As I am listening to Randy's Podcast right now about the public land transfer, I got to thinking about the reasons why this came up at all. Obviously this whole thing is about money right? Federal Government wants to give it to the states so they don't have to pay for it right? So how can we make it so that our public lands pay for them selves, and take away the need to transfer them? How much do these public lands cost the federal government each year?
How To Make Public Lands Pay For Themselves
- Thread starter iHunt
- Start date
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Well for starters we could require mineral leases on federal land to be at market value. In new mexico for instance there are areas that the fed is leasing blm for $31 an acre and the going rate on private land adjacent to it is $30,000 an acre. Also make federal lands pugh out, have strigent unit size restrictions, vertical pugh clauses, better royalty rates, cost free royalties, etc. We are getting absolutely hosed on federal oil and gas leases, which is why there is a huge push by the oil and gas industry to open up drilling on more of these lands. Companies can make a ton of money on public land even when the prices are so low that drilling on private land isn't fiscally viable. Seems irresponsible to sell off the minerals that we all jointly own at the lowest price possible.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Federal public lands already pay for themselves...many times over.
Last edited:
Mind explaining what you mean by that?
My thinking is that if every year the federal public lands made more than they costed, the federal government would keep them no questions asked. To me, it seems that the only logical reason the feds want to transfer them to the states is because they don't wan't to pay for it?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think this is looking at it backwards. The federal government doesn't want to divest, there is no government accountant saying hey this is costing us too much lets sell these lands.
Certain politicians, that are financially backed by large landowners and interests in the extraction industries, are pushing a privatize agenda using state transfer as a vehicle so that their backers can make a ton of money. The final goal is individuals getting vast swaths of land for cheap so they can make a fortune, the federal to state transfer is just a new strategy to achieve this end since direct transfer is publicly distasteful and untenable.
Certain politicians, that are financially backed by large landowners and interests in the extraction industries, are pushing a privatize agenda using state transfer as a vehicle so that their backers can make a ton of money. The final goal is individuals getting vast swaths of land for cheap so they can make a fortune, the federal to state transfer is just a new strategy to achieve this end since direct transfer is publicly distasteful and untenable.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ihunt, sure, its pretty easy to explain.
Outdoor recreation generates 887 billion in consumer spending, that supports 7.6 million American jobs. Much of the outdoor recreation we all enjoy, along with the economy of same, is tied to Federal public lands. Along with that comes billions in taxes paid to local, state, and the federal governments.
Depending on the sources you find, the estimated cost to the taxpayer is about 8-9 billion a year to manage federal lands.
I'm unsure on how that cost of management is off set by grazing fees, mineral royalties, timber receipts, etc. etc.
Don't forget to, that there are lots of benefits that people receive from Federal lands:
What is clean water worth?
How much do States benefit from the BLM, NPS, USFWS, and FS providing wildlife habitat, food, and water for the States wildlife Resources?
Also, keep in mind that under multiple use management, there is NO mandate for federal lands to make money...none. That's for good reason, since it would be impossible to manage in a way "that some land be used for less than all of the resources, and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment to the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return, or the greatest unit output".
There is a huge misunderstanding, mostly pushed by politicians that haven't the first g-damn clue about what multiple use really means, that we have to squeeze every last dollar out of our public land resources. Its a complete and total lie, and the most basic lack of understanding of what the MUSYA says and what multiple use really is.
I would contend that either our politicians have a complete lack of comprehension, have never read the MUSYA, or are a pack of lying, bought and paid for bastards, when it comes to the concept of multiple use. Frankly, I don't care which of the 3 it is, but they better get with the program, because myself and many others HAVE read the act, know what it says, and what it means.
But, all that aside, there is very little question of the value provided to the economics of the United States from Federal lands, not many things I can think of with the same ROI that our public land assets provide.
So, yeah, they pay for themselves many times over.
Outdoor recreation generates 887 billion in consumer spending, that supports 7.6 million American jobs. Much of the outdoor recreation we all enjoy, along with the economy of same, is tied to Federal public lands. Along with that comes billions in taxes paid to local, state, and the federal governments.
Depending on the sources you find, the estimated cost to the taxpayer is about 8-9 billion a year to manage federal lands.
I'm unsure on how that cost of management is off set by grazing fees, mineral royalties, timber receipts, etc. etc.
Don't forget to, that there are lots of benefits that people receive from Federal lands:
What is clean water worth?
How much do States benefit from the BLM, NPS, USFWS, and FS providing wildlife habitat, food, and water for the States wildlife Resources?
Also, keep in mind that under multiple use management, there is NO mandate for federal lands to make money...none. That's for good reason, since it would be impossible to manage in a way "that some land be used for less than all of the resources, and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment to the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return, or the greatest unit output".
There is a huge misunderstanding, mostly pushed by politicians that haven't the first g-damn clue about what multiple use really means, that we have to squeeze every last dollar out of our public land resources. Its a complete and total lie, and the most basic lack of understanding of what the MUSYA says and what multiple use really is.
I would contend that either our politicians have a complete lack of comprehension, have never read the MUSYA, or are a pack of lying, bought and paid for bastards, when it comes to the concept of multiple use. Frankly, I don't care which of the 3 it is, but they better get with the program, because myself and many others HAVE read the act, know what it says, and what it means.
But, all that aside, there is very little question of the value provided to the economics of the United States from Federal lands, not many things I can think of with the same ROI that our public land assets provide.
So, yeah, they pay for themselves many times over.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Federal Mineral Royalties from Coal in Wyoming alone were $263.5 million, Federal Mineral Bonus Payments were $212.9 million, AML funds were $49.9 million, total was $526.3 million. This is for one year, 2014. By contrast State royalties and rent was $48.1 million. And therein lies why the States want the Fed land, the pay is way better.
The states didn't have this land taken away from them. As states joined the US the government owned the land already and states had to sign an Enabling Act to forego claims to federal lands in their states. As a Texan, my warning is we do not want our western states to become like it is here (in Texas) with less than +-2% public lands that are accessible for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, etc. It sucks.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
You also need to keep in mind that no one at the land management agencies just sits down and decides what to charge for various economic uses (grazing leases, mineral leases, etc.). All of that has been dictated by various legislation enacted by Congress. So when you hear elected officials in Washington bitching about how "the government" mismanages federal lands and doesn't charge market rates, they are banking on the fact that no one realizes THEY ARE "the government" who set it up that way, and the only ones who have the power to change it. They don't do that, however, because deep pockets are paying them to keep the status quo so they can continue to use those arguments as a justification for transfer of lands to states.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
^^^^^^^ Exactly.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
O.p
You have to understand that the same legislators who are currently charging under market value for grazing fees, mineral royalties, timber receipts, etc on federally managed land Are the ones saying we should give it to the states to manage "better".
You have to understand that the same legislators who are currently charging under market value for grazing fees, mineral royalties, timber receipts, etc on federally managed land Are the ones saying we should give it to the states to manage "better".
Ding! Ding! Ding! ^^^This is the correct answer! wllm1313 is spot on his assessment.
Another very accurate assessment IMO. It seems very odd to me that those in charge of writing the laws/policies that pertain the the use of federal lands would rather sell the lands than change the current laws/policies...
This^^^
A whole bunch comes out of the agencies normal budget. That in turn takes away money and resources for other work. The push for wildfires to be declared natural disasters/emergencies is an effort to get funding outside of the normal budget. This is just for the USFS, but I'm guessing a chart for BLM would look similar.
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/08/5/cost-fighting-wildfires-sapping-forest-service-budget
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think fires on public lands are a bit of a red herring. If there is a major wildfire on private ranch land federal dollars are used to pay for that to be put out. My parents house abuts a big ranch that has fires numerous times over the last decade, I have watched helicopters and tanker plans drop slurry all over the ranch and I know from talking to the landowner that neither he nor his insurance company was ever charged a dime, everything was paid for by the fed or state. My point being, if you transferred every acre of public land in the west to private timber companies and ranches, it's not like fires would stop happening or these landowners are going to drop millions on fire crews, planes, helicopters etc.
Uncle Sam or the State is going to pay large scale disaster relief regardless of the owner... I would prefer that that land owner was us!
Uncle Sam or the State is going to pay large scale disaster relief regardless of the owner... I would prefer that that land owner was us!
Last edited by a moderator:
Wildfires are not a red herring. In Idaho, fires outside of federal land are paid by the state of Idaho. $50 million for 2015 and 2016. The Forest Service currently pay the bulk of fires on fed land. Remove federal ownership and the wildfire burden goes to the states as the precedent exists. The Pioneer Fire was one of eight wildfires in Idaho in 2016. Idaho's budget would rise from $50 million to $200 million plus! In case you don't know, Idaho is a poor state that requires a balanced budget. Idaho's largest budget item is education (where it ranks number 48 in spending per student). Literally, Idaho will need to cut education funding to fight wildfires. The other alternative to balance the budget is to sell assets (land) while they can until that asset is gone.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
You are 100% correct. I meant it's a red herring the the federal versus. private debate on public lands. It is certainly the mechanism that will led the state to have to sell public lands to private owners if they were transferred.
Currently Fed government/ State pays for fires --> land transfer --> State pays for fires unless there is a state of emergency by the fed --> State can't pay for fires sells to private interests --> Fed/State pay for fires because they impact the public even though they are in now privately owned forests
Who pays for the fires won't change in the long run.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
When Utah sent it's best used car salesman up to Idaho. I remember one legislator asking - "after we sue the feds for ownership and win who will cover the cost of fighting fires?"
The answer was - "Well we would like to think that the federal government would continue to help the states with those costs."
The audience had to be reminded to remain quiet.
The other funny one was when another legislator asked - "who will pay for the maintenance of all of the roads and trails on what is currently FS/blm ground."
Answer - "The county is currently doing all of the maintenance on minor roads and trails within it's boundaries so that's a non issue."
Say no more you had me at "we would like to think"
The answer was - "Well we would like to think that the federal government would continue to help the states with those costs."
The audience had to be reminded to remain quiet.
The other funny one was when another legislator asked - "who will pay for the maintenance of all of the roads and trails on what is currently FS/blm ground."
Answer - "The county is currently doing all of the maintenance on minor roads and trails within it's boundaries so that's a non issue."
Say no more you had me at "we would like to think"
Similar threads
