Public Lands Reform: A Reluctant Leap into the Abyss
By Michael I. Jeffery, Q.C.
INTRODUCTION
In the past few years the administration of public lands in Canada and the United States has been challenged to an extent not seen since the Sagebrush Rebellion of the late 1970s. Critics contend that federal land management is economically and politically unsound. Some of these critics conclude that some federal lands should be sold to private buyers or transferred to state/provincial or local governments. Such disposition, they argue, makes sense in a period of deficit reduction. In fact, public land sales would be consistent with the “downsizing” occurring in other federal programs. Therefore, the federal governments in the United States and Canada should, at the very least, seriously examine land disposition and the development of new management strategies for land management agencies.
This article explores how land management agencies in Canada and the United States might rationally approach the emotional and divisive issue of land disposition, while meeting the environmental goals of the agencies and the public. In order to lay the framework for the discussion, this article first analyzes the background of the crisis in land management today, the arguments for and against land disposition, and the different mechanisms available to continue environmental protection and public access.
Too often the debate concerning the public lands is submerged in the polemical hysteria of otherwise rational individuals who articulate their opinions in an emotional manner, leaving little room for sober analysis and compromise. The mere mention of the sale of any portion of the public lands invokes a call to arms by those of us who immediately fear the worst, such as sale of Yellowstone or Banff National Parks. The natural response to this unwanted invasion of our deeply-held sensibilities, fueled in part by an intrinsic distrust of government, is to defend the whole, adamantly refusing to countenance the sale of any part of the federal land estate.
On the other hand, an informed discussion of the issue cannot ignore the fact that all public lands do not have the same economic, ecological, or spiritual value. Instead, some lands can continue to contribute to our national heritage under a form of ownership and stewardship which does not require title to remain vested in governments in trust for the public.
Assuming that a case can be made for returning at least some lands to private ownership, land management agencies must first look to past land dispositions to design a fair and equitable system of public land disposition for the present. Many people may argue that a large-scale sale of public land would only reinstate the abuses that occurred in the nineteenth century and earlier. It cannot be disputed that the history of land dispositions in both the United States and Canada is full of scandals and fraud in which land intended for the poor and middle classes was acquired by the rich. However, scandals can be avoided today if the federal governments of both countries learn from their previous experiences and develop concrete goals for particular land sales and clear strategies to ensure that such goals are met.
A second major goal of this article is to explore the areas of dispute that land disposition will inevitably raise among different interest groups. Groups which generally favor government retention of the public lands include private businesses, especially agricultural-based businesses, who wish to retain the current subsidies given for their use of the lands, and environmental and conservation groups. The concerns of these groups must be balanced with the federal government's need to raise revenues and efficiently manage the lands it does retain. This article examines various control devices which may be imposed upon the purchasers of public land to prevent environmental degradation or reduction of public access, and then explores the possibility of government reacquisition of lands found to violate such conditions of sale.
To mitigate the conflict that currently exists between various public land user groups, this article argues that the government must manage its retained lands in a more economically efficient manner. The current management of public lands has led to conflicts and uncertainty as different interest groups try to prevent other uses of the lands. In addressing these issues, this article will look at subsidies and the role of the public lands in the cultures of the U.S. and Canadian West. This discussion will be followed by several proposals to take us beyond the status quo.
One cannot embrace a meaningful discussion of public lands administration without a basic understanding of the historical context in which the public domain came into being. Although both the United States and Canada trace their origins to the British Crown, the historical and constitutional devolution of powers among the federal governments and states/provinces have followed different paths. Thus, the following Part presents the history of U.S. and Canadian land policies.
In the past few years the administration of public lands in Canada and the United States has been challenged to an extent not seen since the Sagebrush Rebellion of the late 1970s. Critics contend that federal land management is economically and politically unsound. Some of these critics conclude that some federal lands should be sold to private buyers or transferred to state/provincial or local governments. Such disposition, they argue, makes sense in a period of deficit reduction. In fact, public land sales would be consistent with the “downsizing” occurring in other federal programs. Therefore, the federal governments in the United States and Canada should, at the very least, seriously examine land disposition and the development of new management strategies for land management agencies.
This article explores how land management agencies in Canada and the United States might rationally approach the emotional and divisive issue of land disposition, while meeting the environmental goals of the agencies and the public. In order to lay the framework for the discussion, this article first analyzes the background of the crisis in land management today, the arguments for and against land disposition, and the different mechanisms available to continue environmental protection and public access.
Too often the debate concerning the public lands is submerged in the polemical hysteria of otherwise rational individuals who articulate their opinions in an emotional manner, leaving little room for sober analysis and compromise. The mere mention of the sale of any portion of the public lands invokes a call to arms by those of us who immediately fear the worst, such as sale of Yellowstone or Banff National Parks. The natural response to this unwanted invasion of our deeply-held sensibilities, fueled in part by an intrinsic distrust of government, is to defend the whole, adamantly refusing to countenance the sale of any part of the federal land estate.
On the other hand, an informed discussion of the issue cannot ignore the fact that all public lands do not have the same economic, ecological, or spiritual value. Instead, some lands can continue to contribute to our national heritage under a form of ownership and stewardship which does not require title to remain vested in governments in trust for the public.
Assuming that a case can be made for returning at least some lands to private ownership, land management agencies must first look to past land dispositions to design a fair and equitable system of public land disposition for the present. Many people may argue that a large-scale sale of public land would only reinstate the abuses that occurred in the nineteenth century and earlier. It cannot be disputed that the history of land dispositions in both the United States and Canada is full of scandals and fraud in which land intended for the poor and middle classes was acquired by the rich. However, scandals can be avoided today if the federal governments of both countries learn from their previous experiences and develop concrete goals for particular land sales and clear strategies to ensure that such goals are met.
A second major goal of this article is to explore the areas of dispute that land disposition will inevitably raise among different interest groups. Groups which generally favor government retention of the public lands include private businesses, especially agricultural-based businesses, who wish to retain the current subsidies given for their use of the lands, and environmental and conservation groups. The concerns of these groups must be balanced with the federal government's need to raise revenues and efficiently manage the lands it does retain. This article examines various control devices which may be imposed upon the purchasers of public land to prevent environmental degradation or reduction of public access, and then explores the possibility of government reacquisition of lands found to violate such conditions of sale.
To mitigate the conflict that currently exists between various public land user groups, this article argues that the government must manage its retained lands in a more economically efficient manner. The current management of public lands has led to conflicts and uncertainty as different interest groups try to prevent other uses of the lands. In addressing these issues, this article will look at subsidies and the role of the public lands in the cultures of the U.S. and Canadian West. This discussion will be followed by several proposals to take us beyond the status quo.
One cannot embrace a meaningful discussion of public lands administration without a basic understanding of the historical context in which the public domain came into being. Although both the United States and Canada trace their origins to the British Crown, the historical and constitutional devolution of powers among the federal governments and states/provinces have followed different paths. Thus, the following Part presents the history of U.S. and Canadian land policies.
