The Case for Interstate Land Exchanges
By Ian Rosenthal
INTRODUCTION
The present system of federal land acquisition places imposing obstacles in the paths of parties wishing to conduct interstate land exchanges. This note suggests that amending the Federal Land Planning and Management Act (FLPMA)1 to ease the interstate exchange process would significantly help to reduce the conservation expenses of the federal government. Eliminating hindrances to interstate exchange provisions would further public policy goals by allocating government conservation efforts to more ecologically important lands, providing more equitable treatment to property owners throughout the country, reducing controversial burdens placed on those property owners, and creating favorable public opinion towards the nation's environmental policies.
Section 1716(a) of FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct land exchanges. Section 1716(b) requires lands exchanged under s 1716(a) to be in the same state. Over the years, some have argued that Congress should ease the interstate exchange process. Congress largely ignored these proposals, and at present the issue appears dead. Currently, the only drive for reform in the land exchange arena aims at streamlining the intrastate exchange process for landowners affected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Ironically, the political and economic situation today may be more conducive than ever before to a loosening of interstate exchange restrictions. This note argues for an amendment to FLPMA allowing interstate exchanges on terms equivalent to intrastate exchanges.
Part II discusses the urgent conditions that necessitate this change in FLPMA policy. Parts III and IV review the general benefits provided by land exchanges and the statutory provisions concerning intrastate and interstate federal land exchanges. Part V examines the potential results of changing the interstate exchange regime. This note analyzes the Arizona-Florida Land Exchange (Indian School Exchange) and the California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) because the circumstances surrounding the passage of these acts enhance understanding of current federal conservation policies and potential interstate exchange guidelines. Part V.C. discusses the potential benefits of removing restrictions on interstate exchanges. Part V.D. presents broad guidelines to maximize the benefits and effectiveness of interstate land exchanges. Finally, Part VI reviews the potential objections to a less restrictive interstate exchange regime. This note concludes that the benefits of facilitating interstate exchanges dramatically outweigh any objections.
The present system of federal land acquisition places imposing obstacles in the paths of parties wishing to conduct interstate land exchanges. This note suggests that amending the Federal Land Planning and Management Act (FLPMA)1 to ease the interstate exchange process would significantly help to reduce the conservation expenses of the federal government. Eliminating hindrances to interstate exchange provisions would further public policy goals by allocating government conservation efforts to more ecologically important lands, providing more equitable treatment to property owners throughout the country, reducing controversial burdens placed on those property owners, and creating favorable public opinion towards the nation's environmental policies.
Section 1716(a) of FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct land exchanges. Section 1716(b) requires lands exchanged under s 1716(a) to be in the same state. Over the years, some have argued that Congress should ease the interstate exchange process. Congress largely ignored these proposals, and at present the issue appears dead. Currently, the only drive for reform in the land exchange arena aims at streamlining the intrastate exchange process for landowners affected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Ironically, the political and economic situation today may be more conducive than ever before to a loosening of interstate exchange restrictions. This note argues for an amendment to FLPMA allowing interstate exchanges on terms equivalent to intrastate exchanges.
Part II discusses the urgent conditions that necessitate this change in FLPMA policy. Parts III and IV review the general benefits provided by land exchanges and the statutory provisions concerning intrastate and interstate federal land exchanges. Part V examines the potential results of changing the interstate exchange regime. This note analyzes the Arizona-Florida Land Exchange (Indian School Exchange) and the California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) because the circumstances surrounding the passage of these acts enhance understanding of current federal conservation policies and potential interstate exchange guidelines. Part V.C. discusses the potential benefits of removing restrictions on interstate exchanges. Part V.D. presents broad guidelines to maximize the benefits and effectiveness of interstate land exchanges. Finally, Part VI reviews the potential objections to a less restrictive interstate exchange regime. This note concludes that the benefits of facilitating interstate exchanges dramatically outweigh any objections.
