Recently I was turned onto the subject of federal land management in my Environmental Biology course. I did some research regarding the topic through various organizations and I came upon an idea that I really liked of splitting up the smattering of bureaus that manage federal land into trusts managed locally by an elected group of trustees. The beneficiaries: the public, environmental groups, local governments, and businesses would be responsible for electing the trustees, while the trustor, Congress, would have oversight into the activities of the trusts. Congress would also be responsible for creating the trusts and setting the legal ground rules for the trusts’ actions as well as a legal, accountable way to reproach trusts that are abusing their authority. I feel that this may not be the best answer in every situation but it’s a good place to start the debate so as part of a class assignment I sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. The letter follows:

Dear Secretary Salazar:

The United States has a history of progressive environmental policy, as one of the first nations to institute a National Park Service, Wildlife Agency, and other important landmarks in conservation. Our nation has strived to protect our remaining environmental resources for future generations for the past 100 years quite laudably, and the 630 million acres of public land managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Wildlife Service clearly displays our nations pledge to protecting our environment.

Despite public land accounting for 28% of the entire nation’s land, the federal land management agencies fail to make revenues each year and instead cost taxpayers over $7 billion annually. This failure is the result of a number of problems: taxpayer money is spent erroneously, few people benefit from public land, agencies are rewarded by growing their budgets and not curbing them, and everyone pays the cost while no one is accountable for the way it is spent. Additionally, 90% of the revenues from federal land come from little more than 1 million acres primarily through the practice of gas, coal, and oil mining, seemingly pointing out that exploitation of non-renewable resources is the only way to make money. Of the revenues that are received by the federal land management agencies, most is retained by the individual agencies and almost none is returned to the origin of federal money, the national Treasury.

The public land and resources managed by the federal land management agencies are immensely valuable from an economic, and equally environmental, viewpoint. The largest cause of the economic difficulties of federal land management is Congress, which has basically handicapped the federal land management agencies’ ability to make money, much the same position the Postal Service is in. In certain circumstances Congress has exacerbated problems due to improper use of funds, creating incentives to overproduce through subsidies, and unfair competition with private land owners.  If Congress allowed the Forest Service to charge market rates for all federal land resources when it was initially proposed in 1989, the agency would net revenue each year with the majority of profits coming from recreation activities as opposed to gas, coal, and oil mining. Additionally, with more revenues coming from recreational activities and not non-renewable resources, managers would have an incentive to protect the resources that are renewable instead of promoting more exploitative mining and lumbering operations.

There are alternatives to the current system that could balance the needs of all the stakeholders and relieve some of the fiscal issues associated with public land management, as well as our country as a whole. One such alternative is the establishment of public fiduciary trusts to manage regional portions of public land which would accomplish the goals of Congress, environmentalists, public land users, and private citizens. Congress would act as the trustor, creating individual trusts for regional management of public land. The trustees would be elected by beneficiaries of the public land, including private citizens, environmental groups, businesses, and local governments, while the trust document would dictate how Congress would like the land used in a legally binding, accountable way.  Congress would be required to give the trusts a clear mission statement, something federal land managers lack often times.
Creating a new system does not have to instantaneously replace the old system, and in some cases changes may not be the best solution, but with over 1000 national forests, wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other assorted public lands a trial period within a few select areas could be easily accomplished. Trusts could be divided into two types which specialize in mixed use and preservation. Congress could create mixed-use trusts with a mission to maximize revenue while preserving the natural capacity of the land to be productive, whereas single-use trusts could focus on particular areas of interest such as endangered species recovery or cultural and natural ecosystem rehabilitation. Mixed-use trusts which would inevitably make more money than single-use trusts could subsidize single-use trusts in their region thus keeping money close to the community it originates in.

One example of how public fiduciary trusts could empower citizens to take an active role in protecting valuable federal environmental resources is the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately the Endangered Species Act places much of the burden of protecting endangered species on private land on the owner of the land without any incentive. Private land owners are not compensated for the loss of their land due to endangered species habitat nor are they allowed to make money off endangered species for ecotourism.  Naturally the result has been landowners fighting against the Endangered Species Act and few species recovering due to the Act. A public fiduciary trust could be formed to create incentives for private land owners to promote the recovery of animals on the Endangered Species Act as well as removing restrictions on private land owners to make money off of endangered species. Private enterprise could generate ecotourism to America as well as encourage innovation in endangered species recovery.
Continued deficit spending of any kind is dangerous for our national resources for two reasons. First, when the economy is slow the environment will be the first area to suffer, and second, the current system stifles an industry that could thrive as healthily as any other. I implore you to examine the benefits of a new system of federal land management, and use public fiduciary trusts as a jumping off point for policy discussion.  Reform does not have to start nationwide and can be instituted in just a few parks to demonstrate the effectiveness of proper management, but a system that empowers citizens and creates revenue while meeting the needs of all stakeholders is a system that will ultimately be more successful for the continued conservation of our country’s natural resources than any other.

Sincerely,

Derek Fidler

This idea for land management trusts was originally created by the CATO Institute but I felt it was one of their better ideas that was not completely free-market oriented and deserved a closer look. Let me know what you think.