By Jennifer Fielder
11-2-16

Don't we all we want healthy air, water and wildlife, abundant outdoor recreation, and safe, vibrant communities? Wouldn't it be good to manage our public lands with these priorities at the forefront of every decision?

Unfortunately, Washington DC's out-of-touch style is increasingly blocking public access, allowing pests and wildfires to ravage our environment, and killing rural communities.

Last month, leaders from around the nation gathered for the American Lands Council (ALC) annual conference and once again unanimously reaffirmed support of ALC's Public Policy Statement which "urges timely and orderly transfer of federal public lands to willing states for local control that will provide better public access, better environmental health, and better economic productivity".

The ALC Policy specifically calls for keeping public lands public -- NOT selling them as proponents of federal control like to claim. In fact, our extremely debt-ridden U.S. government can sell public lands now, and they often do. Our critics never seem to mention that.

To be clear, ALC is not advocating transfer of National Parks, Wilderness, Indian Reservations, or Military Installations. Our efforts are focused on improving conditions on ordinary public lands that are supposed to be managed for multiple uses, but increasingly aren't. And despite rhetoric to the contrary, it is exactly that simple.

HOW WOULD IT WORK: We are pursuing concepts for a federal bill that would provide a mechanism allowing States to apply for specific tracts of federally controlled land as they are willing and ready to care for these areas responsibly. Under this framework, States could apply for small-scale pilot project areas first and, if successful, seek additional tracts in the future. Existing valid rights and uses would be honored and special safeguards would be built in to preserve public access routes. Such parameters would ensure no loss of public access while allowing State and local citizens to have a meaningful role in policy decisions.

Finally, transferred lands would be administered in a manner that is consistent with each county's resource management plan. An equitable revenue-sharing arrangement between the State and counties is proposed so a large portion of any profits from mineral royalties, timber receipts, or grazing fees would stay with the county to help fund things like local roads, crime control, ambulance, fire departments, and other public services. The State's share of proceeds could be used to support schools, highways, healthcare or other public programs anywhere in the State. Proceeds would be calculated after management costs are factored in, including setting aside adequate funds for a firefighting reserve account. There would be no requirement to maximize profits like there are with school trust lands, so use fees could be much lower than current trust land fees are.

Based on historic evidence, states typically generate land management revenues that exceed management costs. So YES, States can afford it - as long as they don't repeat Washington DC's G