Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Let the West Control Their Own Land
Washington DC controls less than 5 percent of the land in the United States. Well, states in the east and Midwest, that is. Look west of Kansas, and the feds control 50 percent of the land. To illustrate the disparity, I did what I do, and created a map.
Thankfully, some GOP congressmen and new Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke are working to reduce the Beltway’s role, at least a bit. They’re looking into abuses of the Antiquities Act, a law that gives the White House unilateral power to designate millions of square miles off limits to its citizens. Obama created 22 new national monuments with the stroke of his pen, more than any other president. Looking back at the entire post-war period, Democratic presidents have proclaimed 60 monuments compared to just four by Republicans.
Arizona Reps. Trent Franks, Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar joined several other congressmen in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, asking him to roll back a handful of these power grabs. The letter was in response to an executive order asking Zinke to review 27 monuments, especially those created in the past two decades under the often-abused Antiquities Act.
Signed in 1906 with the best of intentions, the act was intended to protect prehistoric Indian ruins and artifacts on federal lands, but limits proclamations to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects.” Ignoring this clear language, President Obama’s monuments regularly exceeded 1 million acres.
As usual, the critics of this idea are shrieking about mustache-twirling mining magnates, never realizing that they’re demanding the Trump administration control these lands instead of the progressive governments of California, Oregon, et al.
While Zinke’s efforts are appreciated, western states deserve a much more fundamental reform. There is no reason for the feds to control so much of the west while controlling so little of everywhere else.
As he looks to rebalance the ledger of federal vs. state lands, Secretary Zinke should consider a more fundamental reform: transferring a portion of these millions of acres to the states. Obviously, national parks, military bases and congressionally designated wilderness areas will remain in federal hands, but other public lands will be better managed by local leaders than by Washington bureaucrats.
Back in the 19th century, the federal government controlled as much as 90 percent of the land in Midwestern and southern states. These states appealed to Congress, which eventually handed over the vast majority.
Western states deserve the same authority that the rest of the country enjoys. We can govern our own lands and managing the use and growth more effectively than Beltway functionaries.
And if state leaders fall down on their jobs, it’s far easier for Arizonans to hold them accountable at the ballot box.
This is the only fair and just solution, both for western Americans and for all the other Americans who are footing the bill to manage these lands. Do you agree?
Published in Environment, Law
I got the figures from here, but different lists calculate the total using different methods. One commonly used chart pulls data from 2004, which seemed too old to use. Also, I intentionally did not include Indian reserves, since they are technically sovereign lands.
Ugh. I knew I should have paid more attention in statistics class. Thanks for the heads-up.
You can right-click this larger image here.
Selling off Federal lands to reduce our debt would be a monumental mistake. First the debt is from spending and unless that stops nothing will help. The return to the Park Service, the national forests and the BLM lands are enormous, moreover their value is far more than the market price which would be the discounted value of future returns. These aren’t financial assets or productive capital goods. Their value is the demand for their multiple uses and that grows through time so discounted value has no meaning. Visit cities in the west where all the great recreation lands, river banks, rivers, lakes and streams are privately owned. Those towns are poor. Visit towns near parks and national forests, they thrive with hotels, restaurants fly shops, boat sales, camping grounds, trailer parks, tents etc.. Many if not most sales of these things through them would not exist were there not public lands to use them on. Then there is the corruption that would occur should we decide to sell them. If the Federal Government in Washington were’t corrupt we wouldn’t have those enormous debts. The Forest Service, Park Service and Blm career employees are among the few parts of the Federal government that work. Naturally their leadership and lobbyists want to grow their lands and their budget and that has to be stopped, that expansion is also corrupting. They aren’t broke except to the extent Washington politicians try to exploit them for their own purposes. Selling them to cronies would be one of them. They can always be improved, they don’t need to grow except some good trades are possible, but we don’t want to sell them off. God Forbid.
There is an old axiom: Beware of unintended consequences.
What we have here once again is another instance of the leftist Democrat Brezhnev doctrine one way ratchet . Once they take something it’s theirs forever , all future negotiations are about what’s left of your share. This is why they go seemingly nuts about even the slightest rollback in federal spending on any thing at all (except defense or other security isues) They will close down the entire government rather than cut a dime from say Planned Parenthood, and somehow make it look like the Republicans are being unreasonable.
They will not sell off even a single square inch of federal land without going stark raving mad shrieking — ‘People will DIE! ‘. Just about every time, the Republicans are not up to the fight and give in , it just isn’t that important to them plus they are sickeningly inarticulate against the lefty talking points. Even on the few occasions when an inch is gained back the Republicans are left bleeding and exhausted by the fight while the left renews the attack with even more ferocity. As Mark Steyn said just last week the Democrats bet on the fact that the Republicans have no guts, and they’re usually right.
‘ Our victories are few and fleeting while theirs are many and permanent’ –John Derbyshire
I suspect that the progressive governments of California, Oregon, and the rest are more than happy to have the costs for any maintenance on this land on the Federal books and not their own. If there were any significant revenue to be made from owning the land the states would be screaming for it. I spent half of my life out West. There’s a good reason most of this land isn’t privately owned.
It’s pretty, some parts much more so than others. It’s also pretty barren.