Public lands dot significant portions of America’s landscape from coast to coast. Managed by a variety of agencies, these lands and waters are home to diverse ecosystems and prime settings for recreational activities. With an immense amount of annual foot traffic and billions of dollars of revenue generated, public lands play a substantial role in American lives.

For decades, there have been debates over whether or not these lands should be turned over to the states or private organizations. Now changes could become a reality, as Capitol Hill is filled with lawmakers who support transferring millions of acres of public lands away from the federal government. But the consequences of such a transfer may have more negative impacts than positive, and many citizens feel that access to public land is an American birthright.

Background of Federal Lands and Agencies

The majority of public lands in the U.S. are held in trust by the federal government and managed by a variety of agencies. According to a 2014 report, the federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, which is about 28 percent of all the land in the United States. Four agencies own over 600 million acres of that land: the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The lands are utilized primarily for recreation, preservation, and natural resource development.

U.S. Forest Service

President Benjamin Harrison established the National Forest system with 13 million acres and 15 forest reserves through the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which gave the president power to set aside and reserve public lands. Conserving land for the people was a national priority, as was obtaining acknowledgement that forested areas needed special protection from the exploitation of natural resources. With 155 forests and 20 grasslands currently totaling over 191 million acres, these lands overseen by the United States Forest Service reach diverse populations and are extremely popular destinations for a variety of outdoor and recreational activities. According to a National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report, there were over 180 million visits made to National Forest sites in 2015.

“US Federal Land Agencies” Courtesy of National Atlas of the United States: License Public Domain

The Bureau of Land Management

The BLM is responsible for managing 247.3 million acres of public land–one-eighth of all the landmasses in the country. From grazing permits to mining and coal leases, the agency administers 205,498 miles of fishable streams, 2.2 million acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 4,500 miles of National Scenic, Historic, and Recreation Trails in addition to multiple-use trails for recreation purposes. The BLM collects a significant amount of revenue from public lands. In 2016, the agency made $2 billion in royalty revenue from federal leases; the Outdoor Industry Association also estimates that $40 billion in federal tax revenue comes from the recreation industry on public lands.

The Western Concentration

Other agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers participate in federal land management and administration. Most of the federal land ownership is concentrated in the western part of the country, contributing to greater controversy over ownership and use of federal lands in the area.

Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine is a long-standing principle that the government holds some lands in trust for public use, regardless of any private property ownership. Generally, this applies to land, water, and natural resources, such as beaches and navigable rivers. While the doctrine itself varies heavily from state to state, the public may fully enjoy any public trust lands, waters, and natural resources for a “wide variety of recognized public uses.” These rights became established in the U.S. after Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, an 1892 case that held that the government cannot alienate a public right to lands under navigable waters.

“Fall Color at Natural Arch – Daniel Boone National Forest” Courtesy of US Forest Service -Southeast : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Additionally, the public trust doctrine puts a limit on private rights. A landowner may not alter their property in such a way that it would interfere with use of public land. Moreover, the doctrine specifically protects the land from misuse by the state. A state may not convey public trust lands if the conveyance could substantially impair public use of lands or waters. Thus, any move to privatize public lands may be in direct violation of the public trust doctrine, particularly if the sale would then impair the public’s use of such land or water.

Plans to Privatize Public Lands

The collective ownership of these lands, however, could possibly change if lawmakers continue down their current course. House Bill 3650, introduced to the House of Representatives in September 2015, directs the Department of Agriculture to “convey to a state up to 2 million acres of eligible portions of the National Forest System.” These portions of conveyed land will be administered and managed “primarily for timber production.” On June 15, 2016, the Natural Resources Committee voted to adopt H.R. 3650; it is currently awaiting the next stage in the lawmaking process.

Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a piece of legislation at the end of January 2017 that was later dubbed the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. In a press release for H.R. 621, Chaffetz claimed that 3.3 million acres of land maintained by the BLM “served no purpose for taxpayers.” If the bill passed, ten states were poised to lose federal land. However, he withdrew the legislation in February 2017 after facing harsh criticism from his constituents.

“Gunnison National Forest Colorado” Courtesy of David : License (CC BY 2.0)

Despite the withdrawal of H.R. 621, Republican lawmakers still laid out a plan to give away roughly 640 million acres of land in early 2017. Lawmakers overwrote the value of federal lands by changing a single line of rules for the House of Representatives, making it easy to dispose of federal property–even if it ends up losing money for the government and there’s no compensation for American citizens. In essence, the change states that transferring public land to “state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays.” The land would be given to the states, and then could possibly be sold to private owners.

As a result, places like the Grand Canyon National Park and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which are rich in uranium and copper respectively, may be up for grabs first. The oil-rich lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could also be vulnerable for sale. According to Alan Rowsome, the senior director of government relations for The Wilderness Society, it seems very likely that Alaska’s national lands will be open for drilling under a Republican-controlled House. Many western states are already taking the necessary actions to prepare for public land transfers.

Criticism of Privatization

First things first: critics fear that local governments with small budgets will not be able to manage the land once it is transferred to them by the federal government. In the summer of 2016, the Forest Service spent $240 million a week to fight forest fires, and the Department of Interior has estimated that the cost of deferred maintenance is around $11 billion. Over time, whenever federal land has been given to states, it has become less accessible. Between 2000 and 2009, Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of public land; in Colorado, citizens may only use 20 percent of state trust land for hunting and fishing.

Private ownership of public tracts of land has profound consequences, as it will probably affect land managed and regulated by conservation programs or private entities, likely reducing public access. Public access to National Forests contributes greatly to state economies; a report completed by the Outdoor Industry Association found that the outdoor industry directly impacts over six million jobs and contributes to $646 billion in outdoor recreation spending. The Outdoor Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of groups that support outdoor activities, has argued that any action to transfer lands to private hands is a “public land heist.”

A 2016 Harvard Kennedy School study, found that 95 percent of the American public believes in the importance of protecting national parks and 80 percent would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to do so. Such an overwhelming response certainly indicates that protecting public places is incredibly important to Americans.

Conclusion

While there is still time before these resolutions become law, plans to privatize our forests have been set in motion on numerous occasions. If Americans’ access is restricted and these lands are exploited for a profit, the primary purpose of establishing public lands for citizen use will disappear. In the famous words of President Teddy Roosevelt, champion of conservation and public lands, “I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few . . . Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Land is Your Land: Should Public Lands Be Privatized? appeared first on Law Street.

Logging was once a major industry in the western United States and often supported entire towns in rural areas. In the 1970s and 80s, under pressure from environmental groups, the federal government dramatically reduced timber harvesting inside federally protected land, reducing logging activity by up to 80 percent in some areas. Since the rampant wildfires that have swept through western states such as California, Nevada, and Oregon over the past few summers, many have called for increased logging inside national parks and forests in order to thin forests and decrease the number of destructive wildfires each year. Read on to learn about the logging industry, and the arguments for and against allowing continued logging in national parks and forests.

What has the government been doing about logging on federal land?

The House of Representatives passed the “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act” (HR 1526), a bill that would require a minimum quota of timber to be harvested from federal lands each year for the creation of lumber or bio-mass energy, while removing environmental and federal restrictions to timber recovery projects in order to expedite this process. While the bill passed the Republican-controlled House with a 244-173 vote, political experts predict the bill has little chance of passing the Democrat-held Senate, especially after the Obama administration has promised to veto the bill if it reaches the President’s desk. The debate will most likely be ongoing until some sort of legislation can be agreed upon.

What’s the argument for logging in forests?

Logging supporters argue that forests have become too dense and overcrowded, and that forest thinning could help reduce the risk of forest fires while stimulating the economy. In the summer of 2013, a fire in the Yosemite Rim incinerated 400 square miles of forest while endangering nearby communities, and numerous similar fires have prompted affected residents to look for ways to reduce the threat of wildfire.

Forest fires not only threaten the trees in a particular area, but the wildlife as well. Some experts have indicated that fires such as these are increasing in frequency due to the increased density of national forests, caused by the reduction of logging in these areas in the 70s and 80s. Californians have a vested interest in the health of their national forests, as in addition to the yearly threat of wildfires, roughly 75 percent of California’s drinking water comes from forest watersheds. Many believe forest thinning through logging can improve the health of national forests and protect local wildlife.

Increased logging activity means more revenue for rural counties, where logging mills are often located, and more jobs in these areas. Many rural communities have experienced economic decline since environmental concerns decreased logging on federally protected lands. The authors of HR 1526framed the bill as a measure to both decrease the risk of wildfires and stimulate the job market in economically stagnant communities.

What is the argument against logging in forests?

Opponents of HR 1526, including Senate Democrats and the White House, are apprehensive about the bill’s measures to decrease regulations on logging, while pointing out that the economic stimulation of logging would counteract the outdoor recreation industries that have flourished in these same regions. An integral part of the bill is a measure to decrease public input, environmental analysis, and federal regulation of timber harvesting projects, which opponents say decreases control over the timber industry and would lead to a resumption of rampant deforestation experienced in the early-to-mid twentieth century. While the logging industry could create more jobs and provide economic stimulation to rural counties, logging would damage the outdoor recreation industry that has flourished in communities adjacent to national parks and forest. Therefore, HR 1526 would essentially destroy one newly established industry in the hope of reinstating what many consider an antiquated industry.

Many opponents also point out that in past TSPIRS reports (Timber Sale Information Reporting System), the US Forest Service repeatedly reported significant losses in its timber sales. Although the Forest Service has not released one of these reports since 1997, opponents of logging in national parks do not expect the logging industry to be much more profitable for the US Forest Service now than it was then.

Many scientists point out that forest wildfires are a natural part of the life of any forest, and that while in the short term these wildfires destroy trees, wildlife, and their habitats, in the long run wildfires help create enriched soil, greater biodiversity, and the greater overall health of a forest. While it is important to protect communities at risk of wildfire destruction, forest thinning would actually do little to improve the health of American forests.

Conclusion

Logging is both a way to provide energy and keep forest populations under control, but when done in excess it can be harmful. The political debate about logging has been contentious, but with the constant changes brought by the environment, the political landscape, and logging companies, but it is a hot topic to keep an eye on.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. Congress: Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act

Additional

Billings Gazette: Barrasso Sponsors Bill to Increase Logging in National Forests

CBS Sacramento: Rim Fire Prompts Calls for Opening National Forests to Logging

San Francisco Gate: Pro and Con on the Healthy Forest Initiative

Jefferson Public Radio: Groups Aim to Boost Logging, Restoration in Olympic National Forest

A New Century of Forest Planning: Planning in HR 1526

Earth First: Greenwashing Senators Call for Increased Logging in National Forests

Kentucky Heartwood: The Economics of Logging Our National Forests

AmericanForests.org: Burning Hot: The Evolution of Eastern and Western Fires

All Gov California: House GOP OK’s a Lot More Logging in California National Forests

Los Angeles Times: House OK’s More Logging in National Forests, Including in California

AmericanForests.org: HR 1526: Limiting Judicial Review of Forest Management

Jurist: U.S. House Approves Bill to Increase Logging in National Forests

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Logging in National Parks and Forests: A Contentious Debate appeared first on Law Street.