New study makes case for state control of federal lands

The Property and Environment Research Center is a national and even international leader on applying free market principles to pressing environmental issues. With the growing controversy over federal land management issues throughout the American West, PERC took a closer look at the different ways in which federal and state lands are managed. Their new paper is called “Divided Lands.”

* The federal government loses money managing valuable natural resources on federal lands, while states generate significant financial returns from state trust lands.

* The states examined in this study earn an average of $14.51 for every dollar spent on state trust land management. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management generate only 73 cents in return for every dollar spent on federal land management.

* On average, states generate more revenue per dollar spent than the federal government on a variety of land management activities, including timber, grazing, minerals, and recreation management.

* These outcomes are the result of the different statutory, regulatory, and administrative frameworks that govern state and federal lands. States have a fiduciary responsibility to generate revenues from state trust lands, while federal land agencies face overlapping and conflicting regulations and often lack a clear mandate.

* If federal lands were transferred, states could likely earn much greater revenues than the federal government. However, transfer proponents must consider how land management would have to change in order to generate those revenues under state control.

Legislation has been introduced in the New Mexico Legislature to study federal lands management in New Mexico. The Rio Grande Foundation also has a paper available which details just how much better New Mexico could manage its federal lands than Washington from a financial perspective.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Replies to “New study makes case for state control of federal lands”

  1. I agree that, in general, states can manage their own lands more effectively and efficiently. However, how well a state manages is also dependent upon who is elected to be the state land manager. The Federal government is moving to control more and more state lands. Under this administration which supports U.N. Agenda 21, its aim is for the Feds to control as much land as possible. It is not a good trend. Our Senators have been moving in lock step with the current White House resulting in New Mexico losing more and more control over its land. Elections do matter.

    1. Proper management does require good people to be in place, but a lot of issues can be addressed simply by changing the incentives.

  2. Sportsman often come down on the side of Federal management because they believe that the Feds will do a better job of keeping access open for hunting, fishing and other outdoor sports. The Obama administrations record for land management has been one of high-handed disregard for the interests of the states and their residents. Federal control leaves us one executive order away from loosing total access to the land with no recourse. I believe the states will do a better job of management and can be held more accountable to serve the interests of the states and outdoorsman.

    1. Thanks Fred. I have had some sportsmen express concern to me as well. There is no doubt that the State of NM has its problems, but I’d trust someone in Santa Fe who is presented with a realistic set of incentives more than I trust a bureaucrat 2,000 miles away in Washington who must make decisions based on one-size-fits-all policy regimes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.