Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (6313)	3/22/2006 11:51:21 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

From PERC: It's time to get rid of National Forest junk land. BY HOLLY L. FRETWELL Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST The Bush administration proposed a novel idea recently: Sell off a tiny fraction of National Forest land to save money and raise funds for rural schools. Far from a revival of the Homestead Act signed up President Lincoln in 1862 and which distributed some 80 million federal acres over the following century, the idea is closer to holding a federal yard sale to clear out some of the junk that has accumulated over the years. The National Forest Service controls some 192 million of the federal government's 600 million acres. What the president proposed in his budget this year was to sell off about one-tenth of one percent of that land--some300,000 acres that provides little benefit to the taxpayer but who nonetheless pays for its upkeep and maintenance. But even the whisper of such a sale can set off a torrent of criticism from political packrats. Among them are Democrat Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Republican Sens. Larry Craig of Idaho and Conrad Burns of Montana. Shortly after the announcement, Sen. Burns declared the idea "dead in the water" and vowed to strike it from legislation. The sale, however, may yet be held. Why? First, as one environmental newsletter put it, there may be no alternative. Second, it's a good idea. According to David Tenny, Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture, the lands that have been selected are no longer serving the goals of the Forest Service. Many are isolated parcels surrounded by private land with little or no public access. At least one-quarter of the lands proposed for sale in the Gallatin National Forest near Bozeman, Mont., are inaccessible to the public. Other acreage is near metropolitan areas and has lost its Forest Service character: A small Forest Service parcel in Oregon is in the middle of a parking lot; another is being used to grow crops. Finally, some of these lands were previously designated for land exchange (trades with other agencies or private owners). To ensure there are no "sneakers" in there, as Mr. Tenney calls them, the public will have a chance to comment on all acres proposed for sale. Just like the items in your own closet or garage, there are acres within the federal estate that have little value to the average citizen--and maintaining them comes at a cost. Even a benign use such as recreation requires spending money to repair and maintain trails, perhaps develop campsites and toilet facilities, and provide signs and visitor information. (The Forest Service spends over $300 million to maintain land for recreational uses.) And for parcels that are small and isolated, paperwork, monitoring, and security all add up. Perhaps more important than these direct costs is what economists call opportunity cost. Spending money on marginal parcels means that this money can't be used for the "crown jewels." Places like the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana's Flathead National Forest and Stehekin Valley in Washington's Okanogan National Forest truly provide a pristine national forest experience. And in highly visited areas, monies would be better spent on forest restoration, wildlife protection, and facilities that help minimize human impact. The Forest Service does sometimes get rid of stuff it doesn't need through land exchanges, obtaining what it values more through barter. But barter is unwieldy. It is tough to find lands that are roughly equal in value and exchanges take anywhere from two to 10 years to complete. Swapping land is time consuming and labor intensive. If the sales go through, what will happen to the funds that come from selling these parcels? The original justification for the sale was the need to come up with $800 million to fund rural school districts under the Secure Rural Schools program. Because of fast-declining timber sales on Forest Service land, counties don't receive the funds that the Forest Service formerly provided, and Congress made up the difference with appropriations under a law that expires this year. To reauthorize this school funding, Congress is under pressure to come up with "offsets" that produce money. So far, selling forestland is the only serious option. But revenue is just one goal of this program. Unlike Forest Service lands that contain important watersheds and wildlife habitat, these lands are a costly burden that all taxpayers are paying for. Let's stop the wastage. The real issue is whether or not the lands in question bring value to the average American--and whether Americans can do better by reallocating their assets. In my view, it is time to clean the closet. Ms. Fretwell is a research fellow with PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Mont. opinionjournal.com