting it remain in its natural state?

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Renob

However, I will say that with issues like this there is often much more to the issue than news reports suggest.

Agreed. Furthermore, I’ll willingly concede that I’m most likely more ignorant than you regarding any specifics.

Why let the ground sit idle when it can be better utilized by private companies?

And I think this is the crux of any disagreement we might have. IMHO, the “best use” of land, at least when talking about national parks, nature preserves, etc. is often exactly to let it “sit idle”. Having grown up in NJ gives one a certain perspective regarding open space. Again, I want to point out that I’m not advocating for an extreme position, just a matter of degree that is less than “sell pretty much all the land they own in the West”.

I think you have it backwards. The “tragedy of the commons” comes when land is owned in common (i.e., by the government) and people exploit it because no one actually owns it. To avoid the tragedy of the commons you privatize the resource and it’s almost always utilized better.

I may very well have used the wrong phrase. Sorry about that; I ran into similar problems with the phrase “zero-sum game” awhile back. I’d ask you to ignore that phrase.

Actually, it works just the opposite. If land has a private owner that person is much more inclined to take better care of the land than a government bureaucrat who is thousands of miles away from the land.

And that, in my experience, is simply not true. Yes, it may be the case for, say, single family dwellings (but certainly not always). It may be true for a campground. But it is not categorically true. Do you have any statistics to back that up? I ask because I often hear people make that claim, but have never seen support for it. And I have little idea as to how one might even go about establishing it.

I’d also argue that the phrase “take care of the land” implies an active process that, in certain cases, is inherently detrimental. I don’t expect to find agreement there, so put that aside. Claiming that private ownership is always best ignores the fact that the ruling principle for “using the land” for corporate interests is “how can we make money”. Not only is that an improper perspective regarding the environment, it is (almost) always a short-term goal that willingly disregards future impact.

While corporate ownership is not necessarily bad (I’m not about to equate “corporate” with “evil”), it often is. For instance, strip mining (not that I’m saying the land in question will be used for strip mining, it’s just an egregious example of abuse). Another example comes from my youth – W.R. Grace owned a piece of land a couple blocks away from where I grew up. It’s now a superfund site (or was, I think it’s been successfully cleaned up) due to their dumping thorium on the premises.

So, it seems to me that you have three points: (1) revenue, (2) private vs. governmental management, and (3) local vs. federal management. As to (1), I’d argue that revenue should not be the overriding consideration in opening land. For (2), I’d argue that private ownership is not always best. As to (3), I’d argue that, analogically, the local level misses the forest for the trees; that is, a local decision cannot have the broad view required when discussing the environment. Again, each of these is a matter of degree; perhaps 90% of Nevada is too much. Perhaps there are policies that would suffice. But, in the case of minerals, we’re talking about non-renewable resources…once we go forward, we can’t go back. And the non-monetary value of the land is, IMO, greater than the value to be gained by its opening.