1

General Overview
Of the 635-640 million acres owned by the federal government, over half are located in
Alaska and the West. Four agencies, the US Forest Service (USFS), the National Park
Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) oversee 609 million acres of land. Largely, this land has been designated
for public use and is primarily managed for purposes related to recreation and to the
preservation and development of natural resources (Gorte et al., 2012). Recently,
congressional initiatives at both the state and federal levels have sought to transfer
ownership of this land from the federal government to the states, as several states,
particularly in the West, have identified federally held public lands as an untapped
revenue-generating source. Many state legislatures in recent years have been forced to
find alternative methods to fight budget shortfalls and slowing economic growth, thereby
increasing the desirability of a federal land handoff. With an estimated $150 trillion in
natural resource and mineral value held in federal lands, it is no surprise that the states
wish to reap some of the benefits in their own backyard (Branham, 2013). With the
federal government owning and managing roughly 47% of the total land mass of the 11
coterminous western states (Gorte et al., 2012), state legislatures are up in arms over lack
of access to what they wish to be state-owned lands.
For their part, members of Congress have responded to concerns over the lack of
financial return under the current system for both federal and state governments as well
as to charges of poor land stewardship (Fretwell and Regan, 2015). Existing proposals
focus primarily on transferring federal multiple-use lands which will allow the federal
government to retain ownership of national parks, national monuments, and several
designated wilderness areas (Fretwell and Regan, 2015).
It is important to note that the return on investment in public land management is largely
contingent upon management goals and objectives. Several studies have shown that
revenues generated on public land by state-operated natural resource agencies often
greatly surpass revenues generated by federal agencies. Part of this discrepancy in

2
revenues may be due to varying management objectives: federal agencies may have a
more proactive management style while the states are more passive in their management
approach. In many cases, natural resource extraction, namely shale gas and oil, is where
the real monetary value of these lands lies. Primarily a function of the BLM, public land
mineral rights have been leased to energy companies for many years, and for the large
part have posed little interference for land management practices on lands designated for
other uses. Western states have turned to North Dakota, which generated an estimated
$839 million in fiscal year 2011 (Holeywell, 2011) while doubling the size of its
economy in just eleven years (Ellis, 2014), as an example of what could be.
While states petition for the handover of federal lands, the Federal Land Freedom Act of
2015 (S.490), was introduced to congress on February 13, 2015. The stated objective of
the bill is to achieve domestic energy independence by empowering States to control the
development and production of all forms of energy on all available Federal land (Inhofe,
2015). In effect, members of the federal government are seeking to give states exactly
what they are after. However there are opponents who believe that to hand over control of
all public lands to states would be a grave mistake.
Environmental, conservation, and wildlife groups are concerned that with the transfer of
federal land to state ownership, there may come a time when states could decide to
privatize the land by selling it to the highest bidders. This privatization would effectively
close off access to land previously available to all citizens for private or industrial
development. Should S.490 pass through Congress, states will have sole jurisdiction over
public lands, thereby excluding, nigh excommunicating members of the public, who have
traditionally voiced concern and provided insight towards better management of public
lands. Data shows that states can most efficiently manage public lands, but the central
issue is whether states can best manage the land so that management does not become an
economic burden while ensuring that public access and environmental quality is not
compromised.

Background
The Land
At present, lawmakers have three options: decrease, maintain, or increase the amount of
federal public land holdings. To decide between these three options, policymakers must
consider the priority of land maintenance versus new acquisitions and the current
condition of existing government infrastructure on said land. They must seek to find an
optimal balance between natural resource use and human use. They also must determine
exactly who stands to benefit from the use of public land (Gorte et al., 2012). An aspect
that has received little political attention in this debate is the legacy of the land. These
lands were set aside long ago by people who realized the need for some areas to remain
relatively undisturbed. Today, land management agencies employ scientists and managers
whose sole purpose is to maintain the health of these areas. The nations system of public
lands creates a legacy that will allow future generations the opportunity to experience
nature.
A healthy landscape is a productive one. An optimally functioning landscape can provide
many ecological and economical services, including water filtration and purification,
floodwater control, erosion control, and groundwater recharge. A healthy landscape can
also contribute positively to an areas biodiversity. For human needs, land may provide
harvestable timber, grazing for livestock, recreation opportunities, and mineral extraction
prospects.

4
There are several types of federal public land, not all of which are subject to the
considerations of S.490. Lands considered unavailable for ownership exchange in S.490
include land that:

Is not held by the United States in trust for the benefit of a federally recognized

Indian tribe
Is not a unit of the National Park System
Is not a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Is not a congressionally-designated wilderness area

Federal multiple-use lands are most likely to be subject to this proposed legislation.
Multiple-use is defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource
values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and
future needs of the American people" (Federal Land Policy and Management Act).
It has been argued that the federal government is in possession of too much land and that
their lack of adequate resources to manage every acre negatively affects the ecological
health of the land. In fact, a 2013 BLM report on the health of federal public multiple-use
lands stated that 29 percent of allotted land failed to meet BLM standards for rangeland
health due to impacts of livestock (Wiles, 2014).
Economic Implications
As previously stated, the economic return on public lands is largely contingent on
management strategies and goals. A study of spending by national and state forest
services found that between 1994 and 1996 the USFS took in just 30 cents for every
dollar spent, while western state management agencies netted $5.56 for every dollar spent
(Anderson et al., 1999). A more recent study, including revenues from the more profitdriven BLM and NPS, compared federal lands and state trust lands. The study found
revenues of 73 cents for every federal dollar spent, compared to $14.51 for every state
dollar spent (Fretwell and Regan, 2015). The difference in federal versus state revenues
clearly illustrates the point that public land under state management generates
significantly higher revenues. This notion, however, has some inherent flaws. For

5
example, in the event of a land transfer to a state, the state would be forced to expand the
size and reach of existing land management agencies as well as contingency funds to
provide for events such as wildfires. It is estimated that if Idaho assumed ownership of
just 16.4 million of its 34 million acres of public land, the state would incur a yearly
budget deficit of $111 million. If Montana gained control of all of its federal lands,
annual management costs would range from $300 million to $500 million (Locked Out,
2014). To compensate for increased expenses, states would be forced to increase
industrialization on these lands. One way to combat the projected $111 yearly
management deficit in Idaho would be to increase industrial logging by 500 million board
feet annually (Locked Out, 2014). The constant struggle lawmakers face as they seek to
balance budgets by extracting resources may eventually result in the degradation of the
very land state agencies are trying to protect. Lands that are not productive in terms of
potential timber harvest, oil and natural gas deposits, or minerals could easily be regarded
as an unaffordable burden, and thus may be considered for sale to private interests. This
has the potential to effectively change the landscape of the West, as the idea of the legacy
of the land diminishes with each sale.
Social Implications
While the sale and subsequent privatization of public lands seems to have many
proponents in state legislatures, there appears to be little public support for these
initiatives. While the Utah Senate approved a bill to set a date to sue the federal
government for more control over public lands (Dabakis, 2015), a nonpartisan survey of
Rocky Mountain state voters found 68 percent consider federal public lands as
American places rather than places that belong to the people of individual states
(Landers, 2015). This shows a clear disconnect between the opinions of the American
people and those of the elected officials who are supposed to be representing their
interests. It is important to note that the Senator who drafted S.490 is from Oklahoma,
while only three of nine bill co-sponsors are representatives of western states (Inhofe,
2015). Thus, it would appear that special interests are the primary motivators behind this
proposed bill.

A reduction in federal public lands would also negatively affect the growth and economy
of the western United States. From 1970 to 2010, employment in the western United
States outpaced the rest of the country, growing by 152 percent compared to 78 percent
elsewhere (Brownsword, 2012). Much of this growth was spurred by the development of
high wage service industries such as health care and technology, with the scenic
landscape of the West as a primary driver of that growth. A coalition of economists and
academics emphasized this point in an open letter to President Obama in 2011:
Therivers,lakes,canyons,andmountainsfoundonpubliclandsserveasa

uniqueandcompellingbackdropthathashelpedtotransformthewestern
economyfromadependenceonresourceextractiveindustriestogrowthfromin
migration,tourism,andmoderneconomysectorssuchasfinance,engineering,
softwaredevelopment,insurance,andhealthcare.
Today,oneofthecompetitivestrengthsoftheWestistheuniquecombinationof
wideopenspaces,scenicvistasandrecreationalopportunitiesalongsidevibrant,
growingcommunitiesthatareconnectedtolargermarketsviatheInternet,
highwaysandcommercialairservice.
Increasingly,entrepreneursarebasingtheirbusinesslocationdecisionsonthe
qualityoflifeinanarea.Businessesarerecruitingtalentedemployeesby
promotingaccesstobeautiful,nearbypubliclands.Thisishappeninginwestern
citiesandruralareasalike(Rasker,2011).
Whilenotimmediatelyapparent,theseprotectedareashavecreatedaneconomic
advantageintheWest.Healthylandscapesandampleopportunitiestogetoutdoorscan
increasethequalityoflife,thusprovidinganincentiveforthoseconsideringwhereto
liveandwork.Businessesthatrecognizethisincentiveseektoestablishthemselvesina
landscapethatisfavorablefortherecruitmentandretentionofemployees.
Theeconomicbenefitsofpubliclandarenotlimitedtothequantityoftimber,oil,natural
gas,ormineralsthatthelandmaycontain.Outdoorrecreationists,arguablythosecitizens
whomostutilizepubliclands,travelnationwidetoexperiencethevastexpanseofpublic
landintheWest.Whetheritbetohike,hunt,orfish,thesecitizenspumpdollarsinto
localeconomies.Itwasfoundthatin2010,percapitaincomeinwesternnon

7
metropolitancountieswith100,000acresofprotectedpubliclandswasonaverage
$4,360higherthaninsimilarcountieswithoutsignificantpubliclandholdings
(Brownsword,2012).Theselocaleconomieswouldbethefirsttofeeltheeffectsofthe
privatizationofpubliclands.Whilestategovernmentsgainroyaltiesfromthesaleor
leaseofland,thesesmallcommunitiesstandtolosetheirmostvaluableresource:the
peoplewhochoosetospendtheirtimeandmoneyenjoyingpubliclandopportunities.

Scope and Urgency

Scope
States with the most federal public land stand to be most impacted by this bill. Western
states including New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona,
Nevada, Oregon, Washington, California, and Alaska are of primary concern. While the
federal government does have public land holdings in the eastern United States, the
majority of federal land management occurs in the West. Several legislative measures are
being taken to place federal public land under state control. In addition to S.490, states
that have introduced legislation or formed committees to explore federal land transfers
include Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington (Dent, 2013).
Urgency:
It is vital that concerned parties voice their opinion prior to the passing of legislation.
Currently, S.490 has only been introduced in the Senate and has yet to find its way to the
House of Representatives. Timelines for state legislation vary. Nevadas S.B. 105 has set
a deadline for the attorney general to file a petition with the federal government by June
30, 2016 (Dabakis, 2015). By communicating with policy makers prior to the
introduction of legislation, members of the public can ensure that their views will truly be
taken into account when these proposals are being considered.

8
Target Population Data
All tax paying citizens of the West should be concerned about federal land transfers. The
cost to manage millions of extra acres of public land is likely to result in significant tax
hikes at the state level. Even more at risk are business owners in non-metropolitan areas,
who stand to lose a good deal of revenue should the dynamic between public land and
outdoor recreationist spending change. The failure of just one or two businesses in a
small town may be highly detrimental to community health, increasing unemployment
and reducing the influx of out-of-state dollars.
Local politicians are also a target population. They tend to have more direct contact with
their constituents than do state and federal officials, and their political stances tend to
more closely reflect those of the citizens they serve. State governors and senators as well
as federal senators and congress members are very important to the process, as it is at this
level where the policy decisions affecting the state population will be made.
Environmental, conservation, and outdoor groups are perhaps the most important group
to engage. These groups have a well-established history of influencing public policy
decisions through campaigning and media relations. Conservation groups have been
influencing public policy decisions since the establishment of the first conservation
organization by future president Theodore Roosevelt in 1887: the Boone and Crockett
Club. Modern day conservation groups are numerous, however individuals share similar
values across groups. Conservation group members tend to have more frequent
interaction with the natural world. Inherently, these group members hold a higher value
for access to abundant, healthy public land. Conservation initiatives and political
lobbying are made possible by the contributions these members make to their respective
groups.
Available Resources
Grass Roots

Grass roots organizations are instrumental to both raising awareness about an issue and
organizing communities into active groups. They provide a channel through which the
community can voice its opinions in a way that the opinion of the whole is louder than
the sum of its parts. The Conservation Lands Foundation (CLF) has a well-established
system of coordinating with over 40 local organizations. The CLF provides custom
training, fundraising assistance, media outreach, and leadership development. This
foundation can provide a unified voice for smaller local organizations throughout the
western United States. These local groups in turn may convey their principles to
conservation organization members in their region.
Mass Media
Mass media can be helpful in informing members of the public about current legislation
pertaining to public land transfers and it can also provide an outlet for organizations and
individuals to voice their concerns to the general public.

Non-Profit Outdoor Interest Groups

As previously stated, these groups are typically well informed and have well established
channels through which they can reach politicians and influence public policy. They
provide vocal leadership and encourage their members to contact local, state and federal
politicians directly.

The Sierra Club

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Trout Unlimited
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Sportsmens Alliance
League of Conservation Voters
National Audubon Society

10
Funding Sources
Most of the aforementioned non-profit organizations use a significant portion of their
membership dues to fund public relations and lobbying efforts. In addition, federal
money is available from the Environmental Protection Agency through their
Environmental Education Grants Program. This program accepts grant proposals to
support environmental education projects that promote both environmental awareness
and stewardship.
Summary
There is much more at stake here than state governments seeking to gain revenues while
the federal government aims to decrease spending. The transfer of federal public lands
threatens the legacy for future generations while negatively affecting small local western
economies that depend on federal public land to bring in outside revenue. Industry and
recreation have coexisted on public land for a long time, and there is no reason to argue
that this should not continue. Nevertheless, with polls showing overwhelming support for
public land access for all, S.490 seems more likely to benefit the few while harming the
many.

11
Works Cited
Anderson, Terry L., Vernon L. Smith, and Emily Simmons. How and Why to Privatize
Federal Lands. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1999. CATO Institute. Web. 2 Mar.
2015. <http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa363.pdf>.
Branham, Mary. "Public Lands." Capitol Ideas, 2013. The Council of State Governments,
n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2015. <http://www.csg.org/pubs
/capitolideas/2013_nov_dec/publiclands.aspx>.
Brownsword, Roger. "West Is Best." SCRIPT-ed (2006): 15-33. Headwaters Economics,
Nov. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2015. <http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wpcontent/uploads/West_Is_Best_Full_Report.pdf>.
Dabakis, Jim. "S.B. 105 Public Land Acts Ammendments." Utah State Legislature, 6 Feb.
2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015. <http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/SB0105.html>.
Dent, Marielle. "Public Land Debates Addressed in Bill." The Daily Lobo. The Daily
Lobo, 5 Feb. 13. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.dailylobo.com/article/2015/02/2015-02-05-public-lands-transfer >.
Ellis, Blake. "How North Dakota's Economy Doubled in 11 Years." CNNMoney. Cable
News Network, 14 July 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.
<http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/north-dakota-economy/>.
"Federal Land Policy and Management Act." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d.
Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
Fretwell, Holly, and Regan, Shawn. "Divided Lands: State vs. Federal Management in the
West." (n.d.): n. pag. The Property and Environmental Research Center, Feb. 2015.

12
Web. 2 Mar. 2015. <http://perc.org/sites/default/files/PERCreport_DividedLands_
Feb6_WorkingPaper.pdf>.
Gorte, Ross W., Carol H. Vincent, Laura A. Hanson, and Marc R. Rosenblum. "Federal
Land Ownership: Overview and Data." Congressional Research Service (2012): n.
pag. Federation of American Scientists. Federation of American Scientists. Web. 1
Mar. 2015. <https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf>.
Holeywell, Ryan. "North Dakota's Oil Boom Is a Blessing and a Curse." Governing, Aug.
2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2015. <http://www.governing.com/topics/energy-env/northdakotas-oil-boom-blessing-curse.html>.
Inhofe, James. "S.490 - Federal Land Freedom Act of 2015 114th Congress (20152016)." United States Congress. N.p., 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/490/text>.
Landers, Rich. "Most People Agree Federal Lands Belong to All, Not to States."
Spokesman Review. Spokesman Review, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2015/feb/11/most-people-agree-federalland-belong-all-not-states/>.
"Locked Out" 2014. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/Locked-Out-Report-Sportsmens-Access.pdf>.
Rasker, Ray. "Economists Urge President Obama to Protect Federal Public Lands."
Headwaters Economics. Headwaters Economics, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://headwaterseconomics.org/land/economists-president-public-lands/>.
Wiles, Tay. "A New Map Shows Rangeland Health West-wide." High Country News, 12
Nov. 2014. Web. 04 Mar. 2015. <http://www.hcn.org/articles/BLM-rangeland-healthgrazing-cattle-environment>.