Big brother — the United States government — which already owns more than one-third of the land in the U.S. (states own another 12 percent), wants more. A group of congressional Republicans and Democrats is working with the Clinton administration to place more land under government control.
The administration's plan and five plans pending in Congress are similar. Each would spend between $1 billion and $2.3 billion each year, evidently into eternity, to buy up private land. The money would come from the "Land and Water Conservation Fund," created in 1964 to protect ecologically important places, using offshore oil and gas royalties.
In the past, the government has consistently shifted royalties to other spending, so that the fund has never been fully funded. Supporters of the project now want to move the fund off-budget and to guarantee that a certain amount go to it each year — which means the fund wouldn't have to fight for appropriations or be subject to congressional oversight for most land purchases.
The leading bipartisan bill in Congress, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, would spend up to $2.2 billion each year — 16 percent by local governments, with federal and state governments splitting the remaining 84 percent. This bill arguably is less onerous than others are, since it limits federal purchases to land currently located within or adjoining federal parks, forests and other federal lands, and requires that all purchases come from "willing" sellers. There are no such restrictions, however, on states and localities.
All the bills have four problems in common. First, they are constitutionally suspect. Our country's founders wanted government to remain limited. Accordingly, the Constitution limits federal land ownership to "such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, . . ., become the seat of the Government of the United States . . . and to exercise authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenal, dock-yards and other needful buildings." The federal government ignored the constitution's restrictions in the last century – but there is no reason to further this erosion of limited government by expanding the federal estate. Ask citizens in Western states — in some of which the federal government owns more than 80% of the land — whether local control and a large federal presence are compatible.
Second, every acre removed from private hands is one less acre in productive use. Yes, there should be parks and military bases, but private uses such as Homes and businesses do more to enhance individual well-being than land limited to uses chosen by Washington-based interest groups. In addition, local governments including police departments and school districts lose vital property tax revenue – not a good idea at a time when school enrollment is at an all-time high and the country is finally beginning turning the corner on crime.
If the past is any guide, the "willing seller" provision is not worth the paper that it is printed on. Washington already regulates private property within national parks and forests and private land considered critical habitat or wetlands so stringently that people cannot build homes or start businesses. These regulatory takings create a vast pool of "willing" sellers, since they have no other choice. If I steal your wedding ring but leave what I consider a fair price on the nightstand, you could hardly be considered a willing seller.
Finally, government is a poor steward of the land it manages. There is currently a backlog of between $8 billion and $12 billion in funding for maintenance, operations, restoration and fire management on the nation's public lands. Further, lands purchased under the proposed bills would become a drain on taxpayers for management and upkeep, since only the initial purchase is covered by the fund. The government cannot effectively manage the lands it already owns, so it should not take anymore.
Private forests and nature preserves contain more biodiversity, produce more forest regrowth, have cleaner streams and all this without using tax dollars. For proof, compare the lush regrowth and rehabitation of the private forests near Mount St. Helens in Washington to the sterile, monotonous moonscape of the areas the federal government manages – no trees, shrubs, grass or animals.
So instead of another costly land-grab by the federal government, here's an idea: Washington's new pledge should be "no net loss of private property." This would allow the federal government to acquire land where needed, while also promoting constitutionally limited government. It supports economic opportunity and environmental quality as well.
——————————————————————————–
The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies on public policy issues. The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C.