TRANSFER OF BLM-MANAGED LANDS TO THE 

STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2032 

A BILL TO TRANSFER THE LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT TO THE STATE IN WlUCH THE LANDS 

ARE LOCATED 

20-061 cc 

AUGUST 1, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-32 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

' For sale by the U.S. Govenunent Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-047771-9 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY,C~rnia 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. 'HAYWORTH, Ari:rona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Teus 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Ari:rona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Teus 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californil\ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, C/Uef of Staff 

CHiusTINB KENNEDY, Clr.ief Ckrlc I Adminimutor 

JOHN LAWliBNCB, Democratic St4ff Director DAVID DYE, C/Uef COUIIllel 

SUBCOMMI'M'EE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J . DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Ari:rona Samoa 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachu~tts 

WES COOLEY, Oregon CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho Rico 

LINDA SMITH, Washington NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

GEORGE P: RADANOVICH, California MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Ari:rona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

Al.LEN FIIBDrYER, St4ff Director I Coun.sel 

8TBvB HODAPP,~~ St4ff 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held August 1, 1995 ................................................................................ .. Text of H.R. 2032 .................................................................................................... . Briefing paper on H.R. 2032 .................................................................................. . Statements of Members: 

Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah and Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands .............................. . Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico ................. . Skeen, Hon. Joe, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico .......................... . Stump, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Re})resentative from Arizona ............................... . Thomas, Hon. Craig, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming .................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Statements of witnesses: 

Bau~~=ie;:~t~~~:.~~~~~ ~~~~~-~~~~~~~~ .. :::::::::::::::::::::: Bradley, Walter, Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico ................................ . Cohen, Bonnie, Assistant Secretary of Policy Management and Budget, 

Department of Interior ................................................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Hocker, Phil, President, Mineral Policy Center ............................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Jamison, Cy, former Director, Bureau of Land Management ...................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Lea, George, President, Public Lands Foundation ....................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Leshy, John, Solicitor, Department of the Interior ....................................... . Magagna, Jim, Vice President, Wildlife Management Institute .................. . Prepared statement .............................. : ................................................... . Williamson, Lonnie, President, lntertech Service Corporation ................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Additional material su_pplied: 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior: Public Rewards 

from Public Lands ........................................................................................ . Chase, JoAnn K., Executive Director, National Congress of American 

Indians: Letter of August 1, 1995, to Hon. James Hansen ...................... . Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho: News release 

from Celia Boddington of the Bureau of Land Management: BLM Report Cites Rewards from Public Lands ...................................................... . Dewey, Robert, and Tom Uniak, Defenders of Wildlife: Giving BLM 

Lands to the States: a Losing Proposition ................................................. . Gorte, Ross W., Congression81 Research Service, Library of Congress: 

Memo to House Committee on Resources on BLM Revenues and Expenditures ......................................................................................... : ........... . Hassell, M. Jean, Arizona Land Commissioner: Letter of July 28, 1995, 

to Hon. James Hansen ................................................................................ . Powell, Ray, Commissioner of Public Lands, New Mexico: The Proposed Divestiture of Public Lands ......................................................................... . Stewart, Ted, Executive Director, State of Utah Department of Natural 

Resources: Letter of July 31, 1995, to Hon. James Hansen ..................... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

71 

79 

1 

8 

2 

9 

5 

8 

56 

131 

4 

31 

99 

58 

144 

30 

96 

54 

126 

37 

49 

113 

52 

124 

162 

229 

94 

152 

83 

226 

159 

230 

TRANSFER OF BLM-MANAGED LANDS TO THE 

STATES 

TUESDA~AUGUSTl, 1005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Building, Hon. James V. Hansen [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH 

AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITI'EE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Lands convenes to consider H.R. 2032 which would_provide for the 

transfer of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management to 

the States. H.R. 2032 grows out of the continual frustrations experienced by State and local governments who struggle to provide sound futures for their citizens but find it impossible because they 

have little or no control over their lands. 

This is a not a recent difficulty; the western States have faced 

the impossibility of controlling their own destiny for decades. 

This Administration has intensified the feelings of the people in 

the West, and the BLM can blame themselves for being on the 

chopping block. 

People who live, work and play on these public lands want the 

best for them. BLM is not responsible for the heritage of our public lands, it is the rancher who improves the range, the logger and 

miner who provide vital resources to our economies, the State who 

manages our wildlife, the county who provides law enforcement, 

emergency services and maintains our roads, the families that 

recreate on these lands, and the thousands of people who act as 

volunteer stewards who created the heritage of our public lands. 

H.R. 2032 is not about giving this heritage away but is about our 

ability to. guarantee this heritage for future Americans. 

Since 1782 this Nation has disposed of 1.1 billion acres ofpublic 

lands. More recently, this Nation took aggressive steps to settle the 

Midwest and far West. Whether it was the Homestead Act, the 

Timber Culture Act, the Timber and Stone Act, the Desert Land 

Act and the numerous other land disposal policies, this country sought to get these lands in the hands of the people. · And we were highly successful. The entire East, Midwest and 

South were given their lands and were given the ability to control 

(1) 
2 

their futures. The West simply wants our chance to decide for ourselves what is best for the people who use these lands. 

We have come a long way since the Homestead Act, and we understand how best to manage our lands. It is my every intention 

that these lands remain public because that is their highest and 

best use. However, the Administration and other environmental interests make the assumption that it is only the Federal Government who can manage lands for the public, that only the Federal 

Government can maintain access for recreation, or that subsidies 

to the BLM to maintain their ineffective and isolated management policies is something the States would be foolish to give up. 

I can promise you that people of the West will gladly let you keep 

your subsidies, keep all of the so-called public rewards and permit the governments closest to the people to manage the people's lands. 

It .is time Congress returned to trusting the respective States, to 

putting power in the individual and to restore the dream of liberty 

in the rural West. I thank our witnesses for appearing before the 

subcommittee and look forward to the testimony. 

Today we have a very interesting group of three panels, but we 

will start with our colleague from New Mexico, Joe Skeen who will 

be our lead-off witness. Senator Craig Thomas from Wyoming is 

also sponsoring this identical bill, and he has a problem right now, 

we are given to understand that he will walk in in a few minutes, 

and we will turn to him and then we will start with the others. So, 

Congress Joe Skeen, it is always a privilege to have you here, and 

we will turn the time to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE SKEEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. SKEEN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is a delight to be here this morning. As 

a matter of fact, I consider this to be a very historic day, because 

personally I waited a long time to appear before this subcommittee 

and discuss this legislation which is H.R. 2032, and I appreciate 

having as cosponsor the Chairman of this Committee. It sure 

makes access a lot easier. 

This bill will turn the management functions of Bureau of Land 

Management lands to these western States that we have been discussing. 

H.R. 2032, of which I am an original cosponsor, is revolutionary 

and long overdue. The 13 western States and New Mexico in particular, have witnessed BLM's aggressive tendency to overregulate, 

and its massive proliferation and growth in personnel since the 

1950's. 

I believe that transferring BLM lands to the States is a common 

sense approach to bringing public management to these areas closer to the people who live near these lands, work on them, use them 

for recreation. This is in stark contrast to those who believe that 

BLM lands must remain in Federal hands in order to preserve the 

public's interest. 

In my opinion, the State of New Mexico would be much more responsive to industry, recreation and environmental interests, just 

as every other State east of the 30-inch rainfall belt handles theirs 

today. Why should we be treated any differently? 
3 

Currently, within New Mexico's boundaries, BLM controls approximately three times more land than the New Mexico State 

Land Office, but it employs approximately nine times more employees. This is clearly an example of an overstuffed budget and an inability of our Federal bureaucracy to do an efficient job. If you give credence to the environmental groups' assertion that 

the West is being destroyed by ranchers, miners, and timber companies even with BLM's ever-expanding budgets, you might conclude that the BLM is not an effective agency. And I believe that 

it is time to try a new management prescription, and H.R. 2032 is 

a step in the right direction. 

This bill also saves the taxpayers millions of dollars by doing 

away with any so-called subsidy for public lands ranchers and 

eliminating most of the BLM budget. H.R. 2032 is a very efficient 

and cost-effective approach to managing public lands. 

I firmly believe it is one of the best and most efficient methods 

of reducing the Federal budget while increasing the States' rights. BLM spends approximately $400 million more than it retains 

from royalties, fees and receipts from timber, grazing and energy 

development nationwide. On the other hand, BLM retains approximately $100 million more than it spends to manage lands in New 

Mexico. Therefore, New Mexico producers are subsidizing the Federal 

Government's activities in other States. Just like the eastern 

States, New Mexico should be managing these lands and allowed 

to keep any money generated from activities within its boundaries. 

H.R. 2032 requires the Secretary of the Interior to offer all BLM 

lands within each State to the Governor and the State legislature 

who may accept or reject the offer. . Once a State accepts the lands, they would be transferred to the 

State after a ten-year period to allow for the transition. All valid 

existing rights would continue to be recognized. Valid existing leases and permits on lauds to be transferred 

would be honored for the term of the current agreements and managed under their current terms and conditions. Designated wilderness areas will be managed by the State as wilderness and in accordance with the requirements specified by the Wilderness Act of 

1964. 

Mr. Chairman, there is none more distinguished a gentleman that I know of than the State of New Mexico's Lieutenant Governor, Walter Bradley, who is with me this morning and will 

present testimony in very strong support of H.R. 2032. He will also 

give you some idea about whether or not they would be willing to 

accept the BLM lands under the conditions set forth in this legislation. 

I believe the State of New Mexico is leading the way in the 

States' efforts to take back public lands managed by the Federal 

Government. New Mexico and other western States should be 

treated like every State east of the 30-inch rainfall belt. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I would entertain 

any questions that you or other members of the Committee may 

have. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Representative Skeen. We appreciate 

your excellent testimony. We are honored to have with us Walter 
4 

D. Bradley, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah. It is a privi- lege to have you with us. We will turn the time to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF WALTER BRADLEY, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 

OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I want to thank you again for allowing me to appear before 

you today to speak in favor of House Resolution 2032. The State 

of New Mexico is the fifth largest State in land mass in the United 

States totaling just under 78 million acres of land. Our population 

of about 1.6 million people is spread out in pockets all over a State 

that is rich in natural resources. 

We are primarily an agriculture and mineral State with many 

recreational/tourist areas and in November 1994's election, I believe that the citizens of New Mexico and the Nation sent a strong 

and loud message to government. Fed up with too much government regulation, they feel government has become overly intrusive 

not only in their business lives but their personal lives as well. 

Many of our citizens view government as a big brother who once 

extended a helping hand but now resorts to strong-arming the little 

ones. Government has gone from being a servant to being a dictator. 

The general feeling of the people is that Washington can't possibly know how best to help them with the running of their daily 

businesses and personal lives. They feel the best government is the 

one closest to them. One they can actively participate in rather 

than one in which they have to rely on the participation of others. 

In the State of New Mexico, approximately one-third of our land 

is under Federal·management. We have oil, gas, coal, C02, potash, 

sodium, lumber, grazing and recreational royalties and fees on 

these lands. 

Yet despite our role as the State where these products come 

from, we have direct influence on neither the negotiations of these 

contracts nor the disbursement of royalties. Forgive me, but having the Federal Government dictate a blanket management program to 50 diverse States is a bit like buying the same size shoe for everyone in your family. Simply put, it is 

not always the best fit. 

With the advent of the various acts passed by the U.S. Congress 

that affect land use, the State has no direct influence in the formation of regulations to implement these acts, not to mention the fact 

that enforcement is rarely coordinated with our law enforcement 

agencies. This causes great hardship on our citizens while at the 

same time creating a sense of isolated frustration that our interests 

and concerns are not being considered. 

At a time when the Federal Government is working to bring its 

budget under control and is looking to eliminate duplication and 

become efficient, it only makes sense to include the States. 

We have in the State of New Mexico a department which performs many of the same functions as the Bureau of Land Management. We can, we believe, manage the Federal land and preserve 

the intent of the Federal law for less taxpayer money and with 

greater benefits to the citizens. We in New Mexico think a better 

management system will be created by a relationship between Fed-
5 

eral and State government that reflects partnership rather than 

unilateral decree. 

We recognize our land as a most precious resource, and we all 

want to be certain that it is used wisely. The western farmer and 

rancher have a long heritage of land management. They provide 

sustenance for the rest of us and know they must preserve the integrity of the soil. They are some of our best environmentalists. 

The citizens of the State of New Mexico know best how to effectively implement sound management practices on our land. They 

deserve to be included in this process and, I believe, were guaranteed the right to be included by our Constitution. 

I wholeheartedly support H.R. 2032 and hope you will afford it 

your highest consideration. My remarks today have deliberately been brief, as I want to provide you with ample opportunity to 

enter into a dialog with me on this subject. 

It has been our practice in the State of New Mexico, we have a 

Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources that negotiates the same types of contracts that BLM does with the one exception of potash and sodium, which is only on the Federal land, 

but all the other contracts are negotiated on the State land by our 

own department. So why this duplication? 

To be quite honest with you, we found that we are better negotiators than the BLM. We get a little bit better royalty, we get a 

little better fee, and, quite frankly, we know more about our own 

land than the Federal Government. 

We also believe that the regulations of the Wetlands Acts and 

the Endangered Species Acts have been used against us. We are 

fed up with that. I will give you one example. You know, the Federal Government is not supposed to be buying land, but the Nature 

Conservancy group comes in as a nonprofit organization, uses Federal and State grant money, buys land and turns it over to BLM. 

The most recent acquisition was at the head of the Mimbres 

River in the southwest section of the State of New Mexico. Now, 

they are going to control the water rights from the head of this 

Mimbres which puts in direct danger the rancher and farmer 

downstream. We don't believe that is right. This thing has gone absolutely crazy, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, and we believe it is time that you let the 

States do what the States do best and that is judge their own land. 

I would be happy to stand for questioning. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much for your excellent testimony. 

We have now been joined by our former colleague, Senator Craig 

Thomas of Wyoming who is sponsoring this identical piece of legis- lation in the Senate. Senator, it is good to see you again and we 

will turn the time to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BON. CRAIG THOMAS, A SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, appreciate the fact that you are holding this 

informational hearing. 

Let me just go through this fairly quickly, and I want to talk 

about it conceptually and then in general and broad ideas because 

I think that is where we are. 
6 

First let me say that I strongly support the concept of multiple 

use of public lands and believe and hope that the States will continue to use these lands for a variety of uses, which includes hunting and fishing and recreation and grazing, mineral exploration 

and all these other uses. 

The key to what we are talking about here is to give local people 

the ability to make these decisions and not have them made for us 

in Washington. 

Let me just say as a matter of interest that the Wyoming legislature 12 years ago passed a statute saying that these lands should 

be in control of the States and that they would be managed for 

multiple use. 

Let me just comment on a number of things, without any particular order or continuity. First of all, I think it is very important 

that we make it clear what we are talking about here in terms of 

lands. These are BLM lands. These are residual lands. These are 

lands that were left when the homesteaders took updrivate lands, 

when the homesteaders took up the river bottoms an they took up 

the water and they took up the winter feed. 

These are residual lands. These are not lands that have been 

withdrawn for some other use. These are not parks; these are not 

forests; they are not wilderness; they are not wildlife refuges; these 

are residual lands which constitute about 50 percent of Wyoming, 

and higher percentages in other places. That is a little too high. 

The Federal lands are 50 percent; BLM lands are something less 

than that, but substantial. 

Second, let me say that I think there are taking place here and 

necessarily and will continue to take place, some fundamental 

changes in government. And we will be looking at the way government ought to be run, and the things that are logically done with 

the Federal Government and the things that logically and constitutionally can be better done by the States. 

I mean, we are talking about eliminating the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce and some significant 

changes, which indicate to me that it is reasonable to take a look 

at those things the Federal Government does best, the State government could do best. 

We are also looking at this opportunity to move government closer to people. If there was anything that has been said over the last 

several years is that the Federal Government is too large, spends 

too much and is not as close to people as it ought to be. 

So, there is a concept, there is a fundamental belief that we 

ought to reduce the size and the cost of the Federal Government. 

Of course, there is the question of equity and fairness that comes 

about. And it seems to me that that is a real issue. As we look at 

the western States, 50 to 80 percent of the land is retained and 

managed by the Federal Government as opposed to the remainder 

of the country where that is not the case. A question of fairness; 

a question of equity is there. 

Obviously, there is a question of States' rights and people argue 

that in various ways, but clearly there is a Tenth Amendment issue 

as to where we ought to be. In our State's act of admission, there 

were mentions of Yellowstone Park and those lands that had been 
7 

withdrawn and reserved. There was no mention of keeping half the 

State in terms of residual lands. 

AJJ a matter of fact, the organic acts of these management agen- cies indicated they would be managed pending disposal. That was 

the notion in the beginning. 

So, I think these are the kinds of concepts and of course you will 

hear a lot about management. I am persuaded, of course, that management close to people is the best kind of management. I think 

there is an awful lot that ought to be done in terms of blocking up 

and making these lands more manageable. 

We have, as you do, Mr. Chairman, checkerboard lands going 

through Wyoming. These are terribly difficult to manage. I hear 

Federal agencies talking about making trades and doing other activities-it never happens. Never happens. 

I have been here in this committee for several years seeking to 

cause that, and it seldom ever happens. So, I am of course not surprised that the agency basically resists it, but I don't know quite 

why. It is going to take professionals to manage this land if it is 

managed by the States, and many of those professionals would be 

the same. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I just think that we ought to be looking at 

this in terms of who can do the best job of multiple management 

of these lands. How can we make the best utilization for the people 

of these resources? I think we ought to be looking at the fundamentals of government where we can govern the best. What are the responsibilities of the Federal Government vis-a-vis the State? This 

is one of those kinds of things where that issue takes place. 

Let me say in closing again though that I think it is important. 

You find people talking about threats to parks and so on. We are 

not talking about that. We need to make sure we understand what 

we are talking about. 

Finally, let me say to you that clearly there will be as time goes 

by more competition for the funds that are available. More competition for the funds that are available to the Department of Interior. 

And I think people will have to make some choices in terms of priorities. Do you want those dollars to go to the national parks? Do 

you want to use them for wilderness? For forest? For lands that 

have a particular characteristic? Do you want to see them used for 

fish and wildlife? And these will be the choices. 

It isn't as if there are just tons of money and you can spread it 

wherever you want to. You all know better than I that there will 

be priorities. And it seems to me that that figures into this. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here. I am pleased that 

you have your bill forward. I think it makes some sense. I think 

it should be out there as an alternative as we go forward. I happen 

to have a priority at the moment in terms of time and that is to 

arrange land management because there is a time imperative 

there, but I think this is terribly important over time. 

I appreciate your efforts and appreciate the opportunity of being 

here. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate the comments from a former colleague and former member of this Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:] 
8 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CRAIG THOMAS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Mr. Chairman. thank ,-ou for holdiJJg this hearing today to discuss our bill to 

transfer the lands controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the 

States. This is an issue we have been working on together for a number of years 

and I appreciate you in~e to testify before the subcommittee. The purpose of this · tion is to give the western States the opportunity to 

manage the BLM lands. areas were never intended to be in permanent Federal ownership and I believe it is time we take action to transfer these lands to the 

various States. The measure is a common sense approach that supports the goal of 

good government and will make important changes in the way public lands are managed in the West. 

Currently, the BLM controls ne:;\1, 270 million acres of land in the United States. 

The ~ency administers over 18 · ·on acres of land in Wyoming, over 22 million acres m Utah and nearly 89 million acres in Alaska. This land ownership pattern 

puts a heaV}' burden on the people of Wyoming and all the western States and sig- nificantly affects the economy throwzhout the West. 

In addition to the vast amount oiland controlled by the agency, the BLM places a heavy bucW!tary burden on the taxpayer. For Fiscal Year 1996, the agency re- quested $1.6oillion for ita operations. The agency is a large bureaucracy that has 

liecome too big, too burdensome and costs too much. 

I sponsored this legisllltion because I believe government operates best when it 

is closest to the peopie. There is a principle involved in this measure: land management decisions can be made bett:.er by folks in the State capitols than people in 

Washington, DC. This is a question about fairness and who can do a better job of 

listening to the concerns of local people. I trust the people of Wyoming and the other 

States to make the proper decision for themselves. 

Transferring the BLM lands to the States is a common-sense approach to bring public management of theae areas to local people. I strowdy support the concept of 

multiple use of public lands and believe the States will xeep these areas open for a vanety of uses, ~ hunting, fishing, recreation, grazing, mineral exploration and many other uses. The key is to give local people the ability to make these decisions, not Federal bureaucrats. 

It 1s time for the Federal Government to begin to set priorities for our Nation's 

public lands. Currently, we are facing a severe Federal budget deficit and funding fortJ~grams throughout the Department of Interior are beiDg reduced. This trend 

is · y to continue and the Congress must decide whether it wants to provide funding for national parka, wilderneSs areas and other scenic regions or the lands that 

do not have any significant scenic or historical importance. Transferring the lands 

to the States is not a radical concept, but simply a matter of good government and 

fairness. 

Mr. Chairman. I once ~ would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity 

to appear before~ today. The time has come for the Federal Government torelease its grip on the western States and I believe our bill takes an important step in that clliection. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Richardson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HoN. BD..L RICHARDSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holdin2 this hearing on H.R. 2032. I have no doubt this bill reflects deeply held views. Bowever, on this legislation I must part 

company with you. As a New Mexican, it would be easy to be parochial and support 

this proposal because, on a first glance, it looks appealing. However, a closer read 

of this bill has convinced me this is a bad deal for the American taxpayer and mr constituents. These are public lands we are talking about that belong to all Amen- cans. Of course, I want New Mmdcans to have a say in the management of public 

lands in New Mezico, but I am unwilling to shut out Americans fiom the 49 other 

States who also deserve a voice. 

I am concemed that H.R. 2032 instead of ca1miJul tensions, will instead heighten them. It pits the West against the North, the South and the East. H.R. 2032 has no requirement that the8e public lands be managed for multiple-use purJioses, as is currently required. 'ft1ere are no guarantees of public access to these public lands once they are transferred. There is even no guarantee that the lands remain in pub- lic ownership. States would be free under this bill to turn around and sell them to 

the highest bidder. If you don't think that could occur, just look at what happened 

to many of the statehoOd grant lands of these same States. 

We have no idea what the ramifications of this bill would be for public land users. H.R. 2032 could very well mean the privatization of public lands, restrictions on ac-
9 

cess, or elimination of multiple-use management. Further, I can not believe at a time when the Federal Government is squeezed for every dollar it can get, that we would contemplate giving away the billions upon billions in assets that are our public lands. 

Mr. Chairman, I am all for the idea of enhancing public land management, but 

H.R. 2032 falls far short of that goal. I am unwilling to abdicate a legitimate Federal role and the mandates of multiple-use management. These are national re- source lands that should be managed for the benefit of all Americans. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Bob Stump follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB STUMP, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARizONA 

Chairman Hansen, Vice Chairman Duncan, and distinguished members of the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee, I appreciate your holding today's 

hearing on the transfer of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management back to the States. 

Arizona's Third District, which I represent, is largely federally owned, with the 

Grand Canyon National Park in the north, the Prescott, Coconino, and Kaibab National Forests, the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, numerous Indian reserva- tions and lands held in trust for tribes, and fish and wildlife refuges. Among the 

largest land areas in my district are those managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Nearly 20 percent of Arizona is managed by the BLM. I fully support the intent of H.R. 2032, a bill to transfer the lands administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management to the State in which the lands are located. 

The bill is a common-sense proposal in line with the current efforts in Congress to 

eliminate bureaucracy in our Federal Government by streamlining its functions, re- ducing its size and cutting costs. The benefit to the Federal Government will be immediate in the form of reduced 

spending for the Bureau of Land Management. The benefit to the States· will be 

readily apparent in that it will bring the government closer to the people. The land 

transfer reaffirms a State's right to manage lands within its borders and will allow a more consistent land management policy throughout a State. People will benefit 

from a greater opportunity for public involvement in land management decisions. Resource management will be able to draw upon the experiences of local people to 

find local solutions to pressing land management problems. It is important to recognize that the transfer of lands will not be in the form of a mandate, nor does it represent a Federal giveaway. The bill provides an option 

for States to accept, or reject the land transfer and restores States' ri~hts . I believe 

that the bill is an important first step toward land management, particularly in the 

West, where there has been undue political influence on land management decisions 

from J.>eople outside of the State. I pledge to you, my colleagues, that I stand ready 

to aSSlSt you in making this bill become a reality. 

Mr. HANSEN. I would be happy to recognize the members of the 

Committee for five minutes each on this panel, and we will take 

you in the order you arrived. I don't know who was here first, Mr. 

Cooley or Mr. Ensign. Mr. Cooley from Oregon, I will recognize you 

for questions of the panel. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We in Oregon are going 

through the same frustration you are in New Mexico and Wyoming, 

and we understand your problems as well. 

I cosponsor this bill with the Chairman because I feel the same 

as all of you do. What is happening here, the BLM Act was formed 

because we stopped the Homestead. And the original idea was to 

give this land back to the States in order for them to manage it 

through private property, through homesteading. And along the 

way we got diverted from our efforts, and we are where we are 

today. 

I looked at the chart that we were provided by the Bureau of 

Land Management here, and I looked at 1993 because that is the 

earliest dates we have. And it showed my State as well as yours, 

an aggregate to come out. 
10 

Believe it or not, Oregon had the largest income for BLM because 

of our timber sales in 1993. I guarantee you, gentlemen, if this was 

1995 that $147 million would be almost zero, because we are not 

cutting any trees, because under the Bureau of Land Management 

programs, they have discontinued any uses of public lands for revenues which will be generated to the States. 

We defmitely, as you have said in your statements, need to 

change this process. And the way to do this is to give it back to 

the States. Everyone of us knows that our States now that are running our State lands, are making money. There are no States that 

are losing money. 

I really appreciate you gentlemen coming here and reenforcing a 

conviction that we feel in the West that we need to change BLM 

and give that property back to State management. And I do appreciate you coming here and reconfirming what we all believe needs 

to be done, and y:our testimony is very valuable to us. Thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Ensign of Nevada. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to toss out 

a couple of questions for the panel and that is some things that are 

brought up to me. I am forming in Las Vegas a task force basically 

between city, county, governments, developers, environmentalists, 

people in power companies, telephone companies, everybody to try 

to get a handle on how we manage the public lands around Las 

Vegas. 

My State happens to have the highest percentage of lands managed by the Federal Government of any State in the union. And so, 

this is a great concern that we have in our State as well. 

Some of the questions that I get asked are that if there are problems with the Federal Government, maybe with the BLM, why 

don't we concentrate on fiXing those problems instead of disbanding 

the agency? Some people are afraid that if the Federal Government 

doesn't have control that the States are going to sell it off to developers who may abuse these very delicate lands in the West. I just 

toss that out for discussion. 

Mr. SKEEN. Let me start off by saying that it is a good question. 

The reason why we are having so much trouble with the Federal 

Government and management of lands is that every agency of the 

Federal Government that has anything to do with managing lands 

has a different philosophy. 

Right now you have BLM trying to replicate what the Forest 

Service has done in land management. They can't seem to get their 

act together among the agencies themselves on the Federal level. 

Each one of them has a different criteria. 

It is very confusing to have that many different styles of management talked about and the way they handle a large percentage of 

the land areas in States like yours and ours. And some of them are 

diametrically opposed as far as the philosophy of management is 

concerned. 

Management starts with people who are there day. in and day 

out managing the pieces of land if they got a grazing permit or 

something of that kind. That is why I think it is better that we 

move it back to the States and put it under one kind of philosophy 

and have one kind of an approach and one kind of a doctrine to 
11 

deal with public lands and particularly with the people who are 

there day in and day out doing the actual management and the 

stewardship of those lands. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Just to follow uf for further discussion. How do we 

guarantee that the States wil be as responsible as the Federal 

Government? 

Mr. SKEEN. May I try that one on too? The environmental concerns start with the person who is responsible for that piece of 

land. I don't know of any land operator that has any responsibility 

whatever on a long-term basis. If we go back three and four generations on grazing, which is a primary use of the land in the State 

of New Mexico, you are not going to destroy or otherwise damage 

something that is your base income property, or income base. 

And we have argued this with the people in government. It takes 

day-by-day management. The best environmental concern I know of 

is a person who is responsible for that particular piece of property 

and that land and who operates on it day in and day out. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Let me, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ensign, is that correct? Mr. Ensign. In New Mexico we are already doing this with 

our environmental department. We have to enforce the Federal 

law. You don't have the EPA in the State of New Mexico. We have 

the environment department who enforces OSHA, EPA requirements, all of those are under that executive branch of government 

right now. 

We have also done something that we found quite historical in 

our legislative session this year for the first time we had an agreement on the Endangered Species Act between the cattle producers 

and the environmentalists, and now we are going to have cost analysis as a factor before we start implementing these new regulations. 

I don't know anybody else that has brought those two groups together on a compromise. It was done this year in New Mexico because they are all realizing what we are having to do, which leads 

to the point that we have been talking about here today; the people that are closest to these issues know better how to enforce them. 

We are obligated as a State to enforce these Federal laws and 

regulations. Our complaint is we don't get to participate in writing 

the regulations. We don't get to participate in the negotiations. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Could this, as some people have said, become just 

another unfunded mandate from the Federal Government? 

Senator THOMAS. I don't see that at all. 

Mr. ENSIGN. In other words, if the States have to comply with 

all of the Federal laws and they get the management, that becomes 

an unfunded mandate. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ensign, with the 

amount of profit that is being made by the Federal Government 

from our States, let me assure you one thing, we will be much more 

prudent than the Federal Government. We need that money. 

Mr. ENSIGN. So you feel like you could handle the management 

and do it within the funds that would be provided from those 

lands? 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ensign, not only will we 

manage with it, we will make more profits and we can give it back 

to the people. 
12 

Mr. ENSIGN. Very good. I just have one other quick comment. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me comment. Number one, it is a good question. Number two, I have a great deal of faith in the people of Nevada being able to make decisions for themselves. Number two is 

guarantees. They want a guarantee. What guarantee do you have 

now? You have no guarantee that it will remain the same. Number 

three, these environmental laws are out there and being enforced 

now and will continue to be. So clean air, clean water, all those 

things will not change. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, just one last quick comment that I 

have. I got a phone call last week from somebody who was in the 

middle of Las Vegas. We have very much of a checkerboard-pattern 

in our State with BLM. I got a call from somebody who is building 

a mini warehouse right on the corner of two section lines which are 

both zoned for three-lane roads. The easement for the one road has 

1;10t beeh granted yet by the BLM, and he was told that it is about 

eight months away; it takes a total of 18 months to get that easement granted. He has a $3 million project that he is waiting for 

so that he can get his power 50 feet away instead of going two 

miles down the road to get his power, and that is potentially holding up this entire project. I think it is difficult. The County Commission is trying to get the 

BLM to speed this up, and can't do it. I think this indicates some 

of the problems that when the Feds control the land, what you run 

into. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. · Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 

Vento, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest and 

have looked at the bill. The phenomena that occurred is that there 

was a grant of lands to the States, the 11 western States, when 

they came into the union and they have sold about half of the land 

that was granted to them. Your view, Lieutenant Governor Bradley, that the lands that would be conveyed through this bill would 

be available for State disposal? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, there has been some, yes, not all 

would be available. It depends on the circumstances where they are 

going. Under BLM though, our charge would be to try to under current law, administer as much of that to the private sector as possible. Mr. VENTO. So, in other words, you would be contracting out the 

management of these public lands, these BLM lands, is that what 

you are saying? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Not all of.--

Mr. VENTO. You said the management through the private sector, what do you mean by that? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vento, what I am saying is 

that some of it we can sell off, some we can't. So our Department 

of Energy would be managed in the same way as they are doing 

right now in the State lands in the way of leases on those that we 

couldn't sell. There are sections, we are a big State, and to give you 

an example, we have--

Mr. VENTO. We sell land right now, don't we? 

Mr. BRADLEY. No. You do not. 
13 

Mr. VENTO. The BLM doesn't? I am looking at the 1994 budget, 

the sale of land and minerals, $80 million. Nevada land sales, 

$288,000, $80 million, so it is 80 million dollars worth is sold so 

right now we are selling. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Do you want to help me, Joe? 

Mr. SKEEN. Yes, I would like to help you. 

Mr. BRADLEY. 'OK, thanks. 

Mr. SKEEN. There is a moratorium that BLM has on the sale of 

BLM lands. They have not been selling any lands unless there was 

some specific purpose or outside of the grazing area or whatever 

the operation is. · They haven't lifted that moratorium since the early 1970's. Now, 

I don't know what they are referring to in land sales in the State 

of Nevada. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that is under the Santini Act. 

Mr. SKEEN. Well, that was under a mineral situation. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, well, it is minerals. I said minerals and land. 

The BLM, according to the Federal collections, in 1994 took in a 

little less than $1.3 billion. They paid back to the States $725 million. 

Mr. BRADLEY. That was in PILT? 

Mr. VENTO. No, they don't have quite that much in PILT yet. 

They are trying though, I want to assure you of that. 

Mr. BRADLEY. That would be the PILT payment. 

Mr. VENTO. No, it is actually the mineral royalties in PILT, that 

accounts for about $623 million, the rest comes in various sources. 

Largely referring to some of the timber sales in smaller amounts 

that are in there, grazing fees, $3.25 million. But the point is that 

an awful lot of the money that they collect on fees already goes 

back to the States; in fact, well over half the money, according to 

this chart, goes back. 

One of the problems here is, of course, that the States may cherry-pick certain lands, they can't just take it all over, they just could 

take over that which is the most desirable. That is obviously what 

has happened with BLM lands historically, is that those that were 

most desirable because of water, because of other mineral characteristics and amenities, were picked up and others were left. What 

is to prevent that from happening in this legislation? Senator THOMAS. I don't think this legislation allows for that. 

States make' a decision whether they are going to take the lands 

or whether they are not. 

Mr. VENTO. All or nothing. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Right. 

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Vento, when those lands were apportioned back 

to the States, the Federal Government was the one who made the 

decision, and gave them the exact numbers and the exact sections 

that were to be ceded back to the States for the support of common 

institutions. 

And that is the case in the State of New Mexico, so this was 

specified sections per township that they gave back to the States, 

and there were four of those when they came in originally and then 

two more sections later on--

Mr. VENTO. Well, it is creating a history lesson here. 
14 

Mr. SKEEN. Well, I think it is important that you know the history before--

Mr. VENTO. Oh, I do too. But I think that speaking as to the future, your comments, Congressman Skeen, and I quote, you mentioned that you are a cosponsor of the legislation, and turning the 

Federal land over to the State would help the State create a tax 

base in those areas where none exists. 

The State would auction off portions of the land which are used 

for grazing purposes or oil and gas drilling or mining and collect 

property taxes which could then be used to maintain roads in those 

areas. So, it sounds to me like the States then would be selling off 

the most profitable portions of the land, is that your--

Mr. SKEEN. Not unless they chose to do so, but under the State 

laws and in the State of New Mexico today, if you have a grazing 

permit on State land, you as the permittee can have that land put 

up for sale at the courthouse if you choose to do so. And you have 

to bid it on an open bidding process. But you go through a big rigmarole to--

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think they have some other requirements in 

there in terms of preferential right of renewal of the grazing permits. 

Mr. SKEEN. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Obviously if they are all in favor of auctioning and 

doing some other things, there might be more of a willingness. One 

of the problems is that we spend about a quarter billion dollars 

each year firefighting on BLM lands. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Well, you do that in conserve with State entities 

as well. 

Mr. VENTO. But if you were taking over the quarter billion dollars or that portion, one of the issues is I guess that it is Senator 

Thomas' intention that the entire State be in an ali-or-nothing 

proposition, but then some States have greater mineral resources 

than others. 

This whole idea that there isn't collaboration or cooperation between the BLM and the States is interesting to me. I know that 

is not the case with law enforcement. That may be the case with 

other areas. 

But, you know, I think that that speaks to another issue. Anyway, I am sure that most of you are not surprised at my questioning of this particular proposal. You would expect no less of me, I 

am sure. 

Mr. SKEEN. You are always a surprising individual, Mr. Vento. 

Don't underestimate yourself. 

Mr. VENTO. I will try not to, or overestimate myself either. Mr. 

Chairman, right now I have overstepped my time. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The lady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman 

Skeen and Lieutenant Governor Bradley, it is awfully good to have 

you here. 

I enjoyed working with Congressman Skeen on some of our westem issues. I am not yet a cosponsor of this legislation because I 

do want to work on the water rights section of it. And I hope that 

I might employ your assistance in the water right language. 
15 

Senator Thomas, I watched you last night and yesterday as you 

spoke about the overreaching of the Bureau of Land Management, and I think you were very eloquent but you also certainly gave a 

picture to the viewer of the fact that we now have an agency protecting a process even to the extent that they will step outside the 

line of authority granted by the Congress, that being the Hatch Act 

and President Bush's executive authority. I thank you for speaking 

out as you did. It was extremely good. 

I do think that also affects this legislation, and for the record 

here could you enlighten us on some of the activities with regards 

to the Hatch Act, violation of the Hatch Act and the Bush executive 

order? 

Senator THoMAS. Well, just very briefly. We had a hearing last 

week at which time Senator Craig introduced some information 

that there was a considerable amount of political activity going on 

with respect to the Range Land Reform proposal. There is in the 

appropriations law, a very clear prohibition about agencies involving themselves in the political aspect of legislation before that legislation is passed. As I said last night, there are two aspects of it to be considered. 

Number one, these are allegations, and we don't know where we 

are, we are going to look into it. Number two, I think the law is 

designed largely to protect career employees who do not wish to get 

into the political arena. 

They are there as professional managers, their job is to implement the law and for the most part they are not interested in getting into the controversy of the politics of it. And in this case, hopefully they haven't been forced into that. 

The second aspect, of course, it would be very unfortunate if we 

turned the entire Federal bureaucracy into a lobbying agency. And 

that is against the law. So, we are looking at that. No allegations 

have been made. We are trying to work with the Secretary and I 

think it is the obligation of our committee on oversight and investigations, and that is what we are doing., Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator. Have you also found in 

your work as we have over here that even the Secretary admits 

that with the partnership between the ranchers, the State and the 

Federal Government as well as environmental organizations, that 

we actually can enhance the wildlife and that it is admitted that 

the State of the rangelands is in better shape today than it ever 

has been? 

Senator THoMAS. That is the assessment of the agency, of course. 

Just let me say that, and this is one of the aspects of it, I think 

we have real good people working in these agencies, trying to do 

the very best job. We, as a practical matter, handcuffed them in 

management, right here in the Congress. 

You are talking about land trades. The kinds of preparation that 

are required under law to carry on any sort of a land trade just 

absolutely makes it almost impossible to do that. And with archeological studies and all those kinds of things to the point that it is 

much more expensive to prepare for a land trade than the value 

of the land that is traded. 

I just want to say to you that this is not a criticism of the people 

who are out in the country, on the land, but a criticism of the bu-
16 

reaucracy and the function from here. That is one of the reasons 

we need to put it in State control. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, we have a project in Idaho where 

ranchers have been working with the State Fish and Game as well 

as the Bureau of Land Management on Bureau of Land Management lands where 20 years ago they brought in 6 breeding pairs 

of California bighorn sheep, and for the last two years we have 

been capturing sheep and thinning them out to other States because they have bred up to the point that there are at least 1,800 

that we can count and other herds that have gone over into eastern 

Oregon, so it is a real success story. 

Turning the lands over to the State, I think that we can continue 

to enhance that. Bl.!t, Senator, what do the vacant unappropriated 

Federal lands mean to you today by definition? 

Senator THOMAS. Well, they certainly aren't vacant. What it 

means to me is that there have been, in my view, lands withdrawn. 

Yellowstone Park. Teton Park. Devil's Tower. These are lands 

which have special recreational characteristics. They are part of 

the national jewels of our Park System, and they properly belong 

in a national park, in my view. 

The same is true of the forests, the forest reserve. They are 

called the U.S. Forest Reserve. These lands were reserved for a 

particular purpose. They have a unique characteristic. And the 

same is true with wildlife refuges. I think the difference is that 

these lands simply were residual, they were simply there. And they have been managed. 

So we get to a time whe~1 there have to be priorities established, 

and Mr. Vento talks about the expenditure; he didn't mention that 

there will be less expenditure this time than there was last year. 

There will be less next year. And so, we are going to have to make 

some choices. 

What we have done frankly, and I admire that, is we have simply this year reduced everything. There comes a time when you have to say there are some things that we should change rather 

than just simply reduce and intend to continue to do them on the 

edge. So all these things factor into it. And I think it is a legitimate 

consideration of fundamental change. And that is what is involved 

here. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I thank all three of you for the 

honor that goes to us of your appearing before us. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Montana, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Nice to see you all. Senator, it is good 

to see you back over here. 

Sometimes if you try to get at the facts in a historical way you 

get a better perspective of whether or not legislation ought to pass. 

I . .think there is a myth out there that needs to be corrected, and 

t,hat is the Federal Government, the public in this country has 

never gotten rid of any of the land they hold. 

During the last decades, the public, the national public, has sold 

or granted 60 percent of its original holdings. So the question is, 

what is left and how important and critical is it? Until the early 1980's, there was always a very bipartisan, it seems to me, view 
17 

of the public's land and how we were going to pass on this green 

and flourishing estate to our descendants. 

Theodore Roosevelt insisted that the plunderers be pushed back 

and the public land be held in its own domain. He was joined by 

John Wesley Powell, Jack Kennedy, Gifford Pinchot, Bob Marshall, 

Nelson Rockefeller. All wanted to hold as much appropriate land as 

we could in the national estate so we could pass it on. .. So it isn't that nothing has ever been granted or sold or traded, 

nor is it that this issue until the last decade and a half has been 

partisan. Our good friend who had to leave, the Senator from Wyoming, mentioned that the issue is who can do the best job of managing it. Well, that is part of the issue. 

But there is also, it seems to me, a very important and critical 

issue about who has responsibility for it. Who has jurisdiction over 

it? And are they simply going to relinquish that to another governmental agency and under what law or what ideology are we going 

to allow that to happen? 

Now under this who can best manage it, you know, as Alyce Joseph knows, I represent all of Montana. And so I see foolishness 

in the Federal management of some of these lands. I also see foolishness in the State management of their lands. 

What if the Federal Government did this? Now, this is what 

some States out West do with regard to their land, and we would 

give them the rest of the public's land under BLM, under this bill. 

States out West, some States out West, don't allow campfires. Now 

let us say the Federal Government decided to do this under regulation. No campfires on the land. All dogs must be leashed. 

You can't camp anywhere on State lands after the sun goes 

down. You can't camp for two nights in a row on the States where 

you can camp after the sun goes down. You can't hike. You can't 

bird watch. What if the Federal Government decided to do that? 

There would be an uproar from both the right wing, we would hear 

from Rush first, and then the rest of America would follow and the 

Federal Government, people would think we had gone absolutely 

loony. That is what States out West do. 

And by the way, my State of Montana does all those things except two. You can bird watch in Montana and you can camp overnight, but no more than two nights. We are going to turn the public 

estate over to that kind of management? I don't think the public 

is going to want that once they begin to see what the States are 

doing with the land that they are managing. 

We have between 800 and 900 full-time and seasonal BLM employees in Montana. The payroll is about 14, 15 million bucks. Let 

me tell you, fellows, Montana wants no part of that payroll. Our 

taxpayers do not want to cough up 14 or 15 million bucks, all by 

themselves to manage that BLM land in Montana. 

Are there problems with Federal management of land? I think 

there are. I think there are. And I think we ought to solve that. 

But I don't think that we ought to turn over this public estate to 

the States. I apologize for there being no question on that but if 

I have any time--

Mr. SKEEN. Could I respond to you, Pat? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to my pal. 
18 

Mr. SKEEN. I appreciate what you are saying and, yes, States can 

do loony things like the Federal Government does loony things, only we do it on a bigger scale. 

How do you think that all the States that came into the Union 

including from Oklahoma on east, ever wound up with any philoso- phy of managing their lands, so to speak? Because they are mostly 

privately owned. The only reason they didn't in the western States 

is because we didn't have enough rainfall to make a crop, so they 

didn't homestead a lot of it. 

It was grazed, you know that history. Yes, there are a lot of 

crazy things done but I think that there are a lot of smart things 

being done too. And States are just as capable of being smart as 

the Federal Government is being smart and just as capable of making mistakes as the Federal Government is. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. A lot of smart things being done by both governments. 

Mr. SKEEN. Now, you are talking about the payroll. No, you don't 

want to support that payroll. We don't want to support it either. 

Since 1950, BLM has increased their staff or their management 

groups from two and three in the regional offices to 300 in each regional office. That is since 1950. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but let me just say this. I don't know the figures in Montana with 

regard to BLM, but with regard to Joe's last good point, we have 

in Montana more Forest Service people working in the offices than 

there are Forest Service people working in the offices here in 

Washington, DC. 

Mr. SKEEN. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you. 

I just wanted to thank Senator Thomas for his leadership. I 

know he is not here right now. And also Representative Skeen for 

his fine work. I would just elaborate on Mr. Skeen's report. I would 

just elaborate a little bit on what Mr. Skeen was saying, that the 

States can do a much better job of managing these lands than the 

Federal Government. 

I would look more specifically at what has happened to the BLM 

offices in Colorado, for example. Where we had just a few employees a decade or two ago, today there is a large number of Federal 

employees in those offices, and it is hard to justify their existence, 

in my way of thinking. Obviousl~ I would agree with what Mr. Williams said, is that the 

States don t want this huge payroll responsibility. The States recognize that there is a lot of inefficiency in the way the Federal Government is running these offices. And the States can operate these 

offices more efficiently, more effectively with more concern for the 

local habitants of those States than what the Federal Government 

is able to show. 

Mr. Bradley, have you seen a similar growth in the bureaucracy 

in the Federal Government, and what would be your response to 

that Federal Government? Would you reduce the number of employees, pay them less with less benefits and get the same job 

done? Would you please respond to that? 
19 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Allard, thank you very much. 

The answer is yes on all accounts. That we have seen that increase 

by the Federal Government. In direct proportion to our State agen~ 

cies who do, as I testified earlier, virtually the exact same thing that the BLM is doing, we have a third less the staff. 

We are perplexed at why we got this influx of all these Federal 

employees that are coming in; although we will take the taxes that 

they pay. But the fact is that you don't need to do that. We don't 

need that size force. 

We have, I believe, 750-plus BLM employees, and if you take the 

same group, we have a third of that in Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources doing the exact same thing. That doesn't make sense. 

And, quite frankly, at $30,000 average per employee less than what 

the Federal employment figure is. 

So, we can save money. We don't need that kind of a force, and 

we are prepared to go with it. It is also interesting to note, you 

know, when you talk about the issue of whether the States are the 

worst or the Feds make mistakes, and the States make mistakes. 

The big difference is, and this is what our citizens are hollering for, 

they have direct access to us. I mean, you know it costs me about 

$1,300 to come up here. The average citizen in the State of New 

Mexico can't afford $1,300 to come up here and talk to you. 

You are their source and you are their leader and their legislator but they don't have that access. But they will surely get in their 

car and drive 200 miles to Santa Fe and jump all over us up there 

in Santa Fe real quick over these issues, and we have to respond 

to it immediately. 

Mr. ALLARD. Very good point. Now, on this issue that was 

brought out. The States do share in the costs of the operation by 

the Federal Government, but with your increased efficiencies, it 

seems to me that you would realize a greater share of the revenue 

coming off the land because you are doing things less expensively 

than the Federal Government. It seems to me that in return for 

that there is also a savings to the Federal taxpayer. Could you elaborate more on that? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Allard, actually if you traded dollar for dollar with the BLM, we would still have an excess 

revenue of over $100 million. Close to $200 million in extra revenue to the State of New Mexico if we traded you even. We don't 

have to trade you even because we can be more efficient. 

We know what we are doing, we are already in place to make 

it run. We will lower that cost to the Federal Government. We will 

lower the cost to the citizens of the State of New Mexico, and we 

will increase that revenue share. 

I am not sure where the States stand, but I do know New Mexico's figures that the $146 million that was reported by BLM to be 

put back into the State forgets the $150 million that came up here, 

and then went into your general fund. So there is $150 million excess if we traded you dollar for dollar. 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, actually there is a shortfall when you look at 

the receipts as well as the expenditures from tQ.e BLM. I would 

suspect that in your State, like the State . of Colorado and other 

western States, that people within those States have a lot of pride in their parks and their open space. 
20 

There is no reason to think that just by turning it over to the 

States that they are going to allow for their land to be raped by 

special interests. Since they are living next door to these lands they 

have every intention of protecting the environment in those States, 

would you agree with that? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Allard, absolutely, we have 

to do it right now because we are right there in the trenches with 

them. We have to protect them. We can't allow it to go to be traded 

off, to be raped by business enterprises, etcetera, we are not going 

to do that. By God, we would never be in office if that were to happen and then so be it. That is what we are there for. To serve at 

those citizens' pleasure. 

Mr. ALLARD. The fact is you may even have some areas that you 

want to preserve that the Federal Government doesn't recognize 

and agree with you on. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Allard, exactly, we do have 

some areas we would like to preserve. We have some archeological 

sites and maybe even American sites that the Feds aren't even 

looking at and we would like to keep, small areas. 

Mr. ALLARD. Representative Skeen, are there any comments that 

you would like to pose to those issues that I brought up in my 

questioning? Time is running out, and I want to give you a chance 

to shoot at it. 

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman and my colleague, Mr. Allard, I think 

we have gone over this several times, but one of the things that 

strikes you right off the bat is the problem that the Federal Government has is when we initiate any laws here in Congress, then 

we have to spread it across the entire system. 

AB a consequence of that, in the area of land management, just 

in the BLM alone, that is why we proliferated with large numbers 

and more personnel, because right now every time you do anything 

on a piece of BLM land, you got to send the archeology group out 

there, the environmental groups, this, that and the other. So they 

have expanded their staffs because they have taken on more of an 

oversight and hands-on oversight position than they had had for 

many years previous to this. So I think that we are part of the problem here at the national 

level. I go along with Walter that it is just far more efficient to hav~why can't we be treated like every other State in the United 

States prior to the time that these States west of the 30-inch rainfall belt came into the Union? . Nobody is squawking about the way they handle their lands and 

the properties that they have a responsibility for. But also we need 

a land management system that makes some sense, and it doesn't 

in the case of the western States. We are treated differently than 

every other State in the United States. 

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has run out and I 

would also like to compliment you on your leadership on this piece 

of legislation. I think you are moving us in the right direction. 

Thank you very much. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. 

The gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Cubin. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that all the 

points that I was most interested in have been made so I won't be-
21 

labor them too much. But I would like to emphasize Representative 

Skeen's remark. All we want is to be treated like every other State 

in the union. We want to be on equal footing with the eastern 

States. 

What that means to us is that we have a stable tax base. It 

means we can predict what we can spend and what we can do in 

State government. The payment in lieu of taxes that the Federal 

Government sends to us is never equal to what it would be, it is 

always below what it would be if property taxes were assessed by 

the States on that property. 

I really think it is a Constitutional issue. I mean, the Constitution certainly says that all States must be brought into the Union 

on equal footing. Well, I don't see how you can think that equal 

footing is that the Federal Government owns about half of the 

lands in all 11 western States. 

So, I am very much in favor of this. I appreciate your leadership, 

both of you, on the issue, look forward to working on this, and I 

will do what I can to help this pass. I know that in our State, I 

have the whole State of Wyoming, my district is 98,000 square 

miles roughly, and I know how the State manages the State lands, 

and I know how the Federal lands are managed and the efficiencies 

aren't even comparable. The State can do it better. And I encourage 

you to continue working along. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Just to state that I am in support of the legislation and grateful for it having been brought forward, and beyond 

that I have no questions. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

good morning, gentlemen, it is a pleasure to see you. First of all, 

even though I come from New York, I think I can develop some ap- preciation for your point of view. I think that if I were in your position, I might have greater sympathy for your position than I do 

currently. 

But I don't know, and I have not been able to find any evidence 

that shows that States can administer these properties any better 

or more efficiently or more in the public interest than they are currently being managed by the Federal Government. 

Furthermore, the people that I represent in New York regard the 

Federal lands as lands owned by all the people of the country, not 

just those people in which the lands may be located. We have anational seashore in New York. We regard that as just that, a national seashore, owned by all the people of the country. The Statue 

of Liberty is owned by all the people of the country, not just by the 

people of New York. 

We regard these lands as being the province of the Nation. Just 

because they happen to reside in a particular State, that doesn't 

change that. 

We are also aware of the fact that there are substantial revenues 

that come from these lands, mineral rights, grazing of private livestock, timber, recreation, and those revenues amount to more than 
22 

$1 billion a year. If they were priced at market prices, they prob- ably would bring in twice that amount. 

So, it is very difficult for me to rationalize the idea of our Chairman, although I think I can appreciate it on one level, at least. But 

it is going to be hard to convince people around this country that 

these Federal lands would be better managed in their interest by 

people in the States in which they are located. And that they no 

longer have the right to say anything about it, that somebody will 

take care of them for them, and they may or may not have access 

to them, they may or may not get benefits from them. I think that 

that is going to be a very difficult adjustment to make for a lot of 

people in the East and in the West as well. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. If I could 

through the gentleman ask a couple of quick questions, ask them 

both together and let perhaps Lieutenant Governor or Congressman respond. First, can the States dispose of these lands if we give 

it to them and under what condition can they dispose of it? 

Second, at least in Montana, grazing fees on State lands and adjacent Federal lands are very different; the State charges a lot 

more than the Federal Government does for grazing. Can your 

State cattle people stand an increase to bring the current Federal 

grazing fee costs up to whatever your States are charging? Will the 

cattlemen support that? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Let me try the second one, I will let the Congressman do the first one because I don't know what your Federal laws 

are. We have a moratorium right now, and I would rather let him 

speak on the sale of the land, so he can address that. 

As far as grazing fees, quite frankly, you have in Montana better 

grazing land than we do in New Mexico, on the whole. And prob- ably should be getting more money in Montana than we should in 

New Mexico, but now let us go back into New Mexico and, yes, the 

fact is that in the northeast side of our State, grazing fees should 

be higher, but they are no higher than they are in the southwest 

quadrant. 

Down in the southwest quadrant we are sitting over there with 

quite arid land and one cow per section, so we have a problem down there. In most cases where the State negotiates grazing fees, 

we end up getting more than the Federal Government does, but at 

the same time you have all these Acts coming in, the Wetlands 

Acts and the Endangered Species Acts that are affecting the Federal land that don't affect the State land. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. How about the matter of disposition, sir? First, 

would you be willing to take all of the BLM land regardless of its 

condition? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Second, would you want to dispose of any of it 

and should you be allowed to do it? . Mr. BRADLEY. Yes, we want it all. Absolutely. We want to manage it. We are not in the business as I understand this legislation, 

we are not taking this land away from the Federal Government, we 

are going to manage the land, except in the BLM cases where if 

we can sell it off, yes, we would sell it off because we have sections 
23 

of 10,000-acre ranches where you have BLM land that is right next 

to it, 5,000 to 10,000 acres that is being leased from BLM, and then 

you have got another, the same owner has another 5,000 or 10,000 

on the other side, so he is sitting down there, why wouldn't we 

want to sell off that section--

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think you would. Then the last part of it, of 

course, is OK if y'ou sell it, then who gets the land? Just the people 

in your State or my State or the people who owned the land in the 

first instance and gave it to you? Do we spread it to the public 

through the General Treasury to relieve their tax burden? The literally hundreds of millions of dollars that we spent in just the last 

decade? 

Mr. BRADLEY. The hundreds of millions that was spent here, correct, but what about the hundreds of millions that came out of that 

State? And this was done as a condition of statehood that was done 

by territorial--

Mr. WILLIAMS. So there was a double benefit paid for by the public? 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. SKEEN. May I respond to the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Chairman? Just quickly. I appreciate his view because he has 

taken it from a very honest perspective that yes, we all in the East 

believe that the western States, the public lands belong to all of us. 

And we would like to enjoy that in the same way. 

New York evidently has taken that as a real precept, because 

they move to New Mexico in droves, the whole west side of Albuquerque is usually retired New Yorkers. Now, we would like to 

trade you the white sands for your seacoast or whatever you would 

like. Because we have got a lot of sand but no beach. I am not 

being facetious but you look at this differently from the eastern 

part of this country. 

This is all ours out West. We own part of that. That is fine. We 

would like to say the same thing. We own part of New York. And 

we feel like we would love to come and see the wonderful sights 

of New York and wonderful attributes that you have, and we would 

like to have that kind of exchange. 

However, when it comes to managing the land, you folks are 

managing yours. Most of it is private land. Now, because that is 

the way you came into the Union, were accepted, and all the other 

States up to the 30-inch rainfall belt line, which runs north and 

south through the panhandle of Texas to Canada and so forth. You 

can't raise a crop with less than 30 inches of rainfall. That is why 

it was never homesteaded; ideal for grazing. So it is a difference in philosophy of the use of the land itself. 

And that is what it is all predicated on, is how is it best used, how 

is it best preserved. Only those people who are working on it, living 

in it day in and day out, I .think really appreciate that. Because 

there are so many things you don't understand about it. I don't understand everything about New York and vice versa. But I do appreciate your honesty and your viewpoint. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I may respond? 

Mr. HANSEN. I will give you 30 seconds to respond. 
24 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Maybe you will get the opportunity to afpre- ciate New York better. I think that in spite of the fact that live 

in New York, I appreciate you and the lands that you have and just 

as much as the people who live on those lands. I appreciate the 

value that they have for the people of the country. I appreciate the 

benefits that they provide for the people who live in those areas 

and who enjoy those benefits at a cut rate, that is fme; but the 

point is that those lands belong to all the people of this country 

and what we are rroposing here is one of the major steals of the 

200-year history o the United States. To just take those lands and 

turn them over to people who are in those States for whatever purposes they might deem acceptable, and the rest of the country be 

damned. · Mr. HANSEN. The time for the gentleman has expired. We are not 

here to debate this issue right now. The gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Kildee, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, I am from Michigan and we have virtually no BLM land 

there except some subservice rights in Michigan. But the people in 

Michigan for many, many years have contributed to the BLM lands 

in other States. 

We have, for example, 65,000 miles of roads suitable for vehicular traffic, over 900 developed recreation-sites which the people of 

Michigan do use but they contributed to them probably more than 

their use since they are a distance away. They have contributed to 

the building of 56 visitor centers and over 16,000 family camping units. 

What can I tell the people of the ninth congressional district of 

Michigan as to what they are going to get in return for giving up 

those lands in which they have invested so much of their money? 

Mr. SKEEN. I would say the same thing. You are getting your money's worth from the gas and the oil and the other resources 

that we provide for you to use those roads, and by the way there 

are an awful lot of our roads that you all haven't helped us pay for yet. 

Mr. KlLDEE. Well, we paid for a lot of those roads. 

Mr. SKEEN. No, they still have dirt on them. 

Mr. KlLDEE. Do you want me to pay more? 

Mr. SKEEN. No, sir. I just want you to come send a payment. 

Mr. K!LDEE. Well, I look upon certain things in which we have 

some national patrimony. That is owned by all the people of the 

country. And not only owned by them at this time, but they have 

invested in those lands, a great deal of investment. And for me to 

go back home and say that I gave away your lands, the national 

patrimony, and by the way you have invested a lot of money in 

those lands, part of your income tax which we tax you on and I did 

vote for the increased income tax a year ago-I am going to be run 

out of town. 

They have invested there and they look upon that as their land, 

as part of the national patrimony, not just for Oregonians or Californians or Nevadians or Arizonians, it is part of the United States' 

land. The United States is a country and it does have certain national lands owned by all the people. Just tell me how I can go 

back-will you come back with me and tell them--
25 

Mr. SKEEN. I would be very happy to. 

Mr. Kn.DEE. They would probably run us both out of town. 

Mr. SKEEN. As a matter of fact, I would be happy if you would 

exchange. You come and tell my folks down there how you feel 

about owning, and they will say fme, what do we own in your State? Because when the Federal Government owns 60 to 70 percent of your land service, and your tax base is not there, we will 

take care of our roads, we will take care of our county government 

operations and city government operations. But give us back our 

tax base. Just as you have yours. 

Mr. KILDEE. I have voted from time to time in this Committee, 

you know, transfer of lands. I think we can transfer certain lands 

where a good cause is presented. I have supported a lot of those 

bills. But to take the whole patrimony and give that away, to my 

mind is draconian, it is revolutionary. 

Mr. SKEEN. Precisely. 

Mr. Kn.DEE. Revolutionary. 

Mr. ALLARD. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. KlLDEE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. ALLARD. You know, does the gentleman understand that 

State lands have public access so that if your constituents would 

visit New Mexico or Colorado, they have access to that land. So I 

am trying to understand why there is a concern about turning Federal land over to the State because if they go there to recreate in 

a western State, those opportunities won't be taken away from 

them. 

Mr. KlLDEE. I am not sure with the resources of the States 

though that those over 17,000 cam pin~ units will be maintained. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee, the BLM land is different from the wilderness areas. Now the BLM land, they are separate issues and I am also having trouble following. We are going 

to manage the land and only in certain circumstances with the authority that you would give us would we be able to sell it. But we 

would be managing that land down there and I would just ask you for just a moment to think about your citizens in Michigan and 

how they might feel if their teenaged son was lost out in the wilderness area and a State rescue helicopter from Michigan found 

him but was not able to land because an enforcement agency from 

the BLM said you can't land there. 

Mr. KlLDEE. I think those are the things we could address. But 

if I read the bill, maybe I read it wrong, it says the Secretary of 

Interior shall offer to transfer all right title and interest to the 

United States, it doesn't just say management. And to all lands interest and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. It gives all right title interest to the United States, not just the 

management, it would be owned by the individual States. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. KlLDEE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is an important point here. And sometimes 

I find this bill or something like it to be a close call. But there is 

an important point here, and that is this. The most visited, open, 

accessible land in America is Federal land. Of all the public land 

in America, the most closed and least accessible is that managed and owned by the States. 
26 

Mr. CooLEY. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. 

Mr. CooLEY. That is absolutely not true. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it is. 

Mr. COOLEY. It is not true. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would the gentlemen suspend? The gentleman 

from Michigan, just lost your time. The time went out on you. The 

gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo is recognized for five min- u~. . Mr. PoMBo. This is going to be fun in markup. To start off, the 

gentleman from New York brings up the national seashore. We get 

into this debate East versus West quite frequently because the 

easterners complain that the western lands don't bring enough 

money in for their value; that it costs them money, and they always try to take the high fiscal conservative ground that we need 

to get more money out of these western lands. And then when the 

proposal comes forward that maybe the best to do is to give those 

lands to the States, or to sell them off to private individuals so it 

is no longer a drain on the Federal budget, then that is not good 

either because you want to keep the land but you don't want it to 

cost anything either. 

I can tell you from our experience with the Federal Government, 

you will never be able to bring in enough money to pay for the 

costs of the Federal Government off those lands, because the more 

money you bring in, the more that BLM or Forest Service or whichever the Federal agency is, will spend. And, you know, Mr. Skeen 

talked about how BLM has increased its scope, its level of involvement in lands in the West over several years. Well, a big part of 

that has been because more money has come in and we continue 

to pass more laws that tell them that they have to do more things and they will continue to spend more money. So it is a dog chasing its tail, you are never going to catch it. 

And that is what is happening with the West. I would just as soon 

sell all this land and tum it into private land. That is my opinion. 

I really do believe in private property and we ought to privatize 

this land. And if that money from selling the land goes into the 

Federal Treasury, that is great. I think that .is fine. But I think 

that we really need to do something with this land because we are 

going backwards fast with all of this and I think that this proposal 

that Mr. Hansen has introduced is one of the ways that we can address the problem with Federal lands throughout the West. 

I think it is something that we really do need to look at. You 

know, we look at Federal lands as they have in New York, that 

don't bring in money to the Federal Treasury. They may bring in 

money to the State of New York because of increased tourism. They 

may bring in money to the businesses in New York because of increased tourism. But they don't bring in money to the Federal Government. We subsidize all of the people of New York to go to the 

beach. I have never been to the beach in New York but I subsidized 

all of the people in New York to go to the beach. And I don't think 

that is fair. I shouldn't have to subsidize your constituents going 

to the beach. I should not have to subsidize all of the hotels and 

restaurants and people who rent roller blades and everything else 

along the beach in New York with my Federal tax dollars. But we 
27 

do it, and there is no proposal brought up before Congress to do 

away with that subsidy. Because that is one of the untouchables, 

that is recreation. We don't want to touch that. But we are subsidizing the people of New York going to the beach. 

Yet the people from New York get all excited about grazing fees 

or about timber sales because that is somehow a subsidy to the 

people of the West. Well, everything we do is subsidizing somebody. 

Everything we do is putting money somewhere. And you know, you 

probably wouldn't feel too good about it if we brought up a bill that 

would shut down the national seashore. Because it is subsidizing 

all of the businesses along that area. And it is bringing in money 

to your State. 

And that is how we feel. I know that if you were in our position, 

you would come at this differently and what I am trying to do is 

explain to you that you get the same kind of subsidy. It may not 

be for timber and grazing and everything else, but you are subsidizing your State and the people of New York with Federal dollars. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. POMBO. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I think you have it just backwards. We are 

not advocating shutting down the national seashore and it doesn't 

benefit my district. My district is far away from there, far upstate. 

Mr. POMBO. You don't have any people that go there? 

Mr. HINCHEY. I doubt it. I doubt it seriously. 

Mr. POMBO. But you don't have any people-you are claiming my 

time. I will yield back to you. 

Mr. HINCHEY. The fact of the matter is we are not advocating 

shutting down the national seashoreMr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California controls the time. 

The gentleman from New York suspend. Go ahead. 

Mr. POMBO. You have no people that go to the national seashore 

which is in your State but you are concerned about people that 

may come to California or New Mexico which is 3,000 miles away. 

And that doesn't make any sense. And you can finish your statement. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I think you have it just reversed. We are not 

advocating shutting down the national seashoreMr. POMBO. No, you are advocating--

Mr. HINCHEY. We are not advocating. We are not advocating 

turning it over to the State of New York or anyone else. We are 

simply being consistent. We are not advocating that the Federal 

lands in the West be turned over to the State or that they be 

privatized any more than we want those Federal lands in New 

York to be privatized. 

Mr. POMBO. You are claiming my time. 

Mr. HINCHEY. We want to be consistent. 

Mr. HANSEN. Which you have none of. 

Mr. POMBO. Well, the consistency of it is, is that you are trying 

to shut down the Federal lands in the West with wilderness areas 

of 6 million acres in Utah. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, if the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. POMBO. I don't have any time left. I am just finishing. 
28 

Mr. HINCHEY. You are misleading the facts. We are not advocating closing them down at all, we are advocating keeping them 

open. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time for the gentleman from California has expired. · Mr. PoMBO. You just don't want to have economic use out of it, 

but you want to maintain your--

Mr. HINCHEY. Oh, yes, we want to have great economic use of it. 

Mr. HANSEN. All right, the time for the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlemen from New York and California will both suspend. 

And thank you for your excellent comments. It is my turn. Let me 

just say that on this particular piece of legislation, as we pointed 

out at the start, there has been a lot of frustration. Our western 

governors, many of our western legislative bodies have been asking 

for legislation of this kind. 

I have found it very interesting to listen to the folks who have 

commented and the great comments we have had from our colleague, Joe Skeen, and the Lieutenant Governor Walter Bradley. I 

appreciate those very fine comments. 

Let me point out that for some reason we just turned the clock 

forward. Now, let us turn the clock back. The gentleman from New 

York, the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentlemen from other 

areas ought to go back and read the history of their own areas. 

If we go back to the 13 colonies, all of that would have been public land at one time. These folks over here from the West didn't 

really have a say in it or how they got it, but those people at that 

time managed it. In Oklahoma, they got their land, they lined up 

a bunch of people, they shot off a gun and the guy with the fastest 

horse got the best ranch. 

Now, we have a little different situation. But you folks, if you go 

back a few years, we didn't get a say in how all that public land 

became private. We didn't get any chance to say anything about it. 

I think the people in the West have that frustration now. 

We are also very cognizant of our legislative bodies. Most of us 

came out of legislative bodies. I was Speaker of the Utah House before I came here and, frankly, I was very frustrated with the way 

the Federal Government pushed us around and told us what to do. 

And so when you get back here you say I have a lot of confidence 

in the Utah State Legislature or New Mexico or California or wherever it may be. 

I think those are good citizens, they are working hard to do what 

is right and why people say they can't do it is beyond my ability 

to understand. I don't understand why people would say that. 

We find ourselves now in a situation where we are not asking for 

the national parks. We are not asking for the Forest Service. We 

are not asking for military. We are not asking for Indian reservations. We are asking for this other property. 

I would somewhat respectfully disagree with my friend from 

California and I would hope that most of it wouldn't be privatized. 

But I think you put our head in the sand to think that some of it 

shouldn't be changed around. There should be some ability to do 

that. And legislative bodies should have the option to do that particular thing. 
29 

Right now to get something through BLM and we have carefully 

looked through it, regardless of what they say under oath, how fast 

they move land and transfers and sales, it just doesn't happen. Nor 

does it happen with the Forest Service; another great frustration 

of our western counties and our western States. 

So we are putting this bill out to possibly look at a piece of the 

ground in America that most people in the West feel they should 

have an option to have some control over their own destiny. I know 

this is a very controversial issue and contrary to what was brought 

up by some of these people saying they would sell it all off; go back 

and again check the history. 

In the State of Utah when it was given what they did receive, 

they sold a lot to start with and the last 20 years has been minuscule of what they have sold off. And they have managed the ground 

and done it very well. In the State of Utah if you are Speaker of 

the House you are also Chairman of the Executive Appropriation 

Committee. And there we found after exhaustive studies, when you 

take a piece of public ground and this is the State and this is the 

Federal and all there is is an invisible line, we were doing it for 

25 percent of what the Federal Government did it for. 

I think we have, and we thought we were doing it better, and 

I would maintain to this day, I would argue with anybody that Ted 

Stewart, the Director of Natural Resources, has done an extremely 

fine job out in Utah and let me say the people of BLM know we 

have had a good relationship with him, they have been very fine 

individuals. We do feel they are a little bloated, however, at this 

particular time. 

All right, this panel, we are through with you. And thank you 

very much for your excellent comments. We will now ask the next 

panel. And we will start out with the former Director of the BLM, 

Cy Jamison, if you would come forward. We will have Bonnie 

Cohen, Assistant Secretary of Policy Management and Budget, Department of the Interior, John D. Leshy, Solicitor, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Maitland Sharpe, Assistant Director, Resource Assessment and Planning, Bureau of Land Management. 

Mr. HANSEN. I understand that Bonnie Cohen, you are the one 

that is going to testify for the Department of the Interior and you 

are assisted by Mr. Leshy and Mr. Sharpe, is that right? 

Mrs. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Montana. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If you would be kind enough, I would just like to 

greet on behalf of the Committee, a fellow Montanan and my old 

pal, Cy Jamison, who not only was Director of BLM and is a good 

friend of everyone here as well as the State of Montana, but very 

importantly worked for this Committee. Welcome back, Cy. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Pat. Also for the benefit of the Committee, these two were gentlemen and faced each other in a political 

struggle in 1994, if I may comment. 

Mr. VENTO. It is my understanding that Mr. Jamison is not testifying for the Department today, is that correct? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, and I appreciate the gentleman for bringing 

that up. The gentleman no longer has anything to do with the De20-051 0 - 95 - 2 
30 

partment but he is the past Director and served for four years 

under the Bush Administration, is that correct? 

Mr. JAMISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. We have asked Mr. Jamison to speak with this 

panel because they all have BLM roots, so to speak, and he probably has longer ones than most of them. Anyway, we would ask you 

to go first, Mr. Jamison. Now, first before we start, this is going 

to be a long day, I can see this one coming up. How much time does 

everybody need? Five minutes for Mr. Jamison. How much do you 

need? 

Mrs. COHEN. Eight. 

Mr. HANSEN. Eight, OK, did you get that, Dawn? All right, you 

know the rules around here. It is a green light, yellow light, red 

light, just like you pull up to in your car and you know what to 

do. All right, Cy, we will turn the time to you for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CY JAMISON, FORMER Dm.ECTOR, BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT 

Mr. JAMISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other members of 

the Committee. It is great to be back here. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and all the members, as I 

mentioned before, for giving me this opportunity to comment on 

H.R. 2032. 

As a former National Director of the Bureau of Land Management, I have a special place in my heart for the BLM and the people who perform the day-to-day tasks under the various laws 

passed by Congress and policies of the Administration. 

However, that cannot let that cloud one's judgment of the overall 

situation. Times have changed, so land management agencies must 

change with them to be responsive to the American people. This bill impacts mostly the western States where the vast hold- ings of the BLM are located. The BLM manages nearly one-eighth of the surface of the United States. The mineral estate is even larger than that. 

With the western States being some of the newer members of our 

great Union, it has taken time for those governments to mature 

and gain expertise. Now, as we approach the next century, most of 

these States have the management and technical expertise to do 

just as well and maybe in some cases a much better job of managing natural resources than the Federal Government. 

The bottom line issue is control. Many want all control to remain 

in Washington, DC. I personally think the best government is the 

one that is closest to the people. Mr. Chairman, your bill is a step 

in that direction. 

Your bill would provide the opportunity for the States to take 

over the management of BLM lands in their States. That alone is 

a laudable goal. But Mr. Chairman, let me highlight a few of my 

concerns that you may wish to address as the bill moves through 

the legislative process. First, I think the time period of ten years after application is 

made before the land can transfer to the State is much too long. Just do it. Two years to phase out should be adequate and if it is 

not, let the Secretary and the State mutually agree to something 

longer, not to exceed ten years. 
31 

Second, an optfon to the aU-or-nothing provision should be included as it relates to each State. There are situations created by 

past legislation such as the railroad land grants that left a checkerboard system of ownership. Maybe a State would want those lands 

or vice versa and would prefer to leave other areas in Federal ownership. 

I am not in favor of allowing the States to cherry-pick but some 

middle ground I think is necessary. Third, there are have and have not States. States like New Mexico and Wyoming would have a tremendous incentive to take over 

the lands because of the mineral revenues coming in from the oil, 

gas, coal and other minerals. Other States receive very little. That 

is another reason why I think there need to be alternatives to the 

ali-or-nothing provision. 

Fourth, the Federal lands are subject to a variety of different 

statutory programs to divide revenue from the land and distribute 

some of the revenues directly to county governments or earmark 

revenues for special local uses such as school districts. 

Local communities depend very heavily on these revenues and it 

is critical that this issue be addressed. I believe the bill should be 

amended to include some type of revenue distribution program for 

schools and county governments. Fifth, military land withdrawals are not, in my opinion, giving 

enough protection in H.R. 2032. As a staffer on this Committee 

some years ago, I worked on military withdrawals. If memory 

serves me correctly, some of those withdrawals were for 20 years 

and some for 15. Given the ten-year transfer time allocated in the 

bill, some of these withdrawals could expire. Maybe withdrawals 

could be extended to protect them for some given time period under 

State control. 

Sixth, a provision should be included that keeps the lands open 

to the citizenry for their use and enjoyment. In short, a covenant 

needs to be included to ensure the availability to the general public of these lands. 

Last, Mr. Chairman, I learned a great many things about public 

land management while BLM Director, the most important lesson 

was that one must never forget who one works for. I think that the 

land management agencies have forgotten that critical point and 

with State governments much closer to those they serve, hopefully that will not happen to them. 

Just bringing this issue up to the forefront makes for a better 

understanding of public land management. Go for it. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jamison can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Bonnie Cohen, we will turn to you for 

eight minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BONNIE COHEN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

POLICY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mrs. COHEN. Thank you. With your permission, I will submit the 

statement for the record and summarize. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 
32 

Ms. COHEN. Thank you. I am here today to present the view of 

the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2032, legislation requiring the Secretary of the Interior to offer to transfer the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management to the States in which 

these lands are located. 

This legislation would affect the BLM's operations and respon- sibilities and, most important, the relationship of all Americans to 

their public lands. . Let me state clearly that the Department strongly opposes this 

bill. Any serious discussion of this must begin with an understanding of what is at stake. 

The 270 million acres of public lands managed by the BLM for 

multiple uses are widely diverse and feature extraordinary places. Arizona's San Pedro National Conservation Area, Utah's Slickrock 

Bike Trail, Nevada's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation 

Area, the prehistoric Anasasi Complex that extends across portions of Utah, Arizona and Colorado, sites that receive 65 million visits 

a year. 

The Department's opposition to H.R. 2032 should not be interpreted as criticism of the States' ability to manage lands or beliefs 

that the States should not play a significant role in the stewardship of these lands. 

Our experience suggests that public lands are managed most effectively through cooperation with States and local communities 

and the Department is committed to strengthening this partner- ship. 

The BLM in recent years has entered into numerous cooperative partnerships with State and local governments. In Utah, for example, as you know the BLM has signed formal agreements with 

State and county governments for law enforcement, wildfire control, road maintenance and land use planning. Nevada provides another example. But H.R. 2032 would remove this cooperative relationship, where State and private interests are now reconciled 

through the BLM's resource management planning process and 

substitute the decisionmaking processes of individual States. 

H.R. 2032 is also unfair to the American taxpayer as it would 

give revenues and resources owned by all Americans to a relatively small number of States. 

H.R. 2032 packs a triple whammy for the American taxpayer. It 

would deprive taxpayers of current revenues, more than one billion 

dollars a/ear, give away assets that generate money over the long 

term, an ensure that taxpayers will continue to pay for maintaining public lands in States that choose not to take less desirable or 

less lucrative lands. 

It is worth recalling the testimony of former Interior Secretary 

Oscar Chapman durin~ the Eisenhower Administration in a similar 

debate: "If this Admimstration is intent upon following a giveaway policy, the people are at least entitled to know what and how much 

is being given away, billions of tons of oil, coals, trillions of cubic 

feet of natural gas, not to mention timber, grass, sites for power plants, irrigation and other water potentials, precious metals and 

other minerals". 

This legislation would be a giveaway of Federal assets that include one-third of the Nation's coal reserves, 12.5 trillion cubic feet 
33 

of natural gas, 1.4 billion barrels of oil, 170 million acres of range- lands and 48 million acres of forests. 

Today these assets are managed by the BLM to generate revenues for all Americans. If H.R. 2032 were enacted, American taxpayers could lose the receipts of more than $1.2 billion each year 

that are generated from these public lands. 

This is a curious time to be doing this. This would increase the 

deficit. It is argued that this would produce budget savings. We 

would argue it would not. The savings fromised in H.R. 2032 are 

predicated on a wholesale transfer of al of the public lands and a 

cessation of associated Federal expenditures. That is unlikely to 

happen. 

Only those States, New Mexico that was here today, Wyoming, 

with large underlying mineral resources within their borders are 

likely to want to take ownership of them. A relative handful of 

States would capture most of the income producing mineral resources. The most likely scenario is that the Federal Government 

would be left with management responsibilities for the lands with 

a negative cash flow. 

Further, H.R. 2032 as has been discussed is not about increasing 

public access to public lands. H.R. 2032 could limit access by hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers, and other recreational users to 

vast areas of the West and forever change American's view of the 

open space. 

Last year the public lands hosted 654 million recreation visits for 

hunting, camping, fishing, hiking and other activities. More than 

29,000 conservation, recreation and wilderness sites are on lands 

managed by BLM and are now open to the public. This would vary 

if these lands were transferred by State laws. 

Further, nothing in this legislation would prevent States with 

budget crises from selling the public lands and their resources to 

the highest bidder, removing them forever from multiple use and 

public enjoyment. The likely winners of such an auction would be 

corporations whose primary obligations would be to stockholders 

and who for either development or liability reasons, would lock uf. 

the land, only allowing hunting and fishing by invitation, if at al . Many long-time westerners would be surprised by the changes in 

their lives that would result from this huge land transfer envisioned by this bill. 

Enactment of H.R. 2032 could also lead to the loss of essential 

services provided on public lands by the Federal Government. For 

example, firefighting which is previously discussed. The Federal 

Government alone has the ability to move firefighting personnel 

and resources quickly from State to State when necessary. There 

would be no savings if the States took these lands and the Federal 

Government were still required to provide firefighting services. 

Western counties also depend heavily on the payments in lieu of 

taxes they receive from the BLM to compensate for property taxes 

they cannot collect. These payments are over $100 million a year. 

Yet nothing in H.R. 2032 would require States which elect to take 

ownership of the public lands to maintain this level of support to 

county governments. The Department has additional concerns about H.R. 2032, some 

of which Mr. Jamison touched on, withdrawals of Federal lands for 
34 

military purposes, liability for hazardous waste sites and cleanups, 

Indian trust responsibilities and will submit additional information. · 

H.R. 2032 we feel is not a noble experiment. If the problems I 

have outlined are real even in part, and the benefits the supporters 

are wrong even in one State, the loss of public lands is an irretrievable loss to future generations. 

Former Governor Cecil Anderson of Idaho captured the essence 

of what is at stake here when he wrote: "Which policy would keep 

the West most open and free: continued Federal management with 

liberal public access and public use of the public lands? Or transfer 

of big chunks of public lands to the States, many of which would 

sell it off to private parties and large corporations who would post 

it off limits to the public?" . The public lands are worth more to Americans than a state-bystate calculation of dollars won and dollars lost. They are an important part of America's sense of itself to be enjoyed and preserved 

for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to present our view. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cohen can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK, questions of the members. Mr. Cooley is recognized. 

Mr. CooLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Cohen, you are Assistant Secretary of Policy Management and Budget, correct? 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. COOLEY. So you put out a publication called Public Reward 

for Public Lands, this piece of document right here, which is directly against H.R. 2032, talking about what a great job you have 

done. What did this cost us? What did this cost the American public for this piece of document? Are you in charge of budget? 

Ms. COHEN. I will get that number for you. Mr. COOLEY. You don't have it? You don't know what this cost? 

Ms. COHEN. Not right away, no. 

Mr. CooLEY. OK You said that public lands were of economic 

benefit to America. We have a report here by your office and the 

latest one we could receive was 1993, that it cost the American 

public $112 million to subsidize your Department. So it is obvious 

you are not doing a good job of management if it is costing us 

money to subsidize your Department. 

So that statement you made previously that it wa£1 to the benefit 

of the Treasury is really not true, according to your 1993 records. 

You made another statement in here, you said you are not criticizing the States' ability to manage the lands, but yet you say the 

States will sell off all these lands. Does the Department have any 

proof of this allegation, that they are going to sell these lands off? 

And if you do, what research was done or conducted to come to this 

conclusion? 

Ms. COHEN. Well, if I can take the question in two parts. The 

first, I was talking about the loss to the Treasury of the over a billion dollars in revenue that comes from--

Mr. CooLEY. But you have a loss. I don't care how much comes 

in, you still have a loss. We pay out more than comes in. 
35 

Ms. COHEN. I think that in the budget process, the decisions 

made by Congress as to how much money they want to allocate in 

this case to the BLM in this time of severely limited budgets, if 

this land were given to the States and the revenue went to the 

States, the United States government would lose one billion dollars 

in revenue that it now receives. That was the point I was trying 

to make. 

Mr. COOLEY. Only in the United States can we talk abo.ut losing 

money when it costs you money. Who cares if we lose a billion dollars in the revenue if it costs us $112 million more than we get in? 

I mean I don't understand this. I mean if you lose money, you lose 

money. So if we save the American public, if we get rid of BLM and 

we save the American public $112 million it is costing us to run 

your operation, we save $112 million. 

Not only do we do that, the revenue earned or the taxes earned 

off utilization of the natural resources within these States will increase to the Treasury and won't cost us any money to run it. So, 

I think your economic logic is off base here. 

Mr. COHEN. Can I respond? 

Mr. CooLEY. Certainly. 

Ms. COHEN. Two points. One is that we think that the public 

benefits go beyond the dollar calculation of profits and losses. But 

even if you stuck with the amount of revenue in and the cost to 

us, the calculation you are talking about assumes that every State 

takes advantage of this offer. And there are no expenses left associated with BLM. We have heard from New Mexico and we have 

heard from Wyoming, but we have also heard from Montana, where 

the Congressman from Montana indicates that his State would not 

be willing. That means that we would continue to have expenses 

so that you would not achieve the kinds of savings you are talking 

about. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, with due respect to the gentleman from Montana, I don't know if he speaks for the people of Montana, you would have to find that out. I don't know. But you brought up the 

economic part of it and I just wanted to pursue that to find out 

what you felt about that. 

We also have in our hands here a memo that came out from your Bureau's Department received on July 31, which we think, at l~ast 

in Congress, this violates the Hatch Act. Because you are using our 

money to lobby against legislation. You are supposed to be profes- sional administrators, nonpolitical, and that obviously is not true. 

Now, can you justify this memo? You know very well what it 

says in there to your employees; that we are going to shut down 

the Bureau of Land Management and they should do everything 

possible to make sure that this is not successful. You are going 

around telling everybody in the country that we are going to discontinue anybody on public lands, that we are going to sell it off 

to big corporations, individuals won't be able to use it, et cetera, 

et cetera. But yet you have no proof of this, you only have the allegations. And the allegations are primarily predicated on the fact 

that the Bureau of Land Management ana your employees want to 

stay on at the Bureau of Land Management. 

We think you are doing a terrible job in the West. It is proven that you are doing a terrible job. You are locking up the land in 
36 

the West where nobody can use it, not even the people who live 

there. And it happens time after time. 

You are a bureaucracy that has gotten out of hand. And you 

make statements that you have no support to back them up, none 

whatsoever. Now, we know that you have a lot of supporters from 

the East and we have this great idea of all these great lands that 

are an asset to the American people. 

Before 1930, these lands were used by everybody until you were 

formed. Since that time there has been less use continually on the 

use of these lands, especially in the last ten years. My time is up. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Vento is recognized. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Cohen. 

Were you asked to have an opinion with regard to this bill? Were 

you invited to testify here today? 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you communicate within the Department and 

subscribe and obtain views from the professionals that are going to 

be impacted by these particular decisions and legislation, legislation introduced in both the Senate and the House to dispose of and 

to convey and transfer BLM lands to all of the 11 western States? 

Do you actually communicate with people in the course of the business that you do? 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. We handle this bill the way we handle all bills, 

circulated it for input from the experts in the Department. 

Mr. VENTO. Is that the content of the memo that was raised at 

this hearing today? In the context it is? You don't know anything 

about the memo, and we don't know anything about the memo either. You are referring to the fact that this legislation before us 

projects a ten-year lead time. If this projected a shorter lead time, 

what would be the impact in the deficit? Do you know? 

Ms. COHEN. It would be in a more immediate impact. The sooner 

this is done, the sooner the Federal Government loses the revenues. 

Mr. VENTO. Of course, the point is that the one of the reasons 

that the Federal Government has a loss of revenue or an annual 

loss of revenue under the legislation is because they are transferring substantial receipts to the States, is that correct? In fact, over 

some $600 million of revenue that is raised from these lands is 

transferred to the States, is that correct? 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. In other words, the BLM is actually a money maker, 

isn't it? The lands that we have actually make money but the fact 

is that we transfer the moneys back to the States, some $625 million in 1994. You have those numbers in the document that you 

prepared. 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Are these documents unusual in terms of being prepared? This document that was referred, is this a usual report that 

has been prepared? Mr. Jamison, did you prepare similar reports 

to this when you were Ole Director of the BLM or did you have 

similar reports to this that talk about the specifics of what the benefits are and what the assets and so forth are with regards to BLM 

lands within individual States? 
37 

Mr. JAMISON. Congressman, I don't know what is in that. I 

haven't seen it. 

Mr. VENTO. I know that. Did you have similar reports to this? 

Mr. JAMISON. I used to do the annual statistics but I don't know 

what the front page is, what does it say? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, but I mean you had annual reports dealing with 

each State in terms of revenues conveyed and raised, is that correct? 

Mr. JAMISON. You are asking me something that I can't comment 

on. 

Mr. VENTO. OK. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN LESHY, SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

INTERIOR 

Mr. LEsHY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vento, I could briefly expand on 

that. The BLM has done a number of reports in the past. It does 

an annual report. It does the annual public land statistics. I think 

when Director Burford was Director it did a long history book of 

the BLM and there have been various brochures and pamphlets describing the factual setting in the public lands and the revenues 

raised from them in the past. Nothing exactly like this, but this is 

a very objective review-basically a balance sheet of the accounting 

of these assets and the money that is raised from them. It is areport to the American taxpayers that own these lands. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I find it curious that some people feel threatened by information with regards to this. For instance, from Alaska 

we collect about $8 million from the BLM lands and we spend $80 

million. I found it interesting that from Arizona we collect $6 million and expend $55 million. From California we collect $57 million 

and expend $88 million. From Colorado we collect $79 million and 

expend something like $200, $250, $270 million. I mean it goes on 

and on. Idaho is obviously a big loser as well, surprisingly we collect $10 million and expend something in the range of $91 million 

in terms of dollars expended. 

Now, of course, they talked about the efficiency of BLM. Now 

very often we have collaborative and cooperative agreements, so 

you have a pretty good judgment, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Maitland is here 

who is a professional within the Department, about the relative efficiency of other workers and other responsibilities. Are the BLM 

workers that much less efficient that the States could take over? 

For instance, in the State of Idaho or Oregon, which, incidentally, is a big loser, are they that more efficient that they could take over 

and do all these responsibilities and do it for that much less? We 

are talking tens of millions of dollars difference. 

Mr. SHARPE. Mr. Vento, I can tell you from my experience that 

there are few employees, public or private anywhere, who are harder working or more efficient, produce more under adverse circumstances with fewer resources than do the employees of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Now, taking nothing away from the efficiency--

Mr. VENTO. When we briefly looked at the California desert, we 

recently found one rancher with a million acres of responsibilities, 

we added a few there, but we still don't have enough. I would just 

suggest that members pause a minute and look at what they are 
38 

suggesting in terms of cost and activities with regards to these particular functions and the fact that this would be a tremendous cost. 

It is a deficit budget buster. We talked about the investments and 

other factors the States have in these matters and I think that this 

legislation is not the solution. And I might say that there are no 

restrictions in here with regards to classifications of other lands. 

We talked a little bit about wilderness, silent on ACEC's, silent 

on critical rivers, silent on the management of a lot of other resources here, wild and scenic .rivers and the whole works; Of 

course, someone says you cannot dispose of these lands. This legislation doesn't say you can't dispose it, it doesn't even talk about 

public purpose, doesn't even talk about sharing the revenues that 

are proceeding from the lands, even today which are owned, I 

might say, by the Federal Government or the people of the country, 

not an individual State. 

This is simply a raid; basically the effect of this would be a corporate raid on the public resources of this country. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mrs. Chenoweth is recognized. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairm~. I think Mr. Ensign 

was before me. He indicates I should go ahead. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Actually you are correct. I misspoke before but 

if he is willing to yield at this time, you may go ahead and we will 

pick him up at the next opportunity. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ensign. Mrs. 

Cohen, I think as you can see we are all disturbed about this report that came out, this lobbying report. Let me ask you, did the 

BLM conduct any inner agency oversight to test whether or not 

this activity violates the Anti-Lobbying Act? 

Mr. LESHY. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Chenoweth, I would be happy to 

answer that. I am in the Solicitor's Office, of course, and we are 

in charge of making sure the law is complied with. We feel this report fully complies with the law. 

There are actually two anti-lobbying restrictions that apply to 

the Department. One is a criminal statute and the other is an Appropriation Act rider. Both statutes have essentially been interpreted by Administrations for the last many years, including the 

most authoritative opinion from the Bush Administration's Justice 

Department, to apply only to substantial grass roots· campaigns 

that exhort people to contact their Members of Congress on legislation. 

We have looked at that report. That report is essentially a purely 

objective report on the facts and values of the BLM lands. As I 

mentioned to Congressman Vento, it is essentially a balance sheet 

of assets and expenditures. There is nothing in it about this legislation. There is nothing in it that exhorts anybody to do anything. 

It is simply a factual recitation of the public lands. And we have 

no doubt that it fully complies with the law. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Leshy, how much did this report cost? 

Mr. LEsHY. I can't answer that. We can provide that information--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you get that information to the Committee and to me personally within 24 hours? 

Mr. LEsHY. We will try our best. 
39 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. What about the memo that came out July 6 

of 1995 to all State Directors' attention, Internal Affairs Chief, 

from the Bureau of Land Mahagement, initials D.M. regarding the 

Livestock Grazing Act? Now, you are an attorney, you cannot sit 

here and tell me that this memo is not lobbying. Mr. Leshy, the 

day that you tell me that your paid employees are the same thing 

as grass roots organization, I am sorry, but boy, we have reached 

the end of the line. And you do not have a concept of what a free 

citizenry government is. It is not paid BLM employees. Let me put 

that on the record for sure. 

And the fact is that I would like, within 24 hours, to see your 

written legal opinion in here that you did not violate the Bush Executive Order, nor did you violate the Hatch Act, because I think 

you are way off base. And I am very, very sorry and sad to see that 

we have come to this state of affairs. You may believe it. You may 

be defending your position. But, what would you do to a livestock 

grazer out there who had a cow graze out of bounds? 

I am telling you, what your agency is doing in my State under 

enforcing laws and taking onto yourself enforcement of laws, is absolutely abhorrent. I mean, a violation of trespass of cows means 

your agency without the benefit of a sheriff, impounding cattle 

against State law. And you think we should do nothing about this 

kind of lobbying activity? When are laws going to affect you, the 

members of the agencies, as they do the regular citizens? 

Congress is going to have to deal with this and you need to expect it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LESHY. May I respond very briefly? 

Mr. DooLITTLE. The gentlewoman controls the time. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield my time back to the Chairman. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, in that event, the time belongs to the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. I think a dispassionate look at the 

budget effects of this turnover of Federal land to the States is in 

order and I really think that Assistant Secretary Cohen's testimony 

ought to be closely reviewed by all the members, particularly those 

members most concerned with budget deficits. 

I would say to my friend, Cy Jamison, the reason this bills calls 

for ten years and not before then is because otherwise it violates 

the budget, it violates what we here have come to know as!ay go, 

you have to pay as you go. If this bill passed now, it woul wreck 

havoc on the Federal budget-you couldn't go to a balanced budget. 

This bill, if it became law, would be the most expensive loss to the 

Treasury and the American people of any single government action, 

second only to the military buildup since World War II. 

In mineral receipts alone, this bill will cost the taxpayers $3 trillion. It ia the greatest budget buster, deficit-causing action that 

this country will ever take in one stroke. And we ought to be cautious about that. 

Now, is the public going to gain these resources? Yes, the public 

in specific States. But that is not what a Federal budget is about. 

Balancing a Federal budget is to hold your assets, hold your liquidity, and try to come in balance at the end of the year. This is a 

complete and total renege and violation of that. 
40 

Now, we could change the budget rules dramatically around here 

and not count it. But that is what we would have to do, particu- larly if this came in effect within the next ten years while pay go is here. 

Let me say a quick word about this matter in Montana, whether 

or not Montana wants to pick up $13 to $15 million in additional 

costs. I, no more than anybody here, can speak for every single one 

of my constituents, but I can tell you that the State of Montana has 

20 thousand employees, State government. 

BLM and Forest Service together have about five thousand. Now, 

this bill just deals with BLM. There is a lot of talk about turning 

all the Federal land back. That is a 25 percent increase in the 

number of employees. Let us say they just cut it in half. That is 

still an increase that the State of Montana cannot, will not afford 

and' does not want to assume. 

So, you see, the loss comes on both ends. The Federal taxpayers take an absolute bath with the loss of these resources and the 

States are required to pick up an enormous share of the burden 

which I don't think any of them out there are prepared to do. 

As Ms. Cohen is urging us to do, as we look at the budget ramifications, I think we ought to keep this balanced budget notion in 

mind and we all ought to move to what my Republican friends and 

I believe is a more conservative outlook toward the budget. And 

this bill violates that in spades. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. Mr. Ensign. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a couple of 

questions first of all for Mr. Jamison. In your opinion, and we are 

talking about here and obviously there is a little conflict as far as 

whose numbers are right as there always are when you are dealing 

with numbers and statistics, but in your opinion why is the BLM 

losing $112 million annually from the management of BLM lands? 

Mr. JAMISON. Well, part of it is your fault, Congress, and I don't 

blame it on you personally, but the extent of rules and regulations caused them to be implemented. Let me tell you what I think is really the bottom line though, is 

why the State does it so much more efficiently. The BLM and the 

Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service and Parks Service 

are all caught up in the process. They never actually get anything 

done on the ground. 

I think I could use your State, right around your great city of Las 

Vegas, as a perfect example. How many millions have we spent on 

desert tortises? And what have we actually done for the tortise? We 

got caught up in the proces&--

Mr. ENSIGN. Well, I will tell you how much we have spent. We 

spent enough money to take every homeless person in Las Vegas 

and put them up in the Mirage every year continually and you're 

right, there hasn't been a heck of a lot done for the desert. 

Mr. JAMISON. That is where the costs are separating dramatically. It seems like our friends in the State government are getting 

much more efficient because they are closer to the ground and to 

those they serve, and we in the Federal Government, and I am say- ing we, past tense, is we got caught up in the process and never 

got any action done. 
41 

The reason, as you heard Congressman Skeen said, we are put- ting out more oil and gas leases and getting more money for them 

is because they are doing it much more efficiently. They don't have 

all these hoops that have to be jumped through before they do any- thing. 

I heard stories about a right-of-way for the power lines. I personally had to get involved in one of those just to get one to a new 

development that the BLM authorized. So, I mean it is just a host 

of things that you have to go back and say who is doing it the most 

efficiently? You can talk budget all you want, but let us talk efficiency. And I think that point has been missed. 

Mr. ENSIGN. I think one of the things you are bringing up, because it is fairly popular to bash Federal employees nowadays and 

I would agree Federal employees work as hard as anybody does. 

Mr. JAMISON. I do too. 

Mr. ENSIGN. I have a lot of friends that work in the BLM office 

in Las Vegas, incredibly dedicated, hardworking people. Just like 

you couldn't say that it was the American worker's fault for building a lousy automobile in 1970. It was the management's fault. It 

was the question they were working under a bad system. The 

American worker builds a heck of an automobile today because 

management has changed the system under which they work. 

I think it is the same in any system. And maybe a State has a 

bad system; they are not going to be as efficient as the Federal 

Government. It may be that the State is able to do it more efficiently. That happens to be, in my opinion, though the more decentralized. I think business is recognized in that. The more decentralized, debureaucratized, I guess you could call it, the better and 

more efficient management can be. Because these are just a question of systems and the more efficient use of money. 

Ms. Cohen, let me just address to you, because you do oversee 

the entire country, but from a person's perspective that is either in 

an eastern State or a midwestern State, how do lou think they would feel, let us say that if 50 percent of their Ian was controlled 

or owned by the Federal Government and it was land that they would like to see put on their tax rolls and it was land that they would like to see the money that they are currently generating out 

of the land that they have in their State. But if we could roll back 

the clock 50 years or, you know, a couple of hundred years and 

things have been done a little differently, how do you think that 

they would feel at this point, with this bill that is before us today? Do you think they would have a different perspective? 

Ms. COHEN. Well, that is difficult to answer, but I think if history serves me right, the original 13 colonies were required to give 

up their claims to western lands as they came together. They also 

had claims to western lands and gave it up to the new Federal system. This is not a new phenomena, nor a new resentment. 

I think, if I could just go on, I think your point on decentralization is a really important one. And one that we have tried to recognize. I don't think we have done it perfectly in BLM or probably 

anyplace in the Department of Interior, but we have spent the last 

two years trying to move decisionmaking down to the State and 

local level for BLM so that we can be more responsive to the kinds 

of concerns that your constituents have. 
42 

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, and I appreciate those efforts. I think 

that needs to continue. I think the baseline or bottom line that we 

have to look at is how effective can the Federal Government be at 

downsizing and decentralizing and becoming efficient. In corporate 

America, with large corporations, it can take 10 to 12 years, it can 

take 20 to 30 years within the Federal Government and because 

this has to be top-down driven, quality management has to be topdown driven, when the Administration changes, you know, every 

four to eight years, things can completely fall apart. People within 

the system understand that. · That is the reason we are saying we need to completely change 

the system. And the management of the system. I think that is a 

lot of what we are talking about with the public lands here; who 

can manage these lands more efficiently, more effectively for the 

public's good. In my opinion, the more decentralized we can get, 

i.e., the State control or local control, the better off that we will be 

in the long run because I think the Federal Government is very 

limited on how decentralized it can get. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. CUBIN. You never know from time to time, do you? It is now 

my turn to question the panel. And I have to say that-I am referring to Ms. Cohen's testimony. I have to say that I really believe 

this is the most outlandish, even outrageous testimony that I have 

heard from a professional since I have been on this Committee. 

I don't think it has any credibility. It is not based on fact, but 

rather it seems to be based on personal animosity toward westerners. I will substantiate my statement through sections of your 

statement so that what I am saying will have some credibility. 

I refer to page 8 of your testimony to start off, the underlined 

section at the bottom. The Department's opposition to H.R. 2032 

should not be interpreted as criticism of the States' ability to manage lands. Well, why not? Why not? When you go to the bottom of 

page 10, H.R. 2032 by permitting States to restrict public access or 

recreational activity on these lands you could inflict significant economic harm to local communities. You are assuming they would do 

that. 

And I don't know where that assumption comes from. Another 

cite, page 12 at the very top. It says yet nothing in H.R. 2032 

would require States to elect to take ownership of public lands and 

maintain them. Well, why do you think you have to require them 

to do anything? Again, it is your assumption that they are not capable of doing_ it even though you deny it. 

And then back on the flrst page, I think reflects it best. Near the 

bottom, this radical legislation would transfer tremendous national 

assets and revenues to a small number of fortunate States. Well let 

me ask you this. Is there mineral production in Pennsylvania, Ms. 

Cohen? Is there mineral production of any kind in New York? 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Then going to page 5. You say H.R. 2032 is unfair 

to American taxpayers as it would transfer revenues and resources 

owned by all Americans to a relatively small number of States. Why is it that the government should own the minerals in the 11 

western States but not the minerals in New York or Pennsylvania 
43 

or Louisiana-why should they only own the minerals in this part 

of the country? In the West? 

Ms. COHEN. I will answer that specific thing but I would like the 

opportunity to answerMrs. CUBIN. Yes, certainly. Ms. COHEN. The government doesn't just own the minerals in the 

West; the government owns minerals in the East; we own minerals 

in Florida--

Mrs. CUBIN. But not all of them, is my point. 

Ms. COHEN. No, but we don't own all of them in the West either. 

Mrs. CUBIN. That is true, but what I am speaking about, I am 

talking about obviously_the minerals under the BLM land. 

Ms. CoHEN. Well, BLM owns minerals in the East as well. 

Mrs. CUBIN. And what proportion of the minerals? It is insignificant. 

Mr. JAMISON. It is my understanding that 300 million acres of 

mineral interests in the East are managed by the BLM and owned 

by the Federal Government. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Excuse me? 

Mr. JAMISON. Three hundred million acres. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Three hundred million acres as opposed to how 

many in the West? 

Mr. JAMISON. I don't know what the numbers are in the West, 

but I think that it is not insignificant in the East. 

Mrs. CUBIN. On page 8, you say that H.R. 2032 will limit access 

by hunters, anglers, hikers and other recreational users to vast 

areas of the West. What do you base that on? 

Ms. COHEN. We base that on existing State regulations for use 

of State lands, the kinds of regulations that were discussed earlier 

as to camping, number of nights of camping, fire regulations, fishing regulations--

Mrs. CUBIN. But isn't that really just like in State parks where 

there are facilities? Wouldn't that be the exception rather than the 

rule for most areas? 

Ms. COHEN. There is nothing in this legislation that requires to 

maintain the access that the public now has to these public lands. 

Mrs. CUBIN. There is nothing that prohibits them from doing that either. I mean, you just have an assumption that the States, 

that the western States aren't going to do what is in the best interest of the public, number one, and in the best interest of the land, 

number two. And I think your testimony just points that out 

throughout the entire thing. 

Ms. COHEN. Can I address the issues you raised? 

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes. 

Ms. COHEN. I think we have talked about the budget implications. This would have serious negative impacts on the Federal 

budget. And I am sure that the Congressional Budget Office would 

substantiate that. 

Nothing in here is a criticism of the way that States manage the 

land. The public access issues that you raised are simply taking the 

existing State rules and applying them to lands which now would 

be owned by the State. It assumes that they would apply the same 

rules for public access that they now have, because it would be 

their lands. 
44 

An important point, I think that we have emphasized but maybe 

we haven't made clear enough, is that two, maybe three States, are 

in a kind of positive cash-flow situation where when they get the 

mineral rights and then take over the management of these lands, 

they will receive more income than in all likelihood they will spend. 

Mrs. CUBIN. And also don't they have to provide infrastructure 

and--

Ms. COHEN. They would have to provide--

Mrs. CUBIN. They have structure, they would provide, yes. The 

red light is on and I did see that Mr. Jamison wanted to make 

a--

Ms. COHEN. If I could just finish the sentence. They will have increased expenses, but other States who will not receive the revenue 

may not wish to incur the expenses and the Federal Government 

will be left with those expenses. 

Mr. JAMISON. Thank you. I think maybe a little history lesson 

might help us. Let us go back to coal as an issue. That is one of 

the reasons I support this bill, is you have to go back and look at 

why were these rights or lands retained by the Federal Government? As to mineral rights, do you know why the coal rights were 

retained? Happened to be the stock grazing homestead, they had 

regular homesteads come first, 160 acres, those mineral rights 

went to that landowner. The person who proved up on that homestead. 

A stock grazing homestead which was passed a little later, do 

you know why the Federal coal rights only were retained? Because 

it happened to be just about the time of World War I, or the Spanish-American War, most of our battleships at that time were fired 

by coal. So Congress in its wisdom, said we'll retain all the coal 

rights to fire our battleship boilers. So that is why they retained 

all the coal rights to the Federal Government. That is why you end 

up with a scattering through Wyoming, Montana and others. We 

have stock grazing homesteads. The surface is private, subsurface 

coal rights still belong to the Federal Government. 

Now, is that purpose still valid today? That is the question I 

would ask you. And I think that is a decision you guys are going 

to have to take a look at. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. Ms. Cohen, let me say that 

I very much appreciate your testimony and I appreciate it probably 

because I agreed with every word. And I also would speculate that 

the vast majority of Americans across this country share the same 

views and attitudes that you expressed in your testimony with regard to the public lands and the need to husband those resources 

in the interests of the Nation and all the people of the country. 

But this is not the first time that a Congress of the United 

States has suggested the idea of transferring these resources from 

Federal jurisdiction to the States, is it? 

Ms. COHEN. No. 

Mr. HINCHEY. In fact, it was back in the 83rd Congress, I believe, 

that an effort was made during the Eisenhower Administration, 

isn't that correct? 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. And I think I quoted from the then Secretary 

of Interior on his view of that. 
45 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, would you do that for us? Did you quote that 

in your testimony? I don't remember hearing it. 

Ms. COHEN. All right, but I think I did. But I would be glad to 

quote it again. Mr. HINCHEY. It may be worth hearing again. 

Ms. COHEN. I have it. Oscar Chapman. If this Administration is 

intent upon following a giveaway policy, the people are at least entitled to know what and how much is being given away. Billions 

of tons of oil, coal, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, not' to mention timber, grass, electric power plants, then sites for future ones, 

irrigation and other water potentials, precious metals and other 

minerals. 

Mr. HINCHEY. And the Eisenhower Administration then was opposed to the idea of Congress to transfer those lands to the States, 

I take it, from Mr. Chapman's testimony? 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So, what was said here before was that on a bipartisan basis throughout most of the history of the country that I am 

aware of, it has always been held that these assets were the assets 

of the Nation and the people of the Nation and ought not to be 

transferred to one group of minority representatives whoever they 

may be in the country. 

Ms. COHEN. That is the history of the debate, yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Even in the Hoover Administration I see that in 

spite of the fact that that Administration recommended transferring the Federal lands to the western States, they nevertheless insisted under that proposal that the minerals beneath the lands 

should remain in United States ownership. Because I assume they 

recognized that those assets were in fact the assets belonging to all 

the people of the country and should not be expropriated by a minority of the people of the country to the great disadvantage of the 

vast majority of people of the country. Does that seem reasonable 

to you? 

Ms. COHEN. Right. It sounds reasonable to all of us, I think. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I found in your testimony your catalog of the resources that are involved here and they are considerable. You mention one-third of the Nation's reserves of coal are at stake here. 

Twelve and a half trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 1.4 billion barrels of oil reserves, 170 million acres of rangelands, 48 million 

acres of forests, 55 million acres of geothermal energy, 35 percent 

of the Nation's reserves of uranium, 80 percent of the Nation's reserves of oil shell, and vast deposits of minerals including cobalt, 

copper, nickel, platinum, group metals, silver, tungsten, phosphate, 

sodium, lead, zinc, potash and more. 

So, it becomes clear when you look at this, in this particular perspective, that what is being discussed here is really a raid on the 

vast natural resource treasury of the Nation to the disadvantage of 

most of the people of the country to advantage a small minority of 

people in the country. Am I reading this correctly? 

Ms. COHEN. Well, I wouldn't want to characterize it as a raid. It 

is a transfer--

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, that is my word, but you can use another 

word of course. 
46 

Ms. COHEN. It is a transfer of the significant resources of this 

country to individual States. Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I thank you very much and again, let me express my appreciation for your testimony because I think it is in 

the tradition of all of those going back to at least to the first Roosevelt who have felt that in positions of responsibility that they 

must husband the resources of this Nation to the advantage of all 

the people of the country and to do so in an equitable fashion. So 

that everyone can benefit from them as much as possible. 

Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. . Mr.· VENTO. I would just add my observation that there are no 

limitations in terms of the private transfer of these resources once 

they are in the hands of the States. I mean, almost all the laws 

we have had for a hundred and some years, 150 years, have always 

stated what the economic purpose is, whether it is transportation 

or schools, the Homestead Act, whatever the purpose has been, 

there has been a public purpose, even today the transfer is always 

with reverters in to make certain that it is used for a public purpose to a benefit of the public interest, to a community, for a 

school. 

I was interested in the gentleman from Nevada because I don't 

think the city of Las Vegas and the surrounding area has done 

anything without getting a free public land for schools and for 

parks around there. So they receive a lot of benefits and I don't object to that, especially in public land States, I don't object to it. 

It is just that there has always been a public benefit with revertera and inurers, plus of course the requirements for cleaning up 

and doing the other things which of course haven't been perfectly 

met either. I thank the gentleman for yielding. His time is up. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time for the gentleman from New York has expired. The gentlelady from Idaho wants to be recognized to reclaim, 

what? An additional minute? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think it will take about a minute. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK, the lady is recognized for one more minute. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It is my understanding that with regards to 

minerals in the West that the Homestead Act of 1862 actually gave 

the retention to the United States Government of minerals under 

the ground. But upon discovery, under the Mining Act of 1872, 

upon discovery there is a claim made for ownership by the miner 

who discovers the claim. Once there is a bona fide discovery, then 

he was given in the past the ability to process the land above it 

to patent. So he would always have access to that area, and I am 

not being picky but it was always the purpose that humans would 

be able to draw that mineral or resource out of the earth for the 

benefit of the Nation. 

I do also want to say that I had talked to Mr. Leshy about the 

lobbying and I do want to say that and get it in the record and submit it to the record formally that there was a press release that 

went out Monday, July 31, from a Celia Boddington and it states 

directly that in this press release on the second page, the second 

paragraph, legislation introduced in the 104th Congress would 

transfer the public domain to individual States. It goes on to talk 
47 

about why this legislation would be bad, wrong, for the BLM and 

for this transfer to take _place. 

Now, in view of that, I think it again substantiates my point that 

there was illegal lobbying activity going on by the Bureau of Land 

Management. Finally, I do want to say that one of the reasons why it has cost $112 million dollars over revenues collected by the Bureau of Land Management is because of the excessive costs of ecosystem management which produces nothing in the resources but 

a process for the people and the agency. 

There has been excessive travel around the country to attend 

various conferences, building exhibits, producing pamphlets and information like this and the cost of preparing the environmental impact statement just for Rangelands Reform '94 mobilized hundreds 

of people. Those are just a few of the examples as to why it is costing the Federal Government so much more to administer the lands 

than it would the State, and with that I know Mr. Leshy did want 

to respond if there is time. Mr. Chairman, I would likeMr. HANSEN. It would be OK if you are brief. 

Mr. LESHY. Yes, on the lobbying question, if I could just add a 

couple of thoughts. Everybody in positions of power to interpret the 

anti-lobbying rules, stretching over several Administrations, has 

recognized that it is really in the highest order of the government 

to provide information about what it does, to inform the citizens 

and the taxpayers who pay the bills what the government is doing. 

What the taxpayers assets are and how it is managing those assets; that report is simply a report on those things. It does not exhort anybody to lobby. The report has been several months in production. It happ'ened to come out about the time of this hearing. 

The press release that covered the report referred to this legisla- tion. It did not exhort anybody to take a position on this legislation. 

It simply reports to the taxpayers. 

As I said earlier, in my judgment, it fully conforms with every 

restriction of law. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Leshy, I think we have a 

distinct difference of opinion on that and I would like to submit 

this formally to the record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you yield to the gentleman from--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask your indulgence. Do you have anyone else's opinion other than your own on 

this kind of activity? 

Mr. LEsHY. I think a number of lawyers in my office have looked 

at this. We all have the same opinion on this. There is no disagreement. This is really a clear-cut case of compliance with--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But you didn't go outside your own agency to 

get the opinion. 

Mr. LEsHY. We have looked at the way these restrictions have 

been interpreted in the past by the Bush Administration, and other 

previous Administrations. There are a number of written opinions 

that the General Accounting Office, which is a watchdog of Congress on these issues, has produced. We are consistent with all of 

those opinions. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. For the part of parliamentary inquiry, we are submitting the report and the news release that accompanied it from 
48 

Celia Doddington. Are you also submitting for the record the State 

Director's? Is that going to be put in the record as well? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. That deals with a different topic, it deals with the 

Resource Advisory Councils, am I understanding that correctly? It 

deals with the grazing issue that is going to be marked up this Friday, I guess. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It deals with legislation before the Congress, 

yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Right. You want to put it in the record of this Committee meeting? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. I just want to understand--

Mr. HANSEN. OK, without objection. Anybody object to it? OK, it 

is in there. The time for the gentlelady from Idaho has expired. I 

apologize to the witnesses and the Committee for running back and 

forth but the Armed Services Committee had a couple of very important votes that were really close. I had to run; I had no choice 

and I didn't mean to slam the door going out. I didn't realize. I 

apologize. I didn't want to do that. 

I assume all the questions everyone wanted to ask have been 

asked. Mrs. Chenoweth apparently went through this lobbying 

thing that was a concern to her. 

Just let me state from quickly trying to read some of the testimony that was brought up. The Secretary indicated the State of 

Utah sold off half of its State lands; however, in the last 20 years 

it has been infmitesimal. I would assume that any new State back 

in those early days probably did a lot of those things, that is probably very understandable. I wouldn't doubt that that had occurred. 

However, they are probably as hard to work with as you folks now, 

you can't get anything out of them. If I may say so. No disrespect to-this old land developer, I can say that with great feeling. 

Let me just say if I may, I still haven't got it through my thick 

head of why it was all right in years_ past for the States to have 

all this public ground in New York or Minnesota or Oklahoma, and 

now it is all bad. I mean a few years ago my grandfather didn't 

get a chance to do this but now we just have a difference of opin- ion. 

I know laws come along and I know things change, but I think 

that is the frustration that we see in the West and the war on the 

West and I am sure those of us who live in the West constantly 

wherever we go or whatever we speak at a PTA or the Rotary 

Club-you folks are hissing a byword if I may say so, and they say 

well, how come we didn't get our land? 

Now, I don't know where you three are from but if you are from 

the West, you probably have experienced thai. If you are from New 

York, you are kind of like the little church down in Oklahoma. They had a church and there were 40 people attended and they all 

tried to get their membership up and then they had 200 acres they ·sat on and they found oil and then they immediately had a meeting 

and they closed the membership at that point. 

And if I may respectfully say so, I somewhat feel that all our 

friends from the East now want to close the membership. We got 

ours, the heck with you. 
49 

Anyway, that is a concern. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield. My grandfather came 

too late, I didn't get mine. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I didn't either. But I hope you folks at least 

have some open mindedness when it comes to the concerns of these 

people out there. They are good people. They are patriotic Americans. They pay their taxes. We are just like every State, we got our 

pocket of right and left that are a little funny from time to time, 

but we let them out of the compound, but occasionally you will find 

that basically our people are pretty dam good people and they are 

very supportive and when the military calls they go. And they do 

what they think is necessary and I kind of object to the attitude 

that I sometimes feel as I sit in this chair and have people come 

in that there is a bunch of radical crazies out there; they are not. 

They are very good taxpaying citizens of the United States. 

Of course here we have a difference of opinion and that is one 

thing we do. I have no objection to anyone having a difference of 

opinion with me or others. That is-we agree to disagree. So I do 

want to say, and I would hate to give the impression, especially to 

the Secretary and her associates who are here from the Department of Interior that we have any personal animosity, we certainly 

do not. And I would be embarrassed if you felt that way because 

that is not the case. 

But we do have a difference of opinion and we know where you 

get your marching orders., we just happen to disagree a little bit, 

if I may respectfully say so. 

So, to you and to the former Director of the BLM, Mr. Cy 

Jamison, we express our thanks and appreciation and gratitude 

that you would come up and share with us your testimony. It was 

very kind of you to do that and again I apologize for not being here 

through the whole thing and we will excuse you now and go to the 

next panel. 

Before we do, I would like to ask this question. Is Mr. M. J. Hassle here by any chance? He is the State Land Commissioner of Arizona. Apparently he isn't here so we are just going to lump the rest 

ofyou together if you don't mind. 

We will start . out with Mr. Jim Magagna, State Land Commissioner of the State of Wyoming, Mike Baughman, Intertech Service 

Corporation, George Lea, Public Lands Foundation, Phil Hocker, 

Mineral Policy Center and Lonnie Williamson, Wildlife Management Institute. I think we could get all you folks up there. Dawn 

is pretty good at cramming you in. We can probably do that. 

Thank you for being here and thank you for coming. We will just 

start on this side and go across. Mr. Magagna, it is good to see you 

again, sir. Let me just ask. How much time do you need? Anybody 

here need more than five minutes? 

Mr. MAGAGNA. Six perhaps. 

Mr. HANSEN. OK, you kriow the rules. It is right in front of you. 

Please be cognizant of the light. Jim, we will start with you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JIM MAGAGNA, STATE LAND COMMISSIONER 

OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Mr. MAGAGNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Jim Magagna. I serve as Director of 
50 

Federal Land Policy for the State of Wyoming; also as Director of 

the 3.6 million acres of State lands. 

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you Wyoming's full 

support for H.R. 2032. I compliment you, Mr. Chairman, as well as 

our Senator Craig Thomas on the Senate side for being prime sponsors of this historic legislation which recognizes and effectuates the 

longstanding intent of this Congress prior to the enactment of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

Let me stop and remind the members of this committee at this 

point that while we talk a lot about the history of the public lands 

in the West and their BLM management, in terms of legislative 

history, the historic action that you are proposing to undertake 

only reverses a mere 19 years of legislative history, because prior 

to 1976 it was the clearly expressed intent of this body that these 

lands were being managed in a temporary trust situation until 

such time as they were turned over to the individual States. I 

think that is a very important consideration. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my full prepared remarks be entered in the record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. And all of your full testimony 

will be in the record. Excuse me, go ahead. Mr. MAGAGNA. We believe that this legislation represents the 

preferable approach to placing BLM-administered lands under 

State ownership, control and management responsibility. It sidesteps the longstanding Constitutional debates on issues of equal 

footing and States' rights. While we do agree that these issues 

should be addressed, under H.R. 2032 the transfer of BLM-administered lands can proceed based on practical issues of improved 

management and reduced costs. 

Of the 62.3 million acres of land in the State of Wyoming, the 

government owns 30.5 million, nearly 49 percent. Wyoming hosts 

two national parks, two national monuments, four complete national forests and portions of four additional forests. These lands 

total approximately 12 million acres reserved by this Congress to 

be protected forever for the American people because of their beauty and unique characteristics. 

I believe that the State of Wyoming, as each of our 50 States, has 

contributed some of their most unique lands for the overall benefit 

and long-term enjoyment of all the American people. Those are not 

the lands that we are talking about here today. This land transfer will achieve several fundamental objectives 

with national benefits. First, the on-the-ground management 

knowledge and management capability will be significantly enhanced. BLM currently has many excellent trained professionals in 

its field offices; however, the career path of Federal employment requires that these people continually move from one State to another, often with Washington duty interspersed. They are denied 

the opportunity to develop the expertise on the specific characteristics of the individual pieces of land that have to be managed. For this reason, it is not surprising that ranchers, miners, 

loggers, sportsmen and others with lifelong relationships to the 

land are rightfully reluctant to accept the management input of 

these qualified professionals. 
51 

Under State management, we will see incentives for profes- sionals to spend major portions of their careers developing a relationship with the specific lands in their State and with the people 

on those lands. 

Indeed, BLM personnel on the ground often today are as frustrated as the rest of us with their inability to influence Washington 

policy and with the policies that are handed down that are quite 

often inconsistent with their own on the ground management objectives. 

Much has been said here today about the streamlining of administration that will take place, and I think this is also significant. 

Through a transfer to the States, all levels of management above 

the current State Director position will automatically be eliminated 

beginning with the Secretary of the Interior as to these lands. 

Under State management, in Wyoming we are confident that the 

duplication caused by the current BLM district level of management and area management can also be removed, that we can have 

people on the ground in area offices reporting directly to the State 

Director of these lands. 

There is a perception of a heavy dependence in the western 

States on the largess of the Federal Government that will be corrected by this legislation. I have had it called to my attention numerous times by eastern interests that Wyoming receives far more 

per capita in Federal dollars than similar rural eastern States. 

The response is simple. Give us ownership and control of our natural resources in a proportion comparable to yours and we can 

quickly become the least dependent of all the States. 

Are our Federal mineral royalty share, payment in lieu of taxes, 

and shares of grazing receipts on Federal lands payments, or are 

they simply a portion of the production from our resources? 

Opposition to this and similar legislation is rooted in the perpetration of several myths. One of these is that the American public will be denied the use and enjoyment of these lands; that will 

be a privilege reserved to the citizens of a single State. This is simply not true. 

No more am I denied the use of the resources of Central Park 

owned by the city of New York than will the people of New York 

be denied the use of the resources of these lands owned and managed by the people of Wyoming. The fact is, all authorized uses will 

continue to be available·on an equal basis to all U.S. citizens. 

The second myth, prevalent even in Wyoming, and Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the Congressman from Montana, I 

would have to say prevalent even here in Washington, is that multiple use will no longer be maintained, that access will be denied 

to these lands; and that eventually most of the land will be sold 

to the private sector at bargain basement prices. 

Let me remind you that the history and the legislative mandates, 

both Federal and State, that will control the management of these 

lands are not the same mandates that control the current State 

management of the school and other institutional lands that we 

hold. In those cases, by act of Congress and by our State Constitutions, we are clearly mandated to place benefit to the beneficiaries 

as the primary consideration. Public access, public use are desir-
52 

able objectives that we try to achieve on State lands in Wyoming 

but they are not our mandate. 

These lands, when they are returned to the States, will in Wyoming be under a mandate that public use and the public access are 

one of the primary mandates for their use. So we simply cannot 

compare the current management of State trust lands or lands for 

beneficiaries with the management States would place upon these 

lands. 

In Wyoming we are fortunate. Our legislature had the foresight 

many years ago, as Senator Thomas reminded us earlier this morning, to adopt statutory language to guide the management of these 

lands when they are turned back to the States. And our statutory 

language speaks not only of commodity uses but of recreation, conservation, protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat, et cetera. It 

goes on to make it very clear that there will be broad multiple use 

mandated for these lands when they are managed by the State of 

Wyoming. 

Mr. Chairman, I won't take time to go into several changes that 

we have recommended into this bill. However, one of those I would 

note is that we feel ten years is too long a time for the State to 

take over management once the Governor has exercised his prerog- ative. However, after hearing the discussion today, about the legitimate budgetary concerns of the Federal Government, we in Wyoming are willing to do our part to help you to put your budget 

house in order and, if it is necessary for us to wait for ten years 

to take over management control of these lands, we would be willing to do so. 

But let me emphasize that beyond those ten years, we are not 

willing to have Congress balance the Federal budget on the backs 

of ten or eleven western States. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me note that at no time since enactment of FLPMA in 1976 has it been more appropriate to initiate 

this land transfer. H.R. 2032 is a major downsizing of Federal Government. It places the power closer to the people. It is a true block 

grant to the States of the resources with which to meet their own 

socioeconomic needs. 

We urge favorable action on this legislation by this Subcommittee. And I thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magagna can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Williamson. 

STATEMENT OF LONNIE WILLIAMSON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Lonnie 

Williamson, vice-president of the Wildlife Management Institute. 

The Institute strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 2032. We view 

the.bill as a serious threat to our Nation's treasured wildlife heritage. 

In my experience, Mr. Chairman, I have found it easy to underestimate how much the American people care for their public lands. 

The public domain has been a part of this country since its beginning. 
53 

The public domain has been a part of this country since its beginning, when individual States ceded land to the government. For 

nearly 200 years the Federal policy was to dispose of those lands 

and encourage settlement. But late in 19th century, this Nation 

began to change that policy. 

The Creative Act of 1891, which provides for withdrawal of forest 

reserves, was among the fll'st steps back from disposal. Another 

important declaration of how public lands should be managed came 

from the Public Land Law Review Commission which Congress established in 1964. That bipartisan effort, which I think was chaired 

by the former chairman of the old Interior and Insular Affairs 

Committee in the House, produced a 1970 report titled "One Third 

of the Nation's Land," which recommended that "the policy of 

large-scale disposal of public lands be revised and that future disposal should be of only those lands that will achieve maximum benefit for the general public in non-Federal ownership, while retaining in Federal ownership those lands whose values must be preserved so that they may be used and enjoyed by all Americans." 

The most profound result of that recommendation is the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act that came along in 1976. That 

is an organic act for the Bureau of Land Management. That statute 

pointedly establishes a Federal policy to retain public lands. 

H.R. 2032 would reverse that policy. And that is something with 

which we fundamentally disagree, because disposal, whether to 

States or other entities, probably would mean less management to 

conserve resources and less public access for recreational purposes. 

Federal public lands are great assets to the western States in our 

view. They not only provide significant income to States and counties, they are what in large part makes the West different from the 

Midwest, the East or the South. They are the reason why people 

in all parts ofthe country admire western States and unfortunately 

are moving there in increasing numbers. 

The West now is the fastest growing area of the country. Public 

domain lands are the most ecologically diverse managed by any 

Federal agency. The varied landscapes support nearly three thousand species of wildlife, including every native North American big 

game animal, 23 species of upland game birds, internationally recognized raptor habitats and more than 215 threatened and endangered species. 

The 270 million acres and 17 4 miles of fishable streams provide 

more than 65 million recreation visits in fiscal year 1994. And that 

popularity is reflected in the estimate that 70 percent of all travel 

to the western States is for pleasure. 

It is highly unlikely in our view that these recreation resources 

could be maintained under State or private ownership. Virtually all 

public land States require that State lands be used for maximum 

revenue generation which stacks the deck in favor of commodity 

production in minds of most State land managers, at least that is 

the case so far. 

And there is nQthing in the legislation that we can see that 

would require the States to do any different. Mr. Chairman, the 

States already get half of most income generated by public land resources plus some generous payments in lieu of taxes. Further-
54 

more, individuals and families in public land communities benefit 

also. 

Surveys by the Economic Research Service show that family income in counties with public land is approximately $2,000 a year 

higher than income in counties without a public land base. 

Mr. Chairman, we cannot think of a problem that would be 

solved by this legislation, but we do see many that could be created 

by it. We thank you very much for considering our views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williamson can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANsEN. Thank you, Mr. Williamson, we appreciate your testimony. Mr. Lea, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE LEA, PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION 

Mr. LEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here today to give you our views on H.R. 2032. As a national 

organization of retired but still dedicated former Bureau of Land 

Management employees, the foundation is a nonpartisan advocate 

for sound public land management and has the unique body of 

knowledge and expertise regarding such. 

What is more important is that we have kept up on the public 

land issues and truly understand what is happening to the public 

lands. The idea of transferring the public lands to the States is not new. 

In the 1930's there were several Commission reports, the Garfield 

for one, which ended up in passage of the Taylor Grazing Act. In 

the 1960's, the Classification and Multiple Use Act was passed in 

which there were numerous meetings held with the State and local 

officials as to whether the land should be retained or disposed of 

and the end result was over 175 million acres were classified for 

retention. 

And finally, as has been mentioned here this morning, in 1970 

the Congress passed FLPMA which made a final decision that 

these lands were no longer vacant, unappropriated public lands, 

but were to be retained in Federal ownership. This policy determination by Congress is the same declaration that Congress has 

given to the national forest lands in the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 197 4 and the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976. 

So one has to ask what is the benefit of giving such gigantic public assets to a few States? What benefit does the average United 

States citizen, the real owners of these lands, receive by giving 

these assets without compensation to a small segment of the population? 

In our view, we see very little benefit or justification for such a 

windfall. As a matter of fact, there may be a small reduction in the 

Federal appropriations that are needed to manage these lands, but 

nearly an equal loss in receipts. And I would think in reality that 

the States, most of the States, would not take you up on this offer 

without having the Federal appropriations given to them to manage the lands. 

It is important to note here that the Federal receipts would be 

substantially larger had Congress through the years authorized the 
55 

collection of fair market value and royalties for the natural resources found on the public lands. 

Again, it would be very interesting to see how the States view 

this. When they receive 50 percent now of nearly all of the receipts without any responsibility for management, protection and liability 

associated with the lands, it is hard to realize why they would be 

interested. 

It is coming at a time when the States .are also reducing their 

budget and trimming their budgets in the same reformist impulses 

that have dominated the Congress this year. Fire protection and 

emergency fire suppression is a good example. The States would 

have to have deep pockets to handle the situation and the liability 

that acccompanies the management responsibilities. Unfortunately, here just last week there were two firefighters killed in a fire in 

Idaho. 

On the other hand, it is easy to see why States like New Mexico 

and Wyoming would endorse this legislation. BLM manages 33 percent of all the coal reserves in the United States, a 200-year supply, 8.1?-d nearly 65 percent of this comes from the coal reserves in 

Wyommg. 

In addition, with the development now underway, when the 

Green River Formation is completed, Wyoming will become the 

largest natural gas producer in the United States, with the majority of this coming from under BLM lands. In the case of New Mexico, over 3.5 million acres are currently under oil and gas lease. 

So again, what is driving this? With State ownership, the public 

land livestock users, other Federal lease holders and large corporations see this legislation as one more step closer to the day that 

they can acquire title to public lands. We heard that this morning 

from a couple of the statements made, that describes what is behind this. They intend to sell most of the lands. 

In many cases like the State of Nevada; they have already disposed of their lands that they received under their Enabling Acts. 

So we see this hope of private ownership as a major force behind 

this legislation. Sir, there are some major shortfalls that we see in this legislation and we have mentioned them in our testimony, one of which 

is that we feel that the Forest Service and the national grasslands and the fish and wildlife refuges should be included. We have 

heard from time to time that BLM lands after all are just what is 

left, the good land was homesteaded, and what is left are just rocks 

and scabland&, alkaline flats, land that nobody wanted. Well, we 

know differently, of course. 

But to be fair with the States, they should have a choice. They 

should be able to look at all the public lands in their State, and 

have a choice. In the case of the National Grasslands, these were 

once private lands. The States may want to acquire them so that 

they can sell them and get them back into commodity production. 

As has been mentioned, there is at least a 12-year hiatus where 

the lands would be in limbo before the lands would be transferred. 

We think, if it is going to happen, the process should be much 

quicker. 

We have offered an alternative, sir, in our testimony which I ap- preciate you looking at closely. The land pattern ownership of BLM 
56 

managed areas is the result of an accident of history and there are 

a lot of scattered tracks that need to be disposed. There are a lot 

of areas that need to be blocked up, and we think the Congress 

should get interested here and start an intensive ten-year program 

to improve the ownership. 

In conclusion, I would like to refer to the report on H.R. 1977 

which is the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appro- priation Bill for 1996. It contains two requirements, both directing 

the Secretary of Interior to work with States in developing pilot 

plans and alternatives to wholesale transfer of the public lands to 

the States. 

One of these proposals is very similar to what we are recommending. H.R. 1977 directs the Secretary to work with the State 

of New Mexico in identifying BLM lands potentially suitable for 

disposal through sale or exchange. The other directs the Secretary 

to develop pilot plans for joint Federal/State management for selected BLM resource areas and counties. 

It occurs to us that Congress should have the benefit of the results of these experiments before proceeding any further with a policy of disposal of public lands. 

Mr. Chairman, we hope our comments will be beneficial to you 

and we want you to know that we are sincere on our efforts to see 

that the public lands are managed well. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lea can be found at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Lea. Mr. Mike Baughman, you are 

recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE BAUGHMAN, PRESIDENT, 

INTERTECH SERVICE CORPORATION 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. 

Thank _you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name 

is Mike Baughman and I am President of Intertech Services Corporation, Carson Citl,, Nevada. I was one of the principal authors 

of a report entitled 'Identification of Public Land Transfer Issues 

and Preliminary Comparative Economic Analysis" which was prepared for the Board of Eureka County Commissioners, a county in 

Nevada. 

Eureka County is a county within which 76 percent of the land 

base is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The county 

has some of the largest gold mines in the Nation, as well as extensive grazing and other kinds of energy, principally geothermal, production activities. 

Eureka County is exemplary in their willingness and desire to 

look forward and really try to understand what the implications 

would be at a State level and prospectively at a county level, were 

the land transfers to go forward. 

Their interest lies primarily in that their economy is largely tied 

to public land uses as are most every county in the State of Nevada. And they were very concerned that in the event that the land 

transfers were to go through, that they might be in some way be 

impacted. 

They acted with what I believe was a premonition on their part 

that the transfer was something they would like to see happen. 
57 

They did not know what the economic consequences of that would 

be and the)' responsibly wanted to fmd out. 

I can tell you right up front that this report does suggest that 

the State of Nevada can manage public lands and produce net positive revenues. I know there has been some concern expressed by certain members of the Committee and others, that if this bill were 

to be passed it might have some adverse consequences for the State 

of Nevada. However, our analysis would suggest otherwise. In fact, 

like other States, Nevada does have the potential to generate net 

positive revenues. 

There are some caveats to that. And I think there are caveats to 

every State. Those have a lot to do with uncertainty in institutional 

structures. Nevada is one of the most urbanized States of the westem States with the vast majority of the population residing in Las 

Vegas and the Reno/Sparks area. . Clearly the land management policies that might be adopted in 

our State to manage lands would be driven largely by the whims 

of the folks living in Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks. That is a concern 

in our State; however, I think it is a concern that the folks in the 

rural areas have expressed a willingness to take. 

I would also note that our work suggests that there are some 

alarming trends with public land management. I think you should 

know, in every case we identified States making money managing 

public lands, in every case we identified public Federal Government loses money. 

What are the reasons for that? We really haven't touched on the 

reasons for that. I think there are several. We heard about regulatory kinds of things. Really what we are talking about here is a 

Federal Government spending money to generate or to manage or 

to produce non-economic values and States generally spending 

money to produce economic revenues or to generate economic values . . One of the concerns that confronts local governments in Nevada 

and perhaps other western States is that our economy is very sig- nificantly constrained by the availability of private lands. The management decisions for the vast public areas in our areas are being made by policymakers, perhaps in Washington. 

Congress certainly has been to blame for part of this. I think the 

revolution that we saw that swept through this Nation in the last 

election which brought many new folks in here to Washington, is 

the same kind of revolution you are seeing in the West riglit now. 

If it is right for us to change the way we do business in Washington, it is right to ~ge the way we execute business at the 

ground level in the counties and the States. And certainly our analysis would suggest that. 

We think there is a great deal of inefficiency that goes on in 

terms of the management, in terms of the folks that are out there 

managing the lands. They are not driven to generate net revenues 

or in a sense profit like a land user might be. They have a sense 

of needing to manage that land, to do something good with it, but 

not in monetary terms. 

I think as a result of that we have had a bureaucracy that has 

grown. We have land managers out there that are simply manag- ing for management's sake. It is like tending your lawn. I water 
58 

it so I have to mow it. Doesn't really produce a lot of good in that 

sense. 

Let me close so we can get on to questions by suggesting that 

there are several trends that we identified; one, States make 

money. Forge production is holding steady or is up in some cases 

which is an environmental indicator. Revenues are up across 

States. Except in the case of Utah, which we note seems to be 

doing a good job in holding down costs, costs are up for managing 

lands at the State level. So there is a growing bureaucracy within 

State land management. That concerns us in Nevada as we 

confront the possibility of taking on land management. 

Net profits per acre are up across all States. Total acres managed are down slightly. States do sell lands but they sell a very small amount of their lands on an annual basis. I would note that 

in Nevada land sales hold great potential. As an urbanized area, 

and Las Vegas growing rapidly, we would imagine that the State 

of Nevada would sell public lands to help with the growth in that 

area. That is a problem for the Las Vegas area right now, and I 

will just close by noting that the city of Las Vegas and Clark County have been very frustrated by the Bureau of Land Management's 

seeming willingness to free up public lands for development purposes not in concert with the development goals and objectives of 

the city and the county, thereby creating leapfrog kinds of growth. 

So there is a real insensitivity not only to the rural needs in Nevada, but we have seen an insensitivity to the urban needs as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Baughman. Mr. Phil Hocker, you have got five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PmLIP HOCKER, PRESIDENT, MINERAL 

POLICY CENTER 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Philip Hocker, I am presi- dent of Mineral Policy Center. We are a nonprofit organization of 

2,500 members dedicated to the adoption of policies which serve 

the long-term national interest for environmentally clean and fiscally responsible management of our mineral resources. And I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

and ask that my written statement be submitted into the record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. HocKER. Since it is for better or worse, fall into the need 

about cleanup here, reflect a little bit in some broader terms. First 

I would like to talk about the philosophy of this legislation and 

some of the issues that you raised which I understand and sympathize with. 

Second, about the magnitude from a minerals point of view that 

being our area of expertise, of what this bill would actually transact. And finally on this bill as legislation rather than as philosophy. 

I probably should be in favor of this legislation from one point 

of view because this would accomplish something that Stewart 

Udall and I have been working on for many years now, the reform 

of the 1872 mining law. This bill would lead probably, one cannot 
59 

be sure, to the collection of market value returns for public entities 

from the disposal of what are now Federal minerals. Of course, the 

1872 mining law does not collect. 

But the sentiment that the western States are being treated unfairly which as the child of westerners and it as a long-time resident of the region myself, I fully understand, I think really has to 

be weighed against the reality of history. 

There has been some mention earlier today when the original Articles of Confederation were entered into by the 13 colonies, 7 of 

those colonies were demanded by the other 6 to cede their western 

land claims. Those western land claims, Virginia's were far and 

away the largest, exceeded 237 million acres of land which those 

seven original States owned. So those States gave up into the common trust for the whole country an area of land which is very close 

to the area of land that we are talking about today, about 270 million acres, being given to a favored number of States from the BLM 

trust. 

Those seven States, if we are ever to talk about "giving land 

back" to States, the only States that can get land back from the 

Federal Government are those original seven States that gave it to 

the Federal Government, Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, those are the only States that can get land back. 

It is simply not historically possible to give land back to Wyoming 

or Utah or Arizona. It is an historical impossibility. 

Those lands were purchased for the benefit of the whole country, with the blood and the cash of citizens of the entire country. And 

that blood. and that cash was expended to build a stronger common 

United States. Not to build special favors for specific States. 

When the territorial governments in those western regions were 

replaced by Statehood Acts, there was an agreement which progressively gave more and more of the land area within the boundaries 

of each of the new States to the States as they came into the 

Union. 

More land was given to those States as they entered the union 

than is currently in the 270 million acres in BLM administration. 

But what is left is a common trust and I think that Representative Williams really put it best, it is a common trust for future gen- erations, for all of us, for the whole country. And I don't think that 

we can tum our back on that common responsibility. It leads to 

frictions. I have lived with some of those and been frustrated by them myself. But I think that living with and working out and resolving those frustrations case by case and piecemeal is a more realistic way to move forward than to think that we can dispose of 

the whole problem in one fell swoop. 

H.R. 2032 would transfer an immense amount of wealth. We 

have attempted to calculate what the actual value of that is and 

by our best calculation using current prices, not allowing for-inflation in the future, the minerals in the ground that would be given 

away by H.R. 2032 if all of the States in which minerals lie were 

to take advantage of the opportunity, would be $3.29 trillion. But 

that of course is more than twice the entire Federal budget ap- proved by the Budget Resolution of this Congress. It is primarily a coal resource. There are $2.872 billion worth of 

coal under the BLM lands or in BLM-administered mineral States 
60 

in the western States, primarily in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, 

New Mexico and North Dakota and Utah. · In fact, if the question which Secretary Cohen raised earlier, 

which States would take advantage of the opportunity that H.R. 

2032 offers were weighed simply on an economic benefit basis by the States. I would predict that probably Montana, Wyoming and 

possibly New Mexico would be the States that would make as an 

economic decision the choice to get it while they could. 

There is, of course, also a very large amount of oil and gas. It 

would be viewed as an immense amount of money if it weren't 

looked at next to the coal, $288 billion dollars worth, using U.S. 

Geological Survey figures. I might add the figures that U.S. Geological Survey gives us are slightly different and slightly larger 

than figures which BLM seems to be using today. 

Gold and silver, we did our best effort at estimating the value 

there, we come with $130 billion. That is probably the least wellknown of the numbers and there are other estimates which I relate 

in my testimony. And that is not even including phosphates, 

oilshell, a lot of other potential minerals which you know as well 

as I are viewed by many folks in the West as great future opportunities. 

What would H.R. 2032 actually do with this? We have heard a 

lot of talk today from different folks including Mr. Magagna and 

some of the members who have been both testifying and commenting about what they would anticipate the bill doing. But in fact the 

bill is very wide open as to what it would allow. 

We did some historical research and found a bill introduced by 

Senator Robertson from Wyoming in 1946 which had the same 

philosophical goal I believe as H.R. 2032. Robertson's bill as 1945, 

and I recommend it for study, was titled a bill to provide for the 

granting of public lands to certain States, for the elimination of 

grazing lands for national forests and parks, and it went on. But 

it would have required that the States collect a reasonable royalty. 

It would have dedicated revenues from the lands to public trust 

purposes, such as schools. 

President Hoover's report and recommendation in 1930 would 

have required that Federal minerals be retained in Federal ownership even though the surface be given to States. 

So the breadth of what H.R. 2032 proposes is unprecedented. The 

absence of public interest guidance is unprecedented and the per- ception of equity that it proposes is not found based in historical 

fact. 

We would oppose the passage of the legislation. I thank you 

again for the opportunity to testify and I will answer any questions 

you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hocker can be found at the end 

ofthe hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hocker. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Williamson, I 

read your report and it is obvious that you people are of course 

very much interested in wildlife management. AB you know, most 

States manage the wildlife. Do you really think that a State does 

a good job when it can't control the land in managing the wildlife? 
61 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. The division of power for managing wildlife on 

Federal lands is that the State is responsible for managing the 

wildlife but the Federal agency is responsible for the habitat. 

If I understand this bill, the Federal lands would go into the 

State land agency which is entirely different from the Fish and 

Wildlife Agency. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, the Fish and Wildlife manage right now on 

State lands. The Fish and Wildlife, and they have some input into 

control of the land, so I was just saying that right now we have 

a separation and I was just referring to your testimony and your 

interest. I just wanted to know if you really think it is good to have 

the Federal Government controlling the land and the State controlling the habitat on the land, meaning mainly the wildlife? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, it has worked out very well. Over the 

years there have been cooperative agreements among the Federal 

agencies and the various States involved and I think they do a very 

fine job. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, not so well in my State. Another thing I wanted to ask you, you made a statement about a survey of economic 

research which shows that family income in counties with public lands is approximately $2,000 higher than income in counties without public lands. Could the Committee have a copy of your research 

that shows that? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Sure. 

Mr. COOLEY. I would like to see something that says that. And 

my last question to you is that how are you funded, sir? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. We are funded by money from the sporting 

arms and ammunition manufacturers in North America. 

Mr. CooLEY. OK, do you have a financial statement, disclosure 

statement that is nonprofit? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes. 

Mr. COOLEY. Could the committee receive a copy of that please? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Lea, do you think the Taylor Grazing Act was a good law? 

Did you like it? I mean you referred to it, you brought it up and 

you said strengthen the concept of Federal management. Do you like the Taylor Grazing Act? 

Mr. LEA. At the time it was a good law. 

Mr. COOLEY. At the time? 

Mr. LEA. I spent 30 years administering it and I am very familiar with it. Mr. CooLEY. At the time. But now it is not a good law. 

Mr. LEA. No, I didn't say that at all. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, you said at the time it was a good law. Would 

it be a good law today? 

Mr. LEA. It needs to be updated and FLPMA has done a lot of 

that. 

Mr. CooLEY. Well, we would like to see the Grazing Act come 

back into effect too, it would be very, very nice. It would help out 

a lot in the West. We were having some real problems. If we had 

that in place we would not have those problems today. 

Do you feel that the Federal Government has ability to manage 

public lands better than the States do? 

20-051 0 - 95 - 3 
62 

Mr. LEA. Well, I think the States could manage these lands as 

well as the Federal Government if they had the resources and the 

experience. They don't at this point in time. The land departments issue leases to the grazing permittee for the States, section 16s and 

36. What management those State lands receive, they receive from 

BLM, the surrounding Federal lands. 

Mr. COOLEY. So your answer is that the States are not properly managing their land now nor could they properly manage the other 

lands'! 

Mr. LEA. In most States the land departments do not have that 

responsibility. They issue a lease and that is it, to generate funds 

for the State land schools. 

Mr. CooLEY. Well, every State that has State lands, manages their State lands, and they do it at the various ways that the Federal Government does as well. But your contention is they don't 

have the-ability to do that? 

Mr. LEA. No, I didn't say that. I said if given the resources they could do a fine job, as well as the Fec\eral Governments. They don't 

have the resources. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK. I will ask you the same question, sir. Are you 

a public corporation? Nonprofit? Mr. LEA. Yes, we are. It is nonprofit. 

Mr. COOLEY. Do you put out fmancial statements? 

Mr. LEA. Yes, we do. 

Mr. CooLEY. OK, would you provide me with a copy of your last 

one? 

Mr. LEA. Surely. 

Mr. COOLEY. I would like to see where your money comes from. 

Mr. LEA. Surely. It comes from membership only. Mr. CooLEY. OK, I would like to see that if you don't mind since 

it is a public document. Mr. Hocker, I read your report. Boy, I will 

tell you, I am not sure what country you come from, but right now 

the States have managed their public lands and they allow leasing, they allow patents on mineral rights, et cetera. Do you really think 

it should be exclusive control just by the Federal Government to 

manage public lands? 

Mr. HOCKER. Sir, there are about eight questions there. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, just answer one because I don't have a lot of 

time. I have to ask the Chairman for one more minute, but right 

now States manage State lands in the same manner that Federal 

Government is managing Federal lands. You do not believe they have the capacity to handle any additional lands that might be 

given to them? 

Mr. HOCKER. Unfortunately, I don't think that is an accurate 

premise. The States, as have been brought forward by many speakers today, manage their lands with different mandates, many objec- tives that Congress has created for the management of the Federal 

lands are not objectives that the States are obligated to fulfill. So 

I don't think we should be surprised that the management by the 

BLM and Forest Service and Park Service have different costs and 

involve different paperwork and different impediments because 

those agencies are trying to preserve antiquities which we believe 

are an important resource for the heritage of the country--

Mr. COOLEY. And you don't think States are trying to do that? 
63 

Mr. HOCKER. Excuse me, sir? 

Mr. CoOLEY. You don't believe States are trying to do that? 

Mr. HOCKER. Well, but you stated that they were managed for 

the same purposes and I am trying to clarify. I don't believe that 

is correct. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK, fine. I imagine you are very familiar with H.R. 

2032, where in there do you fmd, in your testimony you are talking 

about if we turn these lands over to the States that our natural resources are reserved from time of crisis, war, et cetera, would preclude the national security. Where does it say in the transfer of 

this that the President or Congress still would not have the right 

to reserve resources for national emergency? Where do you find 

that in the bill? 

Mr. HOCKER. The bill is devoid of any instruction on how the resources that would be transferred to the States should be protected, 

how their revenues should be used, and what purposes they should 

be used for. 

Mr. COOLEY. And the last question, if you would indulge me, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you rather go through your questions or do 

another round? 

Mr. CooLEY. I would rather just go through--

Mr. HANSEN. Just go through the questions. 

Mr. CooLEY. In your statement, tlie very last on page number 5, 

you talk about the threat to national security. Now, I know you are 

reaching and you don't like this particular bit of legislation and I 

read your statement over national security. I think that that statement is, I can't even think of the word without being vulgar. I 

think that your statement in that part of your testimony is so far 

out of base that I cannot believe it. I mean, these lands are going 

to be there. The States are not going to pillage and rape the land. 

The States are not going to do anything to degradate the ability of 

this country to have a national security. It is to their interest as 

well. 

To make a statement that if any land, public land, being Federal 

land, is turned over to the States that we are going to in some way 

put the country in peril is absolutely irresponsible. I just can't even 

believe it. You know, I wish I had more time because I would really like to take you to task on this, but I don't. Sometime give me the 

opportunity and we will really go at this because you are so far out 

of line it isn't funny. You know, there is such a thing as communism, socialism, you 

are somewhere in between there, that absolutely is not true. Absolutely not true. Whenever you can come here before Congress and 

tell us if we take a piece of land and give it to the States that in 

someway or another we are going to impale this country and make 

us susceptible to foreign powers, it is just far out of whack. I don't 

even know where you came from with that. I don't know what you 

were doing when you wrote this up, what your committee was 

doing. But that is wrong. 

States and the people in this country are responsible. We want 

to manage this land as well as anybody. We feel, at least some of 

us in this Committee feel, that States are responsible and they can 

do a good job. They are doing a good job now. 
64 

We, at the Federal level, are doing a very poor job. It is costing 

us money. In my State alone, we are not cutting any more things. 

In fact, actually you are subsidizing my State because we are not 

cutting any timber anymore on our 0 and C land which is costing 

this country about $10 million dollars a year trying to compensate 

because of people who have thought or views that we should not 

touch anything, that the Federal Government can do it better than 

anybody. And that is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. 

People are responsible. People are good and they can do it. And 

we have made mistakes before, but when we do, we certainly get 

it corrected very quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Maybe we can arrange for the gentleman from Oregon and Mr. Hocker to appear on Firing Line together. It should be v_erJ interesting. The gentlelady from Idaho. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lea, I was interested in your testimony. What is your background? 

Mr. LEA. I went to school at Moscow. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Idaho? 

Mr. LEA. Right. . Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just wanted to get that clear. 

Mr. LEA. That is right. I have a degree in forestry. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you graduated from the school of forestry 

in Moscow. And then what did you do? 

Mr. LEA. I started with the Bureau of Land Management, 

worked for the Forest Service, prior to that and I started with the 

Bureau in Baker, Oregon, worked in Oregon, and Colorado and 

then Washington. Worked with the Forest Service in Idaho, Montana. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You have had a very interesting career. You 

very correctly mentioned the fires in my State. 

Mr. LEA. Yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And they have been really tragic. 

Mr. LEA. My wife is from Glens Ferry. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Gosh, we have got one over by Quail Hollow. 

Mr. LEA. Right. Those fires are down by Kuna, I believe. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, and that took 10,000 acres. The one at 

Quail Hollow, we don't have a beat on how big that is growing. But 

the one at Twin Buttes which isn't too far away, 15,000 acres; another one at Emmett, 200,000 acres. And these are BLM lands. 

Plus two lives. And I know if you were the Director there now, it 

would grieve you. 

Mr. LEA. Right. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. My point is that lightning doesn't just strike 

on BLM lands. And as you know in Idaho every 16th section is 

dedicated to school endowment lands. And so we get a good reading 

on the difference in management of our State lands and our BLM 

lands. One of my biggest concerns and I hope that we can receive 

the benefit of all of your knowledge and training and experience, 

is that the BLM fll'es tend to grow almost out of control before we 

are able to put anyone on the fire lines whereas in the States we 

get there with the mostest first and try to get the fire out when 

it is small. 
65 

I want to mention Mr. Magagna's testimony. It is outstanding. 

Your second paragraph is something that is right on point. And it 

is something that we must take into consideration in the bill. 

And I thank you for your testimony. I am not going to ask for 

any further comment, but it is extremely good. I also want to ask 

Mr. Lea based on his experience in the BLM, you know we have 

two Acts, the Desert Land Entry Act and the Carey Act, and as far 

as I know they have never been repealed. 

Mr. LEA. That is true. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But weren't those Acts proposed for us to be 

able to settle the BLM lands or those vacant and appropriated Federal lands which, as you or Mr. Williamson correctly pointed out, 

until FLPMA came along and FLPMA said well we own it now and 

so that is it. We said it. The Congress said it. We own the land. 

That is it. Which I think is wrong. I don't think the Federal Government can say we own somebody else's land but that is another 

discussion for another day. 

But nevertheless, it has been envisioned throughout time with 

various Acts including Carey Act and Desert Land Entry Act, but 

we are able to get people out on the land to manage the land and 

be the good stewards that they should be. Can you give me an idea, 

Mr. Lea, why the Carey Act has not succeeded? Why it was just 

ignored by the agency? 

Mr. LEA. Well, I don't know that the agencies ignored it. There 

has been quite a bit of activity on it with OLE, Desert Land Entry 

and Carey Act in Idaho and some in Nevada. But as you know, the 

law is a disposal law. It is still on the books. You have to acquire 

water. You have to irrigate this land and you know as well as I 

do there is not much water left, that is available. I would say that 

that is the limiting factor. Why there isn't more land homesteaded 

under the OLE and the Carey Act is a lack of water. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, in Idaho we did have sufficient 

water claims for application for Desert Land Entry and Carey Act 

claims. We just couldn't get it through the agencies. 

Mr. LEA. There were some lands that were homesteaded and 

went to private ownership, I don't know the figures, but that law 

is still on the books. That is one of those few laws that FLPMA did 

not delete. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, I do want to say for the record, I 

don't think that the Congress can say that the vacant unappropriated Federal lands which meant that in the Admission Act of the 

12 western States we were given the right to own the land, that 

the Congress can saw through FLPMA, oops, now we own it by a 

stroke of the pen. But, you know, that is another discussion. It may 

eventually be resolved in the courts. 

Mr. Baughman, the information that you have put together is exceedingly interesting. Time limits my ability to a8k you questions 

about it, but I would like to talk to you. I would like to study your 

reports. There are many concepts and factors that I would like to 

see how you dealt with them in your report in Nevada, so could you 

make sure that I get a copy? Thank you so much. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Cubin, is recognized. 
66 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start with Mr. 

Baughman. There has been a lot of discussion today that only a 

few States, two or three, would benefit economically from deciding 

to take the lands if this bill were to pass. Do you think that the 

States would base their decision on more than just economic reasons? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Yes, I do. Although that might not always be apparent. For example, the city of Las Vegas might base its decision 

to support a governor's initiative to accept the Secretary's invitation on the assumption that they will better be able to control 

growth and provide services in their metropolitan area because 

they won't have to worry about leapfrog growth induced by BLM 

land transfers. 

Now, that may not appear to be an economic reason, but in reality it is somewhat of a fiscal economic reality to them. A local 

community may support it from a local government control perspec- tive. And it may seem more an ideological kind of an issue for them 

but for many of these local governments it is a matter of economic 

survival. 

I think by and large they will be motivated by reasons of economic issues. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. I agree with you. Some might be more 

subtle reasons as you pointed out, but I was interested that Mr. 

Lea stated that the States didn't have the resources to manage the 

land. The Federal Government has a $4.5-trillion debt. Why do you 

think the Federal Government can more afford to manage the land 

with a $4.5 trillion debt than the States? 

Mr. LEA. Well, I don't know that that is the question before us 

hereMrs. CUBIN. Well, you made the statement that the Federal Government could afford to manage the lands but the States didn't 

have the resources to do it. You didn't say the first part-that was 

implied-but you said that the Federal Government should continue to administer the lands because the States don't have the resources to do it. 

Mr. LEA. That is true. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, with the $4.5 trillion debt, how can you justify that statement? 

Mr. LEA. Well, in reality, you will find that there might be a net, 

a small net savings when you compare their income, their revenues 

versus the appropriations. They are not paying their way now, so 

there is a slight improvement there for the Federal Budget standpoint. Some savings. But the States don't have the resources to 

manage the lands today. They would have to get the resources. 

Mrs. CUBIN. We don't have them either. 

Mr. LEA. That is right, exactly. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Baughman, his testimony was contrary to what 

you are now saying. 

Mr. LEA. Well, I am suggesting that you have touched the reality 

and the reality is that outside of perhaps Wyoming and New Mexico, the rest of the States, Idaho, Colorado are going to say OK we 

will take them but we have got to have the money. We need to 

have a Federal grant to manage them because we don't have the 

resources. 
67 

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, you have no way of knowing that, Mr. Lea, nor 

doL 

Mr. LEA. No, I know I don't. But I am saying, I am agreeing with 

you that the States don't have it. Now someone has to have it or 

as has been said here today, will sell them. And if you think about 

that, if I might add this, at one t4D.e and it is probably very close 

to being true today, of the number of livestock permittees that have 

permits on BLM lands, roughly 90 percent of the use is held by 10 

percent of the users, and 10 percent of the users hold 90 percent of the AUM, so the profile is a lot of small ranchers with small op- erations, but very few operated with big operations. And it is the 

big folks, and the corporations who look upon this bill as an opportunity, one step closer toward private ownership. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I think that is a ~¥losophical discussion, whether 

or not who should own the land. Whether it should be the citizens 

of a country or whether the government should own the land. That 

is a philosophical discussion. 

Mr. LEA. Well, I am just saying that is what is going to happen. 

It is probably right that the private owners do own all this land. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Oh, when you consider the stability of the tax base 

and so on, I think there are a lot of reasons, but I guess you and 

I won't agree on that and that is fme . . I will ask you one further q11estion and then I want Mr. Magagna 

to answer this also please. Who do you think truly promotes multiple use of the land more? The Federal Government or the States? 

I mean, honestly. 

Mr. LEA. My experience with the State Land Departments is that 

most State Land Departments have one objective and that is gener- ating revenue. Period. 

Mrs. CUBIN. And they don't care about the environment. 

Mr. LEA. Verylittle. Mrs. CUBIN. That simply is not true. 

Mr. LEA. But as a matter of fact they simply write a lease--

Mrs. CUBIN. That is simply not true. That the States don't care 

about anything but money. I won't accept that as an answer and 

I am going to move on and ask Mr. Magagna. Who do you think 

truly tries to promote multiple use more? Would you agree with 

Mr. Lea? · . Mr. MAGAGNA. To some degree I do agree with Mr. Lea, but -for 

a very different reason. Now what he says is true about the State 

lands because the lands we are talking about, the so-called trust 

lands, were given to the State by the Federal Government with a 

very clear mandate in our Acts of Admission that they be managed for that purpose. 

Mrs. CUBIN. That is right. 

Mr. MAGAGNA. What is happening here though is that people are 

taking that mandate and attributing it to determining how States 

would manage the BLM lands under this legislation. And I think 

that is where the serious mistake is made. I can only speak for the 

State of Wyoming. We are committed to the principle of multiple 

use of our natural resources because our economic base depends 

upon that multiple use. And we would therefore be very committed. 

I believe as committed but more able in our administration to carry 

out the multiple use mandate than the Federal agency. 
68 

Mrs. GUBIN. Thank you. I gather from your testimony and that 

of Mr. Jamison that the ten-year window for transferring the land 

is too long. What do you believe is a better time? I didn't catch that 

in your testimony. 

Mr. MAGAGNA. If it were not for some of the budgetary constraints, I belieV'e that once a governor has made the election provided for under the legislation, reasonably, no less than two years 

and no more than ten. And let the governor of the State within 

that timeframe make the determination of when they want to actually take over the control and management. I say that because the 

circumstances will differ in the various States in terms of the resources they have available, in terms of their need to pass State 

legislation to put them in a position to take over that management. 

We are fortunate in Wyoming that we have that legislation in 

place. We are fortunate as nearly everyone has noted here today 

that because of the tremendous resources on these lands, fmancial 

constraints would not be an inhibition to us. Other States may 

need more lead time to prepare for a takeover, to plan for the management of these lands. That ought to be a State decision. 

Mrs. CUBIN. So just more flexibility? 

Mr. MAGAGNA. More flexibility. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes. This is the last question that I have and I am 

going to read the question because I want to make sure that it is 

clear. And what I want is sort of an overall discussion of management of lands by the State. That is how I want you to gear your 

answer. 

As you are no doubt aware, counties in Wyoming and throughout 

the West rely on PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, payments for various infrastructure projects. Obviously, if the Federal lands were 

turned over to the State, these funds will no longer be available, 

the PILT fund. Can you tell me what feedback, if any, that you 

have gotten from Wyoming counties about this aspect of the legislation and have you given any thoughts to what States can or should 

do to make up for this PILT? 

Mr. MAGAGNA. Let me answer the first part of that question by 

saying that I have not to this point personally been told by any 

counties, by any county commissioners, that they objected to this 

legislation because of the potential loss of PILT payments. I am 

sure that is a very legitimate concern because those are significant 

moneys to some of our counties in Wyoming. 

The answer I think is much simpler. The PILT payment is a payment from the owner of these lands, the Federal Government, to 

the counties in lieu of the counties being able to tax those lands. 

I see no reason, although I think perhaps would take legislation in 

Wyoming's case, why a PILT payment cannot continue in the same 

manner as a payment from the State to these same counties in lieu 

of these lands being sold into private ownership and put on the tax 

rolls. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. I don't have anything further, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. I will recognize the gentlelady from Idaho for one 

additional question. 
69 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thanklou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Baughman, I 

have one question. If oil an coal and gold and silver were left in 

the ground, what kind of value would it have? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Left in the ground? Mrs. CHENOWETH. Left in the ground. To the United States of 

America. What kind of value? How would it generate value left in 

the ground? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. I don't know. I would assume some future generation to have some security that it is there. It certainly doesn't 

provide any current economic value. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, in your studies isn't it true that a mineral obtains value when it is brought out of the ground and is put 

into the market place? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. That is correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate you being here. I think the testimony has been very interesting throughout the day. AB usual, people come in here with strong opinions and go out realizing that 

there are other folks that have different opinions on a lot of things. 

Everyone should serve in a legislative body or even the city council 

to find out that what they believe and what they tell their children 

around the dinner table, when their kids are under ten anyway, 

that maybe someone else has another opinion also. 

I do appreciate what you have stated. I am not taking issue with 

any of you. I do think that some things have to be put in perspective. Mr. Hocker brought up some very interesting points, $3.29 

trillion is a staggering fund. That doesn't accrue to the United 

States, however. The filing fees, that is not filing fees, that is obviously the value of this and although it directly accrues as filing fees and then taxes and expenditures and all that type of thing. 

And we don't get too much around here on semantics and give 

back I guess you would be correct in that. There is probably, but 

we are not getting back things. But, you know, I think someone 

could even make an argument on that. And that is, and I don't 

mean to wax Utah in here, but at one time that was the State of 

Deserette, it was not the State of Utah. 

The State of Deserette took in things from Canada, all of Idaho, 

most of Montana, most of Wyoming, the west half of Colorado, the 

State of Nevada, most of Arizona and the other areas, and the Federal Government recognized that "the same as they did a treaty 

with the Indians." Now today we recognize treaties with the Indians. In fact, more BYU law students have made millions of dollars 

out of that than any other bunch I have ever seen and I say that 

not too respectfully, but anyway, if you accept that premise, they 

recognize that as a treaty the same as they did the Indians, and 

now we are asking to take that land back, that would be honoring 

that treaty which in effect would be giving it back. Pretty bad argument but about like yours, I guess, so we will go from there. 

Anyway, no, I say that respectfully. Anyway, Mr. Hocker, Mr. 

Baughman, Mr. Lea, Mr. Williamson, Mr. Magagna, how nice of 

you to come and we know it is a great expense for you to be here 

and we do thank you. I appreciate your patience. There is nothing 

as bad as being the third panel on one of these things and thank 

you so very much for your time. We honestly and sincerely appre-
70 

ciate it. And if you do have comments on these things, there is 

nothing sacred about this, we are not putting it out as it came from 

God, this is just our puny little man did this, so we would love to 

hear from him. And this hearing is now acijourned. [Whereupon, at 1:51 p.m., the subcommittee was acijourned, and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
71 

104TH CONGRESS H R 2032 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To transfer the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

to the State in which the lands are located. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 1995 

Mr. HANSEN (for himself, Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mrs. CUBIK, Mr. COOLEY, Mr. 

POMBO, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. STUMP, and Mr. 

ALLARD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To transfer the lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management to the State in which the lands are located. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

4 LANDS. 

5 (a) REQUIRED OFFER.-

6 (1) IN GENERAL.-Subject to valid existing 

7 rights and except as otherwise provided in this Act, 

8 the Secretary of the Interior shall offer to transfer 

9 all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
72 

2 

1 and to all lands and interests in lands administered 

2 by the Bureau of Land Management to the State in 

3 which such lands and interests are located. 

4 (2) LANDS AND INTERESTS INCLUDED.-The 

5 lands and interests in lands referred to in paragraph 

6 ( 1) include7 (A) the fee simple interest where the 

8 United States owns both the surface and min9 eral rights; 

10 (B) the mineral rights where the surface 

11 estate is owned by a non-Federal person, in12 eluding a State or political subdivision thereof; 

13 and 

14 (C) water rights related to such lands or 

15 interests. 

16 (3) ExCLUSION OF MINERAL INTERESTS UN17 DERLYING INDIAN RESERVATIONS.-Paragraph (1) 

18 does not apply with respect to the mineral interests 

19 underlying a surface estate held by the United 

20 States in trust for an Indian tribe. 

21 (b) Two-YEAR PERIOD TO MAKE OFFER TO Gov22 ERNOR.-The offer required by subsection (a) with respect 

23 to a State shall be made to the Governor within two years 

24 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

•HR li082 m 
73 

3 

1 (c) ACCEPTANCE OF 0FFER.-A State may only ac2 cept the offer of all such lands or reject such offer. Accept3 a,nce of an offer under subsection (a) may only be made 

4 by the Governor, in writing to the Secretary. 

5 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFER.-Any transfer 

6 of lands under this Act shall be effective with respect to 

7 a State on the date which is ten years after the date on 

8 which the offer to the Governor is accepted. 

9 (e) SURVEYS.-The Secretary is not required to con10 duct a survey of any lands prior to transferring such lands 

11 under this Act. 

12 SEC. 2. LEASES, PERMITS, AND UNPATENTED MINING 

13 CLAIMS. 

14 (a) VALID LEASES AND PERMITS.-Each State re15 ceiving lands under this Act shall honor valid existing 

16 leases and permits on such lands for the term of such lease 

17 or permit and shall manage such leases and permits in 

18 accordance with their other terms and conditions. 

19 (b) MINING CLAIMS.-(1) Except for those mining 

20 claims for which the holder is entitled to a patent as pro21 vided in paragraph (2), after the date on which lands sub22 ject to a mining claim are transferred to a State under 

23 this Act, the validity and continued existence of the mining 

24 claim shall be . determined under the laws of the State to 

•DR aoas m 
74 

4 

l which the lands were transferred and shall be adminis2 tered in accordance with such laws. 

3 (2) The holder of a mining claim is entitled to the 

4 issuance of a patent in the case of a mining claim on lands 

5 transferred to a State under this Act in the same manner 

6 and degree to which such holder would have been entitled 

7 to prior to the date of such transfer if, as of the date 

8 of the transfer a patent application was filed with the Sec9 retary and all requirementstO (A) under sections 2325 and 2326 of the Re11 vised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or 

12 lode claims; 

l3 (B) under sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 

14 of the Revised Statues (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, 37) for 

15 placer claims; and 

16 (C) applicable to such patent application for 

17 mill site claims, 

18 were fully complied with. 

19 (c) RIGHTS-OF-WAY.-Each State receiving lands 

20 under this Act shall respect all rights-of-way granted by 

21 the United States on such lands in accordance with the 

22 terms and conditions of the rights-of-way. 
75 

5 

1 SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT OF LANDS TRANSFERRED BY TIUS 

2 ACT. 

3 (a) WILDERNESS.-Lands transferred by this Act 

4 which have been designated by an Act of Congress as wil5 derness shall be managed by the State as wilderness in 

6 accordance with the requirements specified in the Wilder-

? ness Act, the Act of Congress which designated the lands 

8 as wilderness, and any other Act of Congress which spe9 cifically provides for the management of such lands, except 

10 that the State shall be substituted for the Secretary of 

11 the Interior. 

12 (b) MILITARY USES.-(1) Lands transferred by this 

13 Act which on the date of such transfer are subject to use 

14 for military purposes shall continue to be subject to the 

15 same military uses. 

16 (2) In the case of lands transferred to a State under 

17 this Act which are subject to a withdrawal from public 

18 use for military purposes, the State shall respect the with19 drawal and military use for the term of the withdrawal 

20 and may not impose any fee or other charge on the United 

21 States with respect to the military purpose. At the end 

22 of such term, the Secretary of the military department 

23 concerned, or the Secretary of Defense, may negotiate 

24 with the Governor of the State for the continued use of 

25 such lands. Lands for which there is not a continued mili26 tary use shall be decontaminated by the appropriate Sec-

•HR 1031 m 
76 

6 

1 retary in accordance with the Act of Congress which with2 drew such lands for military purposes or the withdrawal 

3 order, if any. 

4 (c) RECORDS.-The Secretary of the Interior shall 

5 continue to hold all land records of the Secretary with re6 spect to the lands transferred to a State under this Act. 

7 The Secretary shall provide to the State full copies of all 

8 applicable land records relating to lands which are trans9 ferred under this Act. The Secretary shall make such 

10 records available for public use as the Secretary deter11 mines appropriate. 

12 (d) INDIAN LANns.-The mineral interests described 

13 in section l(a)(3) shall be transferred from the adminis14 trative jurisidiction of the Bureau of Land Management 

15 and shall be held in trust for the Indian tribe for whom 

16 the overlying surface estate is held in trust. 

17 SEC. 4. WATER RIGHTS. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall transfer to 

19 the State receiving lands under this Act all water rights 

20 of the United States associated with the lands. 

21 (b) CERTAIN RIGHTS NOT AFFECTED.-A transfer 

22 of water rights under subsection (a) shall not be construed 

23 as24 (1) affecting, impairing, diminishing, subordi25 nating, or enlarging-
77 

7 

1 (A) the rights of the United States or any 

2 State to water under any international treaty, 

3 interstate compact, or existing judicial decree; 

4 (B) any obligation of the United States to 

5 Indians or Indian tribes or any claim or right 

6 owned or held by or for Indians or Indian 

7 tribes, including with respect to any Indian 

8 water compact; 

9 (C) any right to any quantity of water re10 served or used for governmental purposes or 

11 programs of the United States at any time 

12 prior to the date of the enactment of this Act; 

13 or 

14 (D) any license or permit issued before the 

15 date of the enactment of this Act; or 

16 (2) as a recognition, disclaimer, relinquishment, 

17 or reduction of any water right of the United States 

18 reserved or appropriated before the date of the en19 actment of this Act. 

20 SEC. 5. REDUCTION IN BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR THE BU· 

21 REAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. 

22 (a) CAP ON OBLIGATIONS AND EXPENDITURES.-Be23 ginning with the fiscal year in which this Act is enacted, 

24 not more than $800,000,000 may be obligated or ex25 pended in any fiscal year by the Bureau of Land Manage-

•BB liOSI m 
78 

8 

1 ment in carrying out its duties, functions, and responsibil2 iti~s under any provision of law. 

3 (b) PRIORITY FOR USE OF FISCAL RESOURCES.-

4 The Secretary shall give priority to expending amounts 

5 available to the Bureau of Land Management to land 

6 management activities and to carrying out this Act. 

7 SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. 

8 As used in this Act9 ( 1) the term "Indian tribe" means any Indian 

10 tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group 

11 or community, including any Alaska Native village 

12 or regional corporation as defined in or established 

13 pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

14 Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special 

15 programs and services provided by the United States 

16 to Indians because of their status as Indians; and 

17 (2) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary 

18 of the Interior. 

0 

•IIR 2032 IH 
79 

BRIEFING PAPER ON H.R. 2032 

SUMMARY 

H.R. 2032, introduced by Congressman Hansen would provide for the voluntary transfer of 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to the States. 

BACKGROUND 

Virtually all of the land west of the Appalachians was, of course, once public domain. At every 

stage of the nation's growth, the expansion of the economy into the territories to the west was 

desired and encouraged by the populated slates to the east. From the beginning it was expected 

that as territories became states ownership of the land would devolve, by mechanisms adapted 

to conditions, to the people of those states. 

For the first half-century of the Republic, public lands were sold and the government realized 

revenues from the sales. Public land was also given to individuals as compensation for servicesfor instance, military veterans were given lands-and to corporate entities as incentives for 

enterprises, including canal and railroad builders. 

By the middle of the 19th century, however, circumstances had changed, and the idea gained 

around that the public interest would be better served if pan:els of the public domain were made 

available free to settlers. The watershed in the history of westward settlement was the 

Homestead Act of 1862: settlers were to get clear title to enough land for modest but viable 

family farms if they would just live on it and work it. 

East of the Rockies, a homestead farm was usually a quarter section. But in the basin-and-range 

country, where there's no water in the basins and no top soil on the ranges, livestock grazing 

is the only kind of enterprise that can succeed. And, even for that, a quarter section can only 

support one or two cows. However, for Congressional Members accustomed to the fertility of 

the East and Midwest, a parcel of land bug enough for a modest-but-viable family ranch was just 

too big to be deeded over to a homesteader. 

There were several other attempts at promoting the settlement of arid western lands such as the 

Forest Homestead Act of 1906, the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909, the Stock Raising 

Homestead Act of 1916 and the Timber and Stone Act of 1878 and the Desert Land Act of 

1877. Although these various attempts at promoting settlement resulted in millions of settled 

acres, the fact remained that there was insufficient water, people and technology to fully settle 

the arid basin and high deserts of the Rocky Mountain West. 

Across the West, there is a growing discontent with the quality of federal land management on 

top of a general alienation from the WashingtOn political environment. Federal lands make up 

83" of Nevada; 68" of Alaska; 67" of Utah; 62" of Idaho and 44" of California. There 

is more federal land in California than the total area of either Oregon or Washington. ·Federal 

lands comprise a full 48" of the land area of the eleven Western-most lower 48 states. 
80 

-2-

This enormous federal presence is not based on any special relationship between the federal 

government and the states. In fact, most matters decided by federal administrators of this vast 

domain, like recreational or grazing usc, would be state and local issues elsewhere in the U.S. 

In the rural West, the federal government effectively functions as a local planning and zoning 

board. 

There have been past attempts to transfer federal lands to the states outside of the above cited 

Congressional efforts. In 1930, the Hoover Administration offered some lands to the Western 

states but proposed to retain the mineral rights. The offer was rejected during a time that many 

states were really still in their childhood and at a time when economics were less than stable. 

The issue was raised again in the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion of the late 1970's and early 

1980's when Western state legislatures passed resolutions asking for the transfer offederallands. 

But the effort began focusing on "privatization" rather than on state ownership and the effort 

failed. 

Today, the political and economic forces supporting a transfer of federal lands to the states arc 

much broader than during the Sagebrush Rebcllion. There is a firmer base of intellectual 

support. As the 1994 election results show, a political majority in the U.S. wants to cut back 

the role of the federal government. In fact, the possibility of transferring of transferring fcdcral 

lands is greater than ever before. 

The leading candidates for transfer arc the 268 million acres, mostly in the West, managed by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM was established in 1946, combining the old 

General Land Office and the federal Grazing Service, to manage lands never included in earlier 

systems like national parks or forests. Including the subsurface mineral estates, the BLM bas 

jurisdiction over 732 million acres. 

The combination of an effort by the states to reclaim their • states • rights and efforts to cut 

federal costs, the idea of transferring BLM lands is ripe for Congressional exploration. Attached 

arc several charts outlining the acreage owned by the Federal Government and more specifically 

the BLM. Additionally, attached arc charts demonstrating the costs and receipts from BLM 

lands. Overall, this data demonstrates that as time goes on, the fcdcral government subsidies 

in most states become greater. 

Several recent studies demonstrate that there arc large economics to be gained by state 

management of these lands. The federal government bas a much higher overhead, produces 

fewer revenues than states and does a poorer job environmentally of managing those lands. 
81 

-3-

ANALYSIS 

H.R.. 2032 would establish a process through which the lands administered by the BLM could 

be transferred to the respective states. Subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary of Interior 

is directed to offer to transfer all right, title and interest in the BLM lands to the state in which 

the lands are loc:atcd. This transfer includes both surface and subsurface interests rnanqed by 

the BLM and all water rights. The only mineral interests not transferred are those underlying 

federal lands not managed by the BLM. 

The SecreWy has two years in which to make the offer and the Slate must accept all lands or 

reject the offer. The lands will be transferred ten years after acceptance of the offer is received. 

This ten-year period will enable the individual states to establish their management structures 

and policies and will permit the BLM to phase out their operations. Moreover, the ten year 

period will allow for all permits and most leases to expire at least once so that interested parties 

can rearrange their contraCtual lives with the knowledge that they will be under state 

liJIIII8&elllell on a date certain. 

Upon accep~anee, the Slates must honor all valid existing leases and permits for the term of those 

ri&hts and the stale must manace the lands in accordance with those leases and permits. Except 

for l1linin& claims that have been patented, the validity and continued existence of other claims 

would be delennined under the laws of the state. A claimant is entitled to a patent if all 

requirements for a patent have been met prior to the transfer. The state must also respect all 

ri&flts-of-way granted by the United States. 

Section 3 of the bill requires that all lands previously desigr.atcd as wilderness under the 1964 

Wilderness Act must be managed as wilderness by the state. Any lands transferred which are 

subject to military uses shall remain available for those uses. Future military uses would be 

necotiated with each state. 

MiDeral inten:sts loc:atcd under Indian lands would be transferred to the tribe for whom the 

overlying surface esta1e is held in trust. All water rights are transferred to the state except for 

ri&flts associ.aled with interstate compactS, international treaties or by judicial decree. Moreover, 

warer rights beld by Native Americans or a permittee or a lessee must also be honored by the 

stale. Lastly, H.R. 2032 would reduce the bud&et authority of the BLM to $800 million, which 

is $400 million below the current fundina level. The qency is also instructed to expend those 

funds on land management activities and on carrying out the mandates of H.R. 2032. 
82 

-4-

ADMJNISTRATION POSmON 

The Administration is expected to vehemently oppose H.R. 2032. In fact, the BLM will release 

on Monday, July 31st a report which catalogs all of the great things the BLM docs for the 

public. The report looks conspicuously like self preservation and lobbying against H.R. 2032. 

CREDITS 

The above information comes largely from "Western Ranches, Midwestern Farms•, Malcolm 

Whatley, Range Magazine, Spring 1993 and "Transferring Federal Lands in the West to the 

States: How Would it Work?", Robert Nelson, Points West Chronicle, 1995. 

FINANCIAL SAVINGS 

The BLM takes great strides to stress all of the benefits they bestow on the states. In 1993 the 

BLM lost $112 million over what they earned from resource development. Indeed, the BLM 

only made money in Wyoming, New Mexico and Colorado. In all other states, the BLM was 

subsidized. The Jcey to this legislation is the ability of state government to manage these lands 

more efficiently and effectively than the Federal government. Certainly, this would be a difficult 

decision for several states to malce; however, recent studies do demonstrate that there are 

substantial economies to be had through state management. 

STAFF CONTACT: Allen Freemyer, x67736 
CRS 

~ 

83 

Congressional Research Service•The Library of Congress•Washington, D.C. 20540 

Memorandwn July 28, 1995 

TO: House Committee on Resources 

Aim: Allen Freemyer 

FROM: Ross W. Gorte 

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, and 

Head, Oceans and Natural Resources Section 

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division 

SUBJECT: BLM Revenues and Ezpenditures 

This memorandum responds to your request for data on revenues and expenditures for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It presents data for 

FY1993, the most recent comprehensive data available; it is unclear whether 

FYl993 is repreaentative or unusual in either costs or revenues. Table l displays the net returns to the U.S. Treasury from tbe BLM for its land and reI!IOUl'Ce management and ftom the Minerals Management Service (MMS) for its 

collections from mineral!- on BLM lands.' Tables 2 and 3 show the gross 

revenues, the required revenue-sharing, tbe relevant management costs, and the 

net returns for the BLM and MMS, respectively. These tables are followed by 

two appendices. Appendix A identifies the I!IOUrces of revenues from the two 

agencies, while appendix B details the various coat adjustments necessary to 

translate BLM appropriations into relevant land and resource management 

costs.

2 

1

TotaJ. reported in the tabla. ma,y differ from the totsls calculated from the data 

preMDtad, beco.- of rounding error. The data reported for Oteaon includes BLM re-

....,_and aqMIDditur. in the 8-ofWIIIIbiDpm, because of the relatively few BLM 

Ianda in the 8- of Wabington and beco.- tt.e Ianda are admini8tared from the 

BLM's OregoB s- Office. The Eastem States entry includes all BLM revenues and 

upenditur. in the States not Jiatad, euept for the Wasbington, DC, Office coats. 

"For example, BLM adminiaten all Federal minerel rishts, reprdless of the owner 

or lldministn.tor of the surface, and thus bas u;pmditurea related to mineral activities 

in the national ror.ts, UDder other Federal Ianda, and under State and private Ianda w11ere the mineral rishte are Federal. Since ouch apenditureo are not related to the ~t ofBLM Ianda, they should be deducted from BLM appropriations to provide 

the most accurate comperiaon ofBLM land and resoun:e 111Jl111188!1lent revenues and costs 

possible. 
84 

CRS-2 

For FY1993, resource management of BLM lands generated a "loss" for the 

U.S. Treasury. Two States-- Wyoming and New Mexico- generated substantial 

surpluses. Colorado and the Eastern States also generated small surpluses in 

FY1993, while Montana had a relatively small loss. The other seven States had 

substantial losses. The potential to reverse the losses varies widely; BLM lands 

in States with substantial revenues and/or where revenues are a substantial 

fraction of costs probably have the greatest opportunity to generate a surplus. 

In three States - California, Oregon, and Utah - the revenues (net of revenuesharing) were substantial and more than half the expenditures. Another two 

States -- Idaho and Nevada-- had net revenues that were only a third ofFY1993 

expenditures. The remaining two States -- Alaska and Arizona -- had management expenditures that far exceeded net revenues in FY1993. This is not to 

suggest that States could not administer these lands profitably if Congress allowed State management or ownership of BLM lands, nor is it an estimate of 

future financial results of resource management on the BLM lands. Rather, it 

simply shows the financial results of BLM land management in FY1993. 

If you have any questions about these data, please do not hesitate to call 

me at 7-7266. 

Table 1. Aggregate <urns to the U.S. Treasury 

From BLM Land and &lsource Management, FY1993 

(in millions of dollars; losses in parentheses) 

BLM MMS Aggregate 

<urns <urns <urns 

Alaska (83.164) 0.103 (83.061) 

Arizona (38.444) 0.087 (38.357) 

California (48.681) 19.369 (29.312) 

Colorado (31.873) 32.501 0.629 

Idaho (13.932) 2.012 (11.920) 

Montana (26.606) 21.516 (5.090) 

Nevada (47.341) 7.397 (39.944) 

New Mexico (40.973) 133.184 92.210 

Oregon (48.383) 0.062 (48.321) 

Utab (42.093) 29.546 (12.547) 

Wyoming (44.830) 194.872 150.042 

Eastern St. (11.539) 14.726 3.187 

DC Office (90.150) 0.000 (90.150) 

Total (568.007) 457.495 (112.634) 
85 

CRS-3 

Table 2. BLM Net Returns to the U.S. Treasury, FY1993 

(in millions of dollars; losses in parentheses) 

BLM Gross Revenue- BLM BLMNet 

Revenues Sharing Costs Returns 

Alaska 0.501 0.026 83.639 (83.164) 

Arizona 2.450 0.250 40.644 (38.444) 

California 8.980 0.362 57.298 (48.681) 

Colorado 2.808 0.209 34.472 (31.873) 

Idaho 3.375 0.264 17.043 (13.932) 

Montana 4.614 0.729 30.490 (26.606) 

Nevada 10.837 1.045 57.133 (47.341) 

NewMezico 5.174 0.783 45.364 (40.973) 

Oregon 147.416 70.006 125.793 (48.383) 

Utah 3.009 0.238 44.865 (42.093) 

Wyoming 4.764 0.852 48.741 (44.830) 

Eastern St. 0.461 0.098 11.902 (11.539) 

DC Office 0.000 0.000 90.150 (90.150) 

Total 194.390 74.862 687.535 (568.007) 

Table 3. MMS Net Returns to the U.S. Treasury 

From BLM Lands, FY1993 

(in millions of dollars) 

MMS Gross Receipt- MMS MMSNet 

Receipts Sharing' Costs Returns 

Alaska 5.303 4.713 0.427 0.103 

Arizona 0.195 0.097 0.010 0.087 

California . 44.853 22.426 . 3.058 19.369 

Colorado 74.850 37.425 4.924 32.501 

Idaho 4.731 2.385 0.364 2.012 

Montana 49.870 24.935 3.419 21.516 

Nevada 16.942 8.471 1.074 7.397 

NewMezico 298.138 149.069 15.885 133.184 

Oregon 0.230 0.115 0.053 0.062 

Utah 67.949 33.975 4.429 29.545 

Wyoming 421.233 210.616 15.745 194.872 

Eastern St. 31.672 15.836 1.110 14.726 

Total 1,015.965 507.983 50.488 457.495 

• MMS does not report revenua-ebaring by land ownemhip; th- payments were 

calcula!A!d at 50 pe,.,nt of 1'8Wnues, aa required by tha MineNl Leasing Act of 1920 for 

mineral revenue& from public domain lands (tha vaat majority of BLM lands), ezeept in 

Alaaka, where the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 ~ the 1'8Wnue-sharing to 90 

percent of mineral revenues. 
86 

CRS-4 

APPENDIX A: 

REVENUES FROM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY TBE BLM 

BLM collects revenues from some mineral leaaea and permits, from the sale 

of timber and oflanda and materials, from grazing leases and permits, and from 

various other sources, such aa fees and commiaaions, rights-of-ways, and rents. 

The FY1993 BLM revenues, from Public Land SflJtistics, 1993, are shown in 

table 4. 

MMS collects royalties from mineral leaaea and other payments unrelated 

to production levels (bonus bids, rents, etc.). Published MMS data do not distinguish revenues by landowner category; however, revenues from mineral leases 

on Ianda administered by BLM (separate from other Federal Ianda and mineral 

rights) were available fro111 the MMS office in Denver, Colorado. The mineral 

lease collections from BLM Ianda, by type of lease, are shown in table 5. 

Table 4. BLM Revenuee By Soun:e, FY1993 

(in millio118 of dollars) 

Millerel Timber Land Grazing Other BLM 

Leaaee Salee Salee F- Total 

Alaska 0.051 0.003 0.161 0.000 0.286 0.501 

Arizona 0.033 0.013 0.322 1.018 1.064 2.450 

California 0.065 4.403 0.871 0.423 3.217 8.980 

Colorado 0.210 0.197 0.212 0.847 1.342" 2.808 

Idabo 0.021 0.989 0.151 1.583 0.631 3.375 

MontaDa 1.331 0.806 0.151 2.164 0.162 4.614 

Nevada 0.009 0.073 7.188 2.622 0.945 10.837 

New Mazico 0.423 0.008 0.932 3.066 0.755 5.174 

Oregon 0.011 144.032 0.439 1.269 1.875 147.416 

Utah 0.064 0.059 0.496 1.477 0.914 3.009 

Wynming 0.301 0.112 0.512 2.769 1.070 4.764 

Eastern St. 0.055 0.002 0.106 0.182 0.117 0.461 

Total 2.572 150.698 11.543 17.400 12.177 194.390" 

• PubUc lAnd Stamtica, 1993 report«! $38,568,298 in other revenuea in Colorado, 

but this waa a reporting error tbat will ba corrected with an oflietting ,_. in PubUc 

lAnd St<Uioties, 1994. Personal commWiication with D'Ann Swan, BLM Budget Office, 

on July 19, 1995. 

• Excludes $12,731,577 of non-operating revenuee from eenice cbargea. deposita, 

fineo, and penalties that are not reported by State. 
87 

CRS-5 

Table 5. MMS Collections From Mineral Leases on BLM Lands 

(in millions of dollars) 

Non-Royalty Natural Other" MMS 

Payments Oil Gas Coal Leases Total 

Alaska 0.190 1.109 4.004 0.000 0.000 5.303 

Arizona 0.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.195 

California (1.897)" 23.816 3.194 0.000 19.739 44.653 

Colorado 6.543 18.341 16.443 24.320 9.203 74.650 

Idaho 0.132 0.000 0.000 o.ooo· 4.599 4.731 

Montana 3.149 4.736 3.212 38.722 0.051 49.870 

Nevada 9.815 3.318 0.000 0.000 3.808 16.942 

NewMerico 14.982 51.749 210.849 16.623 3.934 298.138 

Oregon 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.116 0.000 0.230 

Utah 12.885 8.330 15.502 30.994 0.238 67.949 

Wyoming 69.976 90.164 99.152 149.495 12.446 421.233 

Eaatern St. 3.874 6.691 18.403 2.584 0.120 31.672 

Total 119.958 208.254 370.760 262.853 54.140 1,015.965 

• Othe~ leaaable mineral& include geothermal (heat and water), soda ash, potsah, 

phalpb•tM, borax and boric acid, and a variety of otber minarala subject to leaaing under 

tbe Mineral Leaaing Act of 1920 and otber mineral leasing statutes. 

• Tbe non-royalty payments in California in FY1993 were negative, to reflect adjuatments for earlier oV~ttpayments. 
88 

CRS-6 

APPENDIXB: 

EXPENDITURES FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM 

The MMS and adjusted BLM expenditures for resource management on 

BLM lands are shown in tables 2 and 3. MMS maintains accurate cost data by 

landowner class, and those directly related to collecting mineral leasing revenues 

from BLM lands are shown in table 3. 

BLM appropriations are not so readily applicable to BLM land and resource 

management. As noted above, BLM is responsible for all Federal minerals management, regardless of surface ownership and management, and thus BLM costs 

for Federal minerals management on non-BLM lands must be deducted from 

total appropriations. Other costs, such as land acquisition and PIL T payments, 

are also not the result of BLM resource management, and thus should not be 

included in a comparison of land management revenues and costs. In addition, 

in FY1993, BLM operated two special centers that provide services to all BLM 

units, and their costs should be allocated across the States. 

Table 6 shows the FY1993 BLM appropriations and adjustments to match 

BLM land and resource management costs with the resulting revenues in each 

State. The allocated costs of the two special centers are additional resource 

management costs, added to appropriations, while the non-management cost allocations are deductions from appropriations. These adjustments are described 

in more detail in subsequent sections. 

Special Centers 

1n FY1993, the BLM maintained two special centers.• The Service Center 

(in Denver, CO) provided technical, scientific, data management, and administrative services throughout the agency. The Nationallnteragency Fire Center 

(in Boise, ID) provided fire training and logistical support and aviation management for all BLM programs; together with financial support from other Federal 

land managing agencies, this center also provides coordination for Federal firefighting efforts, including assistance for fire-fighting on State and private lands. 

The BLM allocated the FY1993 appropriations for these two centers to the 

States where the centers are located. For State-level revenue-cost comparisons, 

these costs must be allocated across the BLM units. However, no information 

on the relative use of these centers is readily available. Thus, any allocation 

scheme is necessarily speculative, and might not accurately reflect the Statespecific costs of these centers. 

3

In its FY1996 budget request, BLM propoees five special centers --three in Denver, 

CO (for science and technology, human resourcee management, and administrative and 

business services); the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, ID; and a new National 

Training Center in Phoenix, A2. However, this change doea not affect the FY1993 BLM 

appropriations and cost allocations. 
89 

CRS-7 

Table 6. BLM AppropriatioDB Adjusted for Cost AllocatioDB 

of Special Centen and Non-Management Expenditures 

(in millio11.1 of doUars) 

FY1993BLM Center No;:,. AdJ. BLM 

Appropriations Coats" Coets 

Alaaka 73.694 15.281 5.336 83.639 

Arizona 49.640 4.903 13.898 40.644 

California 73.498 5.944 22.143 57.298 

Colorado 99.262 (49.238) 15.552 34.472 

Idaho 55.375 (29.127) 9.205 17.043 

Montana 38.899 2.778 11.186 30.490 

Nevada 49.034 16.498 8.399 57.133 

NewM.Wco 55.642 4.433 14.910 45.364 

Oregon 139.714 5.529 19.450 125.793 

Utah 47.961 7.617 10.714 44.865 

Wyoming 50.532 6.327 8.117 48.741 

Eastern St. 36.506 0.527 25.131 11.902 

DC Office 83.392 8.530 1.772 90.150 

Totel 853.349 0.000 165.814 687.535 

• The allocated coats for the Service Center (in Denver, CO) and the National Inter-

"8"""Y Fire Center (in Boise, ID). The negative allocatioDB for Colorado and Idaho reflact the reported appropriatioDB in thoee Statee, net of thair allocated coats. 

~ Coate not clliectly asaociated with BLM reeouroe tD8JUI&'IIIlent, from table u . 

Alaaka 

Arizona 

California 

Colorado 

Idaho 

Montana 

Nevada 

N-Ma;.:o 

Oregon 

Utah 

Wyoming 

Ea-.. St. 

DC Office 

Total 

Table 7. Allocated Coet of BLM Special Centere 

(in millioDB of doUan) 

Special Center Effective Allocated 

AppropriatiODB Acree. Coeta 

0.000 44.430 15.281 

0.000 14.256 4.903 

0.000 17.284 5.944 

52.097 8.309 2.858 

33.202 11.849 4.075 

0.000 8.076 2.778 

0.000 47.969 16.498 

0.000 12.688 4.433 

0.000 16.075 5.529 

0.000 22.148 7.617 

0.000 18.395 6.327 

0.000 1.531 0.527 

0.000 n.a b 8.530 

65.298 223.210 85.298 

Special 

Center 

Net Coete 

15.281 

4.903 

5.944 

(49.238) 

(29.127) 

2.778 

16.498 

4.433 

5.529 

7.617 

6.327 

0.527 

8.530 

0.000 

• "Effectiw acres• include only half the BLM acres in Alaaka to reflect the lower 

management inteDBity of theoe lands. 

~ Not applicable; 10 percent of total coots were allocated to the DC Office. 
90 

CRS-8 

For this analysis, it was presumed that costs for the Denver Service Center 

and the Boise Interagency Fire Center were generally proportional to BLM land 

within each State, with two exceptions. Firat, some of these costs undoubtedly 

occur in the DC Office; it was assumed that 10 percent of total costs for the two 

centers was attributable to the DC Office. The second exception is for Alaska, 

because land management intensity is substantially lower on the extensive BLM 

lands in Alaska's interior; it was assumed that attributable share of these costs 

was only half the rate of lands in the coterminous States, and therefore the 

"effective acres" for Alaska is only half the actual BLM acreage in Alaska. 

Non-MilJUlgement Coate 

As discussed above, BLM appropriations include expenditures on activities 

that are not directly related to resource management on BLM lands. Four categories of appropriation have been identified as non-management costs: the cost 

of administering service charges, deposits, fines, and penalties (collectively called 

"service charges" herein); Payments-In-Lieu of Taxes; land acquisition expenditures; and the BLM costs for administering Federal minerals on non-BLM lands. 

These costs are shown in table 8 and discussed below. 

Table 8. Adjustments to BLM Appropriations 

For Non-Management Ezpenditures 

(in millions of dollars) 

Service PILT Land Non-BLM Total 

Chargl!e Acquisition Minerals" Costs 

Alaaka 0.669 4.312 0.029 0.266 5.336 

Arizona 0.478 8.745 3.448 1.227 13.898 

California 1.147 10.518 8.657 1.821 22.143 

Colcmodo 0.573 6.493 2.650 5.636 15.l562 

Idaho 0.382 7.421 0.788 0.614 9.205 

Montana 0.287 8.286 0.281 2.332 11.188 

Nevada 1.051 6.755 0.089 0.504 8.399 

NewMm:ico 0.765 10.654 1.838 1.883 14.910 

Oregon 2.088 6.916 9.221 1.225 19.450 

Utah 0.765 8.936 0.257 0.756 10.714 

Wyoming 0.573 6.827 0.137 0.580 8.117 

Eastern St. 0.573 17.951 0.000 6.607 25.131 

DC Oflke 0.191 0.200 O.o76 1.305 1.772 

Total 9.542 104.074 27.471 24.727 165.814 

• The estimated BLM cost of Federal minerals JII&D888ment on lands not under the 

jurisdiction of BLM, from table 10. 
91 

CRS-9 

Service Charge Casts. The BLM receives an appropriation for collecting 

service charges, deposits, fines, and penalties. Such administrative expenses 

could be considered land and resource management costs. However, the BLM 

identifies the receipts from these sources as non-operating revenues, and reports 

them only in aggregate, not by State.' Inasmuch as the administrative expenses 

($9.5 million in FY1993) are slightly less than the revenues ($12. 7 million in 

FY1993), one might reasonably presume that deleting both receipts and costs 

would have no discernable effect on the results. 

Payments-In-Ueu-of-Ta:x:es (PILT). PILT is a program administered by the 

BLM that provides payments to counties from annual appropriations, in addition to the revenue-sharing payments noted above. The program was created 

in 1976 to compensate local governments for the tax-exempt status of Federal 

lands. Payments were fiXed at $0.75 per acre of entitlement land,6 but reduced 

(to a minimum of $0.10 per acre) by revenue-sharing payments to counties from 

entitlement lands and limited by population; the PIL TAct was amended in 1994 

to adjust both enacted and future payment amounts .and limitations for inflation. Because these payments are clearly intended to substitute for property 

taxes, because property tax rates are rarely modified by land and resource management activities, and because BLM lands are only a portion of the entitlement 

lands, PIL T payments are considered intergovernmental transfers - and not 

management costa - for this revenue-cost comparison. 

Land Acquisition. The Federal Government has acquired, and continues 

to acquire, lands from other landowners. Many reasons are provided for land 

acquisition - to acquire unique, irreplaceable assets; to consolidate Federal landholdings; to facilitate land exchanges; and more. BLM has traditionally received 

less funding for land acquisition than other Federal agencies, but was still appropriated $27.5 million in FY1993. Land acquisition expenditures are excluded 

for the revenue-cost estimates in this memorandum, however, because current 

land purchases do not affect current management revenues and costs (although 

they may affect future revenues and costa). 

Non.-BLM Minerals Management. The BLM is responsible for management 

of all Federal minerals, except for the leasing revenue collection and offshore 

4See: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Public Land Statiotico, 1998. Wuhington, DC: Sept. 1994. p. 119. 

~Act defines Federel entitlement lands; and includes moat Federellanda reserved 

from the public domain in the ooterminous 48 States, as well as oome acquiracl Federel 

Ianda and oome Feclerallaods in Alaska. Thus, PIL T entitlement lands include not only 

many BLM lands, but also National Foreet System lands, National Parlr. System Ianda, 

National Wildlife Refuge System lands, and eome lands administered by the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. 
92 

CRS-10 

(Outer Continental Shell) leasing responsibilities of MMS.6 While the preponderance of Federal minerals management is related to BLM lands, minerals 

activities also occur on other Federal lands, particularly within the National 

Forest System. In addition, the Federal Government retains mineral ownership 

of some split-estate lands, where the surface is often privately-owned. Thus, 

some BLM minerals appropriations are for minerals management of lands not 

administered by the BLM (and not included in the revenues, above). 

No direct allocation of the $69.7 million in FY1993 minerals appropriations 

exists. Thus, an allocation must be imputed from other information. For this 

analysis, it was presumed that the number of leases of each type (oil and gas, 

coal, and other) adequately indicated leasing activity and therefore leasing costs. 

Thus, the ratios of leases on BLM and non;BLM lands, shown in table 9, were 

used to allocate appropriations for leasing management on BLM lands (vis-a-vis 

non-BLM lands). 

The allocation of locatable mineral!llanagement costs is more complicated, 

because no comparable measure of activity exists. For this analysis, it was presumed that mining activity is dispersed across the Federal multiple-use lands --

the BLM lands and the National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the 

U.S. Forest Service. Thus, the ratio ofBLM lands to Federal multiple-use lands 

(i.e., BLM plus NFS lands), shown in table 9, was used to allocate the mining 

management appropriations between BLM and non-BLM lands. 

Finally, the ratios for leasing and mining management on BLM lands were 

aggregated into a weighted average, based on FY1994 BLM allocations for the 

three leasing categories and for mining management. The national aggregate 

weighted average (68.65 percent) was then used to allocate DC Office costa to 

BLM and non-BLM lands. 

The inverse -i.e., the weighted average for BLM management on non-BLM 

lands -- was then used to calculate the deduction from FY1993 BLM minerals 

management appropriations for non-BLM land activities, as shown in table 10. 

This figure was then used (above, in table 8) to adjust BLM appropriations for 

minerals management activities not associated with BLM lands. 

"There are three principal categories of Federal minerals, defined by the &y~~tem under 

which they are availsble to users. Locatable, or hardrock, minerals are availahle under 

the Mining Law of 1872, which allows fres a:plorstion of many Federal lands (thoae that 

have not been a:plicitly withdrawn from mineral access) and low-cost claima and petents 

for miners! development; valid claims effectively establish permanent rights to the min· 

eralo, as long as the claim in maintained. Leasable minerals (principally, but not ""elusively foaeil fuels) are available under the Mineral Laeoing Act oC 1920 and other miners! 

leasing statutes, which establish competitive bidding Cor acoees to the minerals and royal. 

ty peyments for mineral extraction; in contraet to mining claims, mineral leases spire 

after a period, typically 10 yesrs. BLM is responsible Cor administering mining claims 

and miners! leases, although MMS collec:te lease revenues. Salable mineralo (primarily 

aand and grsvel) are available from the Feclersl agency of jurisdiction, at prices intended 

to cover administrative coets, and only for the durstion of the conetruction for which the 

miners! is required. 
93 

CRS-11 

Table 9. Percentage of BLM Minerals 

Manapment Coate on BLM Landa 

Oil Other t.BLM Weighted 

&Gu Coal Leasing Land" Average 

Alaska 96.83'1 100.00% 100.00% 80.07'1 88.19'1 

Arizona 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 56.90'1 48.42% 

California 83.11 .. 0.00% 43.21 .. 45.80'1 63.77% 

Colorado 26.39'1 21.35% 71.43 .. 36.47'1 30.03% 

Idaho 80.00% 0.00% 10.99'll> 36.69'1 31.28% 

Montana 62.26'1 11.63 .. 36.36 .. 32.~ 52.51% 

Nevada 99.82% 100.00% 86.61% 89.20t. 90.23% 

New Mexico 81.36'1 87.88 .. 100.00% 58.03'1 81.88% 

Oregon 14.29'1 0.00% 14.66% 39.30'1 35.24% 

Utah 96.34'1 60.13% 94.51% 73.20% 86.45% 

Wyoming 98.78% 89.08% 92.98% 66.52% 95.63% 

Eastern St. 6.36% 0.00% 2.33% 5.10% 5.32% 

Weighted Avg. 78.06% 55.68% 56.42% 58.28'1 68.65'1 

• The percentage of BLM lenda relative to all Federal multipl&-uae lends (i.e., to 

BLM """""8'1 plus National Foreet System """""8'1) in each State. 

Table 10. Allocation of BLM Minerela Menapment 

Coete to BLM and Non-BLM Landa 

(in millions of dollers) 

BLM Non-BLM Non-BLM Allocated 

APPropriations Ratio Ezpeadituree BLM Coate 

Alaska 2.250 11.81% 0.266 1.984 

Arizona 2.379 51.58% 1.227 1.152 

California 5.027 36.23% 1.821 3.206 

Colorado 8.340 69.97% 5.836 2.504 

Idaho 0.894 68.72% 0.614 0.280 

Montana 4.912 47.49'1 2.332 2.580 

Nevada 5.156 9.77'1 0.504 4.652 

NewMezico 9.125 18.12% 1.653 7.472 

Oregon 1.639 74.76'1 1.225 0.414 

Utah 5.579 13.56'1 0.756 4.823 

Wyoming 13.293 4.37% 0.580 12.713 

Eastern St. 6.978 94.68'1 6.607 0.371 

DC Office 4.162 31.315% 1.305 2.857 

Total 69.734 31.35% 21.863 47.871 

2Q-051 0 - 95 - 4 
94 

EMBARGOED FOR AM RELEASE 

Monday, July 31, 199S Conllet: Celia DoddingtOn 

(202) l08-5717 

BLM Report Cites Rewards from Public Lands 

1be Bureau of Land Management today released a report detailing 

the fundamental role of our public lands and the numerous benefits that all 

Americans receive from public lands, wbich are managed by the BLM. an 

agency of the U.S. Deparnnent of the Interior. The report is titled "Public 

Rewards from Public Lands." 

"Our public lands are a naticoal asaet, rich in cullural. natural and 

scenic resources," Acting BLM Director Mike Dombeck said. "We manage 

these lands for multiple uses, which means that every American benefits. 

And that's why it is so important that we pass this heritage on to future 

generations." 

'"The report issued today by lhe BLM shows lhe wide and rich 

variety of resources that can be found on BLM-managed public lands," 

Dombeck said. "These resources include livestock forage, energy and 

minerals, timber, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness areas, and 

arehaeological and hiJioric lila. Tens of millions of Americans enjoy 

hunting, fishing, camping, hikina and other recreational activities on the 

public lands each year." 

"Public Rewards from Public Lands" nola that BLM-managed 

public lands contain one-third of the nation's coal supply, 12.S trillion 

cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves, 1.4 billion barrels of proven oil 

reserves, 170 million acres of rangeland, 48 million acres of forestland, 

and thousands of recreational, arehaeological, historic and cultural sites 

that are open to lhe public. 

--more--
95 

More than 65 million recreational visits -- for such activities as 

hunting, fishing, camping and hiking -- occur each year on BLM-managed 

lands. The various commercial activities that take place on these public 

lands will generate more than $1.2 billion for the nation's taxpayers in 

fiscal year 1996. The estimated value of all future oil, gas and coal royalty 

receipts from BLM-managed public lands is $16.4 billion for oil, $11.3 

billion for gas and $5.4 billion for coal. 

Legislation introduced in the 104th Congress would transfer the 

public domain to individual states. The legislation does not place 

restrictions on state management of the lands; states could retain or dispose 

of them. In addition, the legislation does not provide for compensation to 

the American taxpayers for the loss of revenue from the commercial 

activities on the public lands, the loss of assets on these lands, or the loss of. 

the land itself. 

Among other things, the BLM report points out that states acquiring 

BLM-managed lands would lose millions of dollars in Federal funds by 

doing so. In the last fiscal year, the BLM spent the following amounts on 

programs that benefit states and local governments: $99.3 million on the 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (Pll..T) program; $10 million on range 

improvements; $235.7 million on wildland firefighting; $25.1 million on 

recreation resource management; and $53 million on oil and gas leasing. 

--30--
96 

Stateaent of cy Jamison 

before 

The Subco .. ittee on National Parks, Forests ' Lands 

Resources Co.aittee 

on 

H.R. 2032 

A Bill to transfer the lands adainistered by the Bureau of Land 

Manaqement to the State in which the lands are located. 

Mr. Chairman I want to thank . you and all members the of the 

subcommittee for qivinq ae this opportunity to comment on H.R. 

2032. As a foraer National Director of the Bureau of Land 

Manaqement I have a special place in ay heart for the BLM and the 

people who perfora the day to day tasks under the various laws 

passed by Conqress and the policies of the Administration in 

Office. 

However, that cannot cloud one's judqement of the overall 

situation. Times have chanqed so land aanaqeaent aqencies must 

chanqe with thea to be responsive to the American people. This 

bill impacts mostly the Western States where the vast holdinqs of 

the BLM are located. The BLM aanaqes nearly one-eighth of the 

surface of the United states. The mineral estate is even larger than that. 

With the Western States being some of the newer members of our great Union, it has taken time for those governments to 

mature and qain expertise. Now as we approach the next century 

most of these States have the aanageaent and technical expertise 

to do just as qood, and aaybe in some cases a much better, job of 

manaqinq natural resources than the Federal Government. The 

bottom-line issue is control. Many want all control to remain in 

Washington, D.C. I personally think the best Government is"the one that is the closest to the people. Mr. Chairman, your Bill 

is a step in that direction. 

Your Bill would provide the opportunity for the States to 

take over the manaqeaent of BLM lands in their States. That 

alone is a laudable qoal. 
page two 

Mr. Chairman, let me highlight a few of my concerns that you 

may wish to address as H.R. 2032 moves through the legislative 

process. 

First, I think the time period of 10 years after the 

application is made before the land can transfer to the state is 

much too long. Just do it. Two years to phase out should be 

adequate and if not let the secretary and the State mutually 

agree to something longer, but not to exceed 10 years. 

Second, an option to the "all or nothing" provision should 

be included as it relates to each State. There are situations 

created by past legislation such as the railroad land grants that 

left a checker-board system of ownership. Maybe a State would 

only want those lands or vice-versa and would prefer to leave 

other areas in Federal ownership. I'm not in favor of allowing the States to cherry-pick, but some middle ground I think is 

necessary. 

Third, there are, "have• and "have-not• States. States like 

New Mexico and Wyoming would have a tremendous incentive to take over the lands because of the mineral revenues coming in from the 

oil, gas, coal and other minerals. Other states receive very 

little. That is another reason why I think there needs to be 

alternatives to the "all or nothing" provision. 

Fourth, the federal lands are subject to a variety of 

different statutory programs that divide revenue from the land 

and distribute soma of the revenues directly to county 

governments or earmark revenues for specific local uses such as school districts. Local communities depend very heavily on these 

revenues, and it is critical that this issue be addressed. I 

believe the bill should be amended to include some type of revenue distribution programs for schools and county governments. 

Fifth, military land withdrawals are not in •Y opinion given enough protection in H.R. 2032. As a staffer on this Committee some years ago, I worked on Military Withdrawals. If memory serves me correctly, some of those withdrawals were for 20 years and some for 15 years. Given the 10 year transfer time allotted 

in the Bill, some of these withdrawals could expire. Maybe the 

withdrawals could be extended to protect them for some given time 

period under State control. 

Sixth, a provision should be included that keeps the lands 

open· to the citizenry for their enjoyment and use. In short, a covenant needs to be included to insure the availability to the 

general public of these lands. 
paqe three 

Lastly, Kr. Chairaan, I learned a qreat many thinqs about 

public land manaqement while BLM Director. The most important lesson, was that - one aust never forqet who one works for. I 

think the land aanaqeaent aqencies have forqotten that critical 

point and with state Governments much closer to those they serve, 

hopefully that will not happen to them. 

Just brinqinq this issue to the forefront aakes for a better 

understandinq of public land aanaqeaent. Go for it. 

I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 
99 

· Stat .. ent or BoMie R •. Cohen 

Asiilistant secretary - Policy; Manaq .. ent and Budqet u.s. Department ot the Interior 

Berore ·the 

SUbcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House or Representatives 

on H.R. 2032, To transrer the lands administered by the Bureau or Land llanaqeaent to the State in which the lands are located 

Auqust 1, 1995 

I am here .today to present· the views or the Department or the 

Interior on H.R. 2032, leqislation requirinq the Secretary or the 

Interior to orrer to transrer the lands administered by the· 

Bureau or Land Manaqement (BLM) to the states in which these 

lands are located. This leqislation would arrect .not only the 

BLM's operations, but the broad mission and responsibilities or 

the entire Department or the Interior. 

Let me state unequivocally that the Department or Interior 

stronqly opposes H.R. 2032. Should the bill be approved by both 

Houses o·r conqress, the Department would recommen.d that the 

President ·veto the legislation. H.R. 20~2 conteaplates rar more 

than a restructurinq or oversiqht responsibilities ror public 

lands. This radical leqislation would transrer tremendous 

national assets and revenues to a small number or rortunate 

states. The bill is riscally irresponsible and would squander 

much or our natural ·heritaqe. H.R. 2032 is a bad deal ror most 

residents or the Western states and a bad deal ror the American 

public. 
100 

2 

The federal governaent holda_public land& in truat ao that thia 

generation, and thoaa who will follow us, can enjoy both their 

beauty and their bounty. Congress has long recognized the 

national interest in preaerving and conserving the public lands 

for present and future generations of Americana. It was over one 

hundred years ago, in 1891, that Congress created the first 

national forest reserves in the Pacific Northwest to protect them 

from the tate of the eaa~arn forests, which had bean denuded by 

unrestrained logging. In 1976, Congress declared it the policy 

of the United States that ·• ••• the public lands be retained in 

.Federal ownership, unless as a result of land use planning •• it 

is determined that diapoal of a particular parcel will serve the 

national interest• (Federal Land Policy and Management Act). 

Any serious discussion about the public lands must begin with an 

understanding of what is at stake. The 270 million acres of 

public lands managed by the BLK are extraordinarily diverse. 

They include desert .ountain ranges, alpine tundra, evergreen 

forests, expanses of rangeland and red rock canyons. Consistent 

with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLK has 

managed these lands for multiple use: recreation, grazing, 

forestry, mineral development, watershed protection, fish and 

wildlife conservation, wilderness valuea, air and water .quality, 

and so:i.l con·sarvation. In addition to their treJilendous 

resources, the public lands feature extraordinary places: a few 

examples are Arizona's san Pedro National Conservation Area, the 
101 

Imperial San Dunes in California, Utah's Slickrock Bike Trail, 

and Nevada's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. 

3 

The public lands contain invaluable scenic, historic, and 

cultural sites as well . Archaeoloqical, historic, and 

paleontoloqical properties on BLM-manaqed lands form the most 

important body of cultural resources in the United States. These 

include the 11,700 year-old Mesa site in the Brooks Ranqe, 

Alaska, which preserves some of the earliest evidence of human 

miqration to the North American continent, .and the prehistoric 

Anasazi complex that extends across portions of Utah, Arizona and 

Colorado. There are also historic sites datinq from more recent 

periods, includinq the remains of Spanish exploration in the 

southwest, portions of the oriqinal trails used by settlers 

movinq westward, and siqnificant Native American reliqious sites. 

Public lands in New Mexico, Wyominq and Utah contain prehistoric 

petroqlyphs and dinosaur fossils. 

For more than a century, the use and development of the public 

lands has bean influenced by the complex relationship between the 

federal qovernment and states. The Department's opposition to 

H.R. 2032 ahguld not he interpratad ae criticiam gf th9 states' 

ability to manage lands. or a b&lief tbat tb• states should not 

play a significant role in thO stewardship of these lands. On 

the contrary, states have a leqitimate interest and should 

exercise a major role in decisions affectinq the public lands 
102 

within their_borders. 

Our experience suggests that the public lands are managed most 

effectively through cooperation with states and local 

communities, and the Departaent is comaitted to strengthening 

this partnership. The BLM in recant years has entered into 

numerous collaborative partnerships with state and local 

governiaents. Bare are a f- exaaples: 

* In Utah, the BLII bas signed foraal agreements with state 

and county govern.ents for law enforceaent, wildfire control, 

road maintenance and land-use planning; 

* In Nevada, _ where the BLII consults extensively with state 

and county governaents on planning and environmental studies, BLM 

and the state Departaent of Minerals operata as joint partners in 

reviewinq and approving aining operations; 

* In california, the Departaent of the Interior joined 

numerous other state, federal and county agencies to help 

devalopaent a plan for protecting endangered speciea and local 

economies in the West Mojave region; 

* In Alaska, nine federal and state agencies jointly manage 

the state's four Public LaJida Inforaation Canters, which provide 

one-stop shopping for visitors. 

Rather than facilitate this Jtind of cooperation, however, H.R. 

2032 would st.ply provide for a wholesale transfer of the public 

lands and the national wealth they contain to a relatively small 

number of states. It is, in effect, procedural legislation that 

sets forth bare bones stspe by which public lands -- as well as 

the minerals and -tar. rights associated with them -- can be 
103 

5 

transferred to states. But the leqislation does much more. 

There should be no doubt that the land and mineral transfers this 

bill would authorize would irrevocably chanqe America and the 

American West. 

The Department opposes this leqislation for a number of reasons. 

H.R. 2032 is unfair to Aaerican tazpayers as it would transfer 

revenues and resources owned by all Aaericans to • ·relatively 

small nuaber of states. 

H.R. 2032 packs a triple whammy for the American taxpayer: it 

deprives taxpayers of current revenues, qivea away assets that 

qenerate money over the lonq-tera, and makes sure that taxpayers 

will continue to pay for maintaininq public lands in states that 

choose not to take leas desirable lands. 

Today's hearinq is not the first time Conqress has considered the 

idea of transferrinq the public lands to states. It is worth 

recallinq the testimony of former Interior Secretary Oscar L. 

Chapman durinq the Eisenhower Administration: 

"if this Administration is intent upon followinq a qive-away 

policy, the people are. at least entitled to know what and 

how much is beinq qiven away ••• billions of tons of oil, 

coal, trillions of cubic feet of natural qaa" ••• not to 

mention "timber, qraaa, electric power plants, sites for 
104 

' future ones, irrigation and other water potentials, precious· 

matala, other lli.nerala ••• • 

Chapman'• inventory of the public'• resource• helped persuade 

the 83rd Congreaa not to give away the public lands, but H.R. 

2032 atteapta to resurrect thia flawed idea. If enacted, it 

would deprive eacb and every Jaerican taxpayer of the tens of 

billion• of dollara .vorth of reaourcea contained on the public 

lands. The legialation is a giveaway, pure and aimpla, of these 

taxpayer assets: 

* Co;tl: one-third of the nation'• reaarves; 

* Natural gas reservea: 12.5 trillion cubic feet; 

• Oil reaervea: 1.4 billion barrela; 

* Rangeland: 170 llillion acrea; 

• Foreata: 48 llillion acres; 

* Geother.al energy: 55 llillion acrea; 

* uraniua: 35 percent of the nation'• reaervea; 

* Oil shale: so percent of the nation's reserves; 

* Minerala: depoaita of cobalt, copper, nickel, platinum; 

group .. tala, ailv.r, tunqaten, phoaphate, sodium, l,ead, 

zinc, potallb and 110re. 

These assets are worth billions of dollars. They are managed by 

the BLM to generate r.-nuea for all ~icana, not only 

resident• of the aajor publid land atatea. If H.R. 2032 were 

enacted, Jaerican tazpayerS could loae receipte of more than $1.2 

billion eacb year that currently are generated fro• the federal 

lands by energy and lli.neral l ... ing, grazing of privata 
105 

livestock, recreation and timber sales. Michigan residents who 

pay federal taxes could lose more than $43 million annually and 

about $1.2 billion over the next 30 years; New Jersey taxpayers 

would lose nearly $40 million annually and roughly '$1 billion in 

the longer tarD. 

7 

The loss of federal revenues generated froa these federal assets, 

would ~ subject to the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) provisions of the 

omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and would increase the deficit. 

To offset these PAYGO costs, the Congress would face additional 

pressure to cut spending in other areas, ·or increase taxes. This 

pressura would only rise ovar the long term as the u. s. Treasury 

would be deprived of the future royalty receipts estimated at 

more than $33 billion (.$16.42 billion froa oil, $11.31 billion 

from natural qas, and $5.44 billion froa coal). 

Supporters of this leqislation ·suggest that it will produce 

budget savings. It will not. The savings proaised by H.R. 2032 

are predicated on wholesale transfer of All the public lands, and 

that will not happen.. only those states w~th significant energy 

and mineral resources are likely to want the public lands and to 

take ownership of thea under this bill. Even a cursory review 

suggests that a rel.ative handful of state.- would capture moat of 

the income-producing aineral resources on lands now owned by the 

federal government. The federal government would be left with 

manag ... nt responsibilities for the leas desirable lands in the 
106 

8 

remaininq states. 

In effect, this leqislation would qive away revenue-producinq 

lands to a relatively aaall nuaber of states in the Rocky 

Mountain reqion, and retain in federal ownership those with a 

negative cash flow. The burden on federal _ taxpayer• and the 

pressure on the federal buclqet will increase, particularly if the 

federal qovernaent continuea to provide critical services such as 

firefiqhtinq on the public landa. 

Let me turn now to another potential consequence of H.R. 2032 --

restrictions on the public's acceas to public lands. 

a.a. 2032 will lialt aooeaa b7 kaaters, aaglers, oaapers, hikers 

8Jl4 Other rear .. tio-1 'IlBera to Y&at ar ... of the West. 

Last year, the public landa b~ted 65 aillion recreation visits 

for himtinq, fishing, ~inq, bikinq, aountain bikinq, off-road 

vehicle use, bird-watching, faaily picnics, and. other activities. 

over 29,000 conservation, recreation and wilderness areas on the 

lands aanaqed by the BLK are open to the public, as are sites of 

cultural, archaeological and reliqioua siqnificance. 

Nowhere -in this bill is there any quarant .. that Aaericans will 

continue to enjoy acceaa to th ... lands. H.R.2032 would leave it 

up to the individual states to decide whether the lands should ba 
107 

restricted to a ainqle use, or made available for multiple uses, 

or even whether these lands should be sold to private owners. 

' 

What would happen to recreation opportunities if the P¥blic lands 

were transferred to the states? Exiatinq state recreation 

policies on state-owned lands vary widely. But in Arizona, for 

example, moat state lands are closed to public access. Huntinq 

and fishinq are permitted with a valid license, but as the 

Phoenix Gazette has pointed out, "technically, a hiker or a 

family on a picnic needs a permit to qo onto state land." 

state qovernments, many already stretched to their limits in 

terms of resources, would likely have to impose new increases in 

state taxes in order to pay for their new iand manaqement 

responsibilities. Faced with this prospect, it is probable that 

states would choose instead to sell at least some of the assets 

they would acquire throuq~ H.R. 2032 to private parties. 

Historically many western states have sold land qiven to them by 

the federal qovernment. In Utah, for example, close to half the 

state's or.iqinal land qrant acres have been sold. 

And nothinq in this legislation would prevent states from sallinq 

off the public lands' and their resources to the hiqhest bidder, 

removinq th .. forever fro• aultiple use and public enjoyment. 

The winner. at such ~ auction would likely be absent~a owners, 

or corporate owners, who would lock up the land and allow huntinq 
108 

and tlshinq by invitation only. We can alaost quarantee the 

winners will not be individual fuaily ranchers. 

10 

Let me turn nov to another trouhlinq aspect of this leqislation. 

I think lllllnY lonq-tble w .. terners vould be surprised by the 

chanqes in their livea that vould r .. ult froa the huqe land 

transfer envisioned by this bill. 

ID a44itioD to reCaoiDJ the quality of life for a&D7 WesterDers 

who take for flr&Dtecl their •-s to opeD 8P&Oes &D4 outdoor 

recreatioD, •·•· 2032 threateDS the eooDoaio health of westerD 

co-unities. 

Recreational visits to the public lands are .qood . not just for the 

soul, they're &180 qood for the econoaies of local ca-unit.ies. 

Activities on public lands provide aillions of dollars to nearby 

communities. Deer buntinq in the vaatern u.s. -- the majority of 

which occurs on public land-- qenerates $729 aillion in retail 

sales, contribut .. $411 aillion in salaries and waqes, and 

provides 21,000 jobs sach year. OUtfitters and quides provide an 

estimated $50-$60 aillion annually in revenue to the western 

states, and a larqe part of this revenue arises fro• activities 

on the public lands. BR. 2032, by peraittinq states ·to restrict 

public access or recreational activity on these lands, could 

inflict siqniticant econoaic bara to local coaaunities. 
109 

H.R. 2032 would advereely a~fect Weetern communitiee in other 

ways. Economic dielocations and uncertainty would occur as 

11 

state legislature debated whether to keep their newly-acquired 

lands or turn thea over to privata ovnarehip. Enactment of H.R. 

2032 would also lead to the loss of essential services provided 

on the public lands by the federal government. Public safety 

would be threatened as Westerners co.uld loee the firefighting 

units of the BLM. Right now, tens of thousands of federal 

employees have standing orders to help state and local 

governments protect public lands and adjoining .private or state 

property ~roa ~ira loss. The federal government alone has the 

ability to move firefighting personnel and resources quickly from 

state to etate when necessary. 

Western communities benefit directly from a range of programs 

funded by the BLM, and Western counties depend heavily on the 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) they receive from the BLM to 

compensate for property taxes they cannot collect on these lands. 

In March of this year, Ra1 · Powell, New Mexico's elected 

Commisaioner of PUblic Lands, wrote: 

"the illplication. that .Washington merely siphons our 

resources is wrong. New Mexico p~lic lands raise about 

$100 million which is sent to ~ashington, but the state 

receives aore than $150 million from the federal government. 

New Mexico is the #1 recipient of BLM payments in lieu of 
110 

taxes which qo directly. to counties.• 

Payments to the counties in lieu of property taxes will run to 

$103.91 million in FY 1995. Yet nothinq in H.R. 2032 would 

require stat.es which elect to take ownership of public lands to 

maintain this level of aupport to county qovernments. Western 

coiDIDunities would also stand to lose •ore than $10 million the 

BLM sp·ends annually on ranqe improv-ents, and more than $235 

million the aqency spends on firefiqhtinq. 

12 

Public lands under federal manaq .. ent are recognized as a 

national asset. Just as taxpayers across the nation enjoy the 

benefits of our natural resource lands, all American taxpayers 

contribute to paying the costs of their stewardship. If H.R. 

2032 were enacted, these coats would no longer be borne by some 

260 million Americans, but rather by the 55 million Americans who 

live in the West. 

Under H.R. 2032, Western taxpayers -- not all u.s.taxpayers .--

would have to pay the full cost of maintaining roads, fiqhting 

fires, adainiaterinq ranqelands and other management activities. 

It is reasonable to assume that state bureaucracies would have to 

grow siqnificantly, or in so- cases be created, to handle these 

responsibilities. 

Many states now laclt the -chani.. or staff . to manage the public 
111 

13 

lands they could obtain under H.R. 2032. Under the bill, Nevada 

could asauae ownership and responsibility tor 48 million acres of 

public land. Wyominq, which now manaqes some 3.6 million acres 

of state-owned lands, could take over another 18 million surface 

acres and 30 million acres of subsurface minerals. Utah's land 

holdinqs could increase from 3.5 million acres to 25.5 million 

acres • . Utah currently s~ds about $1.63 on each acre ot stateowned ~and, and supports approximately one state lands employee 

tor avery 95,000 state acres. EXtrapolatinq trom these numbers, 

Utah would need rouqhly 231 new employees and an additional $36 

million to manaqe the lands it could receive under H.R. 2032. 

The Department has additional concerns about H.R. 2032 which 

relate to, amonq other thinqs: 

• withdrawals of federal land tor •ilitary purposes (under 

H.R.2032, future and axpirinq with~awals would have to 

be neqotiated with states) i 

* liability for hazardous waste sites and cleanups; 

* Indian trust responsibilities; 

* handlinq of mininq claims and manaqement of minerals 

underlyinq private lands; 

* scope of the lands subject to transfer; and 

* land status pendinq State acceptance and durinq the ten 

year transition period. 
112 

14 

The Department is examininq these and other issues and may 

provide the Subcommittee with additional information about them 

in the near future. 

former Governor Cecil Andrus of Idaho captured the essence of 

what is at stake here when he wrote: 

"which policy would keep the West most free and open: 

continued federal manaqement with liberal public. access and 

public use of the public lands? Or transfer of biq chunks 

of public land to the states, many of which would sell it 

off to private parties and -larqe corporations who would post 

it 'off limits' to the public?" 

We must ask ourselves if the public lands constitute a national 

treasure to preserve for our children and qrandchildren, or 

simply a bonanza for speculators. The Department of the Interior 

is committed to sound manaqement of the public lands for the 

benefit of all Americana. 
JIM GERINGER 

GOVERNOR 

113 

~ ~TATE • OF WYOMING 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS 

OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

TUesday, August 1, 1995 

Washington, D.C. 

Jim Magagna 

Director of Federal Land Policy 

State of Wyoming 

~TAle CAPITOL BtnLDING 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 
114 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS 

OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

Tuesday, August 1, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. .MY name is Jim 

Magagna. I serve as Director of Federal Land Policy for the state 

of Wyoming. I also serve as Director of the 3.6 million acres of 

State lands. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you 

Wyoming's support for H. R. 2032. I compliment you, Mr. Chairman, 

as well as our own Senator craig Thomas for being prime sponsors of 

this historic legislation which recognizes and effectuates the long 

standing intent of this congress prior to the enactment of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLIPMA). 

We believe that this legislation represents the preferable 

approach to placing BLM administered lands under state ownership, 

control and management responsibility. It sidesteps the long 

standing constitutional debates on issues of "equal footing" and 

"States rights". While we agree that these issues should be 

addressed , under H. R. 2032 the transfer of BLM administered lands 

can proceed based on practical issues of improved management and 

reduced costs. 

Of the 62.3 million acres of land in the State of Wyoming, the 

federal government owns 30.5 million. Thi s constitutes nearly 49\. 

Wyoming is unique in containing lands acquired under each of the 

four major western land acquisitions--Louisiana Purchase, Treaty 
115 

with Spain, Cession from Mexico and the Oregon Compromise. Wyoming 

hosts two National Parks, two National Monuments, all of four 

National Forests and portions of four additional forests. These 

lands total approximately 12 million acres reserved by this 

Congress to be protected forever for the American people because of 

their beauty and unique characteristics. 

Wyoming also contains nearly 18.5 million acres of BLM 

administered lands. These consist primarily of lands that were 

offered to our forefathers who settled the West under the Homestead 

and Desert Land Entry Acts. They were either never claimed, or 

claimed and later abandoned when they could not support a family. 

Most of these are the least desirable, least productive lands in 

our State. However, they have now been found to contain some of 

the richest oil and gas and mineral depo.sits. 

these lands makes a major contribution 

The production from 

to our national 

productivity, the creation of new national wealth and our global 

trade. 

This land transfer will achieve severa·l fundamental objectives 

with national benefits. First, on the ground management knowledge 

and management capability will be significantly enhanced. BLM 

currently has many excellent trained professionals in its field 

offices. However, the career path of federal employment requires 

that these people continually move from one state to another, with 

some Washington duty interspersed. They are denied the opportunity 

to develop long term management capability on a given land area 
116 

with its unique characteristics and its unique responses to 

management. For this reason, ranchers, miners, loggers, hunters 

and others with life long relationships to the land are rightfully 

reluctant to accept the management input of these qualified 

professionals. Under state management we will see incentives for 

professionals to · spend major portions of their careers developing 

a relationship with specific lands in their state. 

Today, on the ground BLM personnel are often as frustrated as 

their private sector counterparts with their inability to influence 

Washington policy directives which just don't fit their local 

initiatives. Under a much more concise state administrative agency 

their input will be an integral part of policy development. 

A second objective that will be met is a streamlining of the 

administrative agency with resulting cost savings. BLM itself has 

recognized that it had become a top heavy administrative nightmare. 

Beginning with former Director Cy Jamieson, significant steps were 

taken to download the Washington staff to the west. State 

Directors are currently re-assigning personnel to local offices. 

While these are meaningful actions, it is inherent in the nature of 

the federal structure to have multi-layers of responsibility 

beginning with the Secretary down to the field. Under state 

management, all management levels above the current state offices 

would necessarily be eliminated. In addition, I would envision 

that current District and Resource Area offices would be combined, 

perhaps reduced in number. The result would be local offices 
117 

reporting directly to a single state of~ice. Further savings and 

efficiencies for both government and our private sector "clients" 

would be achieved through integration of federal functions and 

state functions into a single agency. Examples include oil and gas 

conservation, mineral royalty collection and permitting of all 

types. 

Third, the perception of a heavy dependence by western states 

on the largess of the federal government will be corrected by this 

legislation. I have had it called to my attention on numerous 

occasions by eastern interests that Wyoming receives far more per 

capita in federal dollars than similar rural eastern states. The 

response is simple. Give us ownership and control of our natural 

resources in a proportion comparable to yours and we can quickly be 

come the least dependent of all states. Are our federal mineral 

royalty share, payments-in-lieu-of taxes, and 12.St share of 

grazing receipts federal payments? Or are these simply a portion 

of the production from our resources? 

Opposition to this and similar legislation is .firmly rooted in 

the perpetration of several myths regarding state ownership and 

management. Foremost is the myth that the American public will be 

denied the use and enjoyment of these lands; that this will be a 

privilege reserved to the citizens of a single state. This is 

paramount to my claiming that I am denied the use of Central Park 

cause it is owned and managed by the City of New York. The fact--

all authorized uses will continue to be available on an equal basis 

to all u.s. citizens. 
118 

The second myth is prevalent even in Wyoming. We are led to 

believe that multiple use will no longer be maintained, public 

access will be denied and, eventually, most lands will be sold to 

the private sector at bargain basement prices. Even high level BLM 

personnel in Wyoming have made this claim in an effort to foster 

public opposition. Current management of Wyoming school lands is 

held up as an example of how BLM lands will be managed following 

transfer. This analogy fails to recognize the unique nature of 

school lands which must be managed to produce income for the 

beneficiaries with multiple use as a secondary objective. 

The Wyoming legislature had the foresight many years ago to 

establish in statute the guiding principles for management of 

federal lands when they were transferred to the State. w.s. 36-12-

102 directs the management of these lands. w.s. 36-12-106 mandates 

multiple use. (See Appendix A for complete text of Wyoming 

Statutes Title 36, Chapter 12.) 

These sections of Wyoming law are quite specific in 

enumerating mandated uses to include not only commodity uses but 

also "recreation", "conservation and protection of watersheds and 

wildlife habitat, and historic, scenic, fish and wildlife, 

recreational and natural values." The Board of Land Commissioners 

is further mandated to develop a management plan which considers a 

policy regarding disposal lease and exchange and a policy regarding 

public access. 
119 

H.R. 2032 recognizes that the circumstances of each state 

differ widely and appropriately places the decision on transfer in 

the hands of each Governor. We fully support this approach. 

However, we would urge that greater flexibility be provided in the 

timing for transfer. We would suggest that each state be permitted 

to specify the time of actual transfer, but that it be no less than 

two years nor more than ten years after election by the governor. 

This provision would acknowledge that some states will be able to 

prepare to assume their responsibility more rapidly than others. 

A safeguard should provide that once the governor has elected 

to accept a transfer, BLM can take no action which would reduce the 

surface or mineral acreage which it manages within that state 

without the concurrence of the governor. However, where the 

governor and BLM mutually agree that certain lands would better be 

retained in federal ownership and managed by another federal 

agency, this should be a permitted exception to the requirement 

that a state accept all lands. 

Section 3(a) is unclear as to who holds final authority over 

transferred Wilderness. Is the state forever bound by this 

designation? Does Congress retain the authority to change the 

Wilderness designation even though the federal government no longer 

owns the lands? 

Section 4 (b) (1) (C) preserves "any right to any quantity of 

water reserved or used for governmental purposes or programs of the 

Unit&d States [emphasis added] at any time prior to the data of 
120 

enactment of this Act". Use alone should not create a right to 

unreserved water unless that right has been perfected under state 

water law. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing let me note that at no time since 

enactment of FLIPMA in 1976 has it been more appropriate to 

initiate this land transfer. H.R. 2032 is a major downsizing of 

federal government. 

people. H.R. 2032 

H.R. 2032 places the power closer to the 

is a "block grant" to the states of the 

resources with which to meet their own socio-economic needs. We 

urge favorable action on this legislation by this subcommittee. 
121 

CHAPTER 12 

STATE CONTROL OF CERTAIN LAND 

)6-12-101. Legislative determinations. 

(e) The legislature determines: 

APPENDIX A 

(I) The Intent of tha fr ... rs of the constitution of the United States was to guarant!! to each of the states sovereignty over all .. ttars within Its boundaries 

except for those powers specifically granted to the United States as agent of the 

states; 

(II) The atta.ptad Imposition upon the state of Wya.lng by the congress of 

the United States of a requir...nt In the Statehood Act that the state of Wya.ing and 

Ita people "dlaclal• all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confl.....t to the state or Its political. subdivisions by or under the authority of 

this act, the right or title to which Is held by the United States or Ia subject to dlapoaitlon by the United States", aa a condition precedent to acceptance of Wyoming 

Into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the congress of the United States and 

Ia thus void; · 

(Ill) The purported right of ownership and control of the unappropriated 

public land in the state of Wya.lng by the United States Is without foundation and 

violates the clear Intent of the constitution of the United Statea1 and 

(lv) The exercise of that da.lnlon and control of the public land In the state of Wya.lng by the United States works a severe. continuous and debilitating 

hardship upon the people of the state of Wya.lng. 

~ L- 198o, ch. 53, I. 

36-12-102. ntn•aemtnt. 

(a) Upon transfer . to the stata of vy-ing [ofl the jurisdiction and _,.rshlp of 

lands and •lneral resources subject to this act, the board shall manage such In an 

orderly .. nner In trust for the optimum benefit and usa of all the people of Wyoming 

and In confor•lty with established concepts of multiple uae and sustained yl·eld which 

will permit the development of uses for agriculture. grazing, recreation, •lnerala, 

timber, and the developnent, production and transmission of anergy and other public 

utility services. It shall be .. nagad In such a .. nner as to permit the conservation 

and protection of watersheds and wildlife habitat. and historic, scanlc, fish and 

wildlife, recreational and natural values. 

(b) The board of land ca.mlssloners shall develop a plan for the transfer and .. nag ... nt of Ianda and minerals subject to this act [ 36-12-101 to 36-12-109]. This 

plan will be submitted to the governor and legislature prior to January 1, 1983 and 

will be subject to their approval. Such a .. nagement plan shall consider: 

(I) "-nagement of the land pursuant to subsection (a) 1 

(II) Polley and program regarding disposal, lease or exchange of any lands 

or resources acquired pursuant to this act: 

(Iii) Polley and program regarding public access to use of such Ianda! 
122 

(iv) Conservation of lends for wildlife habitat or recreat ional purposes; 

and 

(v) Progr.a regarding use or transfer of lands to municipalities and other 

governmental entitles for public purposes. 

(c) As used in this section: 

(I) Sustained yield means the maintenance of a high-level annual or regular 

periodic output of the various renewable resources of the state lands consistent with 

multiple use; 

(II) Multiple use means the management of the land In a co.blnatlon of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs for 

renewable and nonrenewable resources, Including but not limited to recreation, range, 

timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, natural, scenic, scientific and historical values, and the coordinated .. n.g ... nt of the resources without penaanent 

Impairment of the productivity of the land or the quality of the environment. 

Source: Laws 1980, ch. 53, 1. 

36-12-103. Property of the sttte. Subject to vtlid existing rights of tppllcants 

for land, after Karch 30, 1980, all federtl land in the state except as set forth In 

W.S. 36-12-109 and all water and mineral rights appurtenant not previously approprltted are the exclusive property of the sttte tnd subject to its jurisdiction tnd con- trol. 

~ Laws 1980, ch. 53, 1. 

36-12-104. Exlstlna rights under federtl law. Until equlvtlent metsures are enacted by the leglsltture, the rights and privileges of the people of this state grtnted under the provisions of existing federal law are preserved under aa.lnlstratlon by the board of land co.missloners. 

~ Laws 1980, ch. 53, 1. 

36-12-105. Treaties and compacts. Land In the state which has been administered 

by the United States under intersttte compacts will continue to be aa.inistered by 

the state In confon.lty with those compacts. 

~ Laws 1980, ch. S3o I. 

36-12-106. Multiple use. The land shall be used to foster, pro.ote and encourage 

the optl~ develo~nt of the state's hUaan, industrial, mineral, agricultural, 

water, wildlife and wildlife habitat, tl~ar and recreational resources. 

~ Laws 1980, ch. 53, 1. 

36-12-107. Proceeds to the general fund• The proceeds of sales, fees, rents, 

royalties or other receipts fraa the land paid to the state under this act 

[ 36-12-101 to 36-12-109] shall be deposited In the general fund. 

~ Laws 1980, ch. 53, I. 
123 

36-12-108. Exclusive enforcement; penalties. 

(a) The state has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this act 

36-12-101 to 36-12-109]. 

(b) An individual may institute a civil action to recover damages for injury or loss sustained as the result of a violation of the provisions of this act. 

(c) Any person who attempts to exercise jurisdiction over land secured under 

this act in a •anner not permitted by the laws of the state is guilty of a felony 

punishable by imprisonment for not less than two (2) years nor more than ten (10) 

years. 

Source: Laws 198o, ch. 53, I. 

36-12-109. Definition. 

(a) As used i n this act [ 36-12-101 to 36-12-109] "land" means all land and 

water within the exterior boundaries of the state of Wyoming except land and water: 

(i) To which title is held by a private person or entity; 

(ii) To which title was held by the state or a municipality in the state 

before .Karch 1, 1980; 

(Iii) Which is controlled by the United States department of defense on 

Karch 1, 198o: 

(lv) Which was a national park, national mon~ent, land held In trust for 

Indians, wildlife refuge or wilderness area established prior to January 1, 198o. 

~ Laws 1980, ch. 53, 1. 
Mr. Chairman: 

124 

Wildlife Management ln~titute 1101141hStreei,N.W. • Sui1e801 • Wuhlngton, D.C. 20005 

Phone (202) 371-1808 • FAX (202) 406-5059 

StatemeDl of Lonnie L. Williamson 

before tbe 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Howe Committee on Resources 

on 

H. R- 2032 

August I, 1995 

I am Lonnie L. Williamson, vice-president of the Wildlife Management Institute, w_bich. is headquartered 

in Washington, D.C. The Institute was established in 1911 and is staffed with trained and experienced wildlife 

managers and scientists located throughout tbe c:ountry. 

The Institute strongly opposes enactment of H.R- 2032. We view this legislation as a serious 

tbreit to our nation's treasured wildlife heritage. 

I have found it easy to underestimate how much the American people care for their public lands. The 

public domain has been a part of this country since its beginning, when individual states ceded land to tbe federal 

govemmenL For nearly 200 years tbe federal policy was to dispose of those lands and encourage settlelllt:nt. 

But late in tbe 19th Century, tbe nalion began to change that policy. The Creative Act of 1891, which provides 

for tbe withdrawal of forest reserves, was amoag tbe tint steps back from disposal. Another important 

declaration of how public lands should be managed came from tbe Public Laod Law Review Commission. which 

Congreas establiahed in 1964. 'lbal bipartisan effort produced a 1970 report titled "One Third of the Nation's 

Laod," which recoiDJDCilded thal: "The policy of large-scale disposal of public lands ... be revised and that fulure 

disposal should be of only !hose lands that will achieve maximum benefit for the general public in non-Federal 

ownership, while retaining in Federal ownenhip !hose (lands] whose values must be preserved so lhat they may 

be used and enjoyed by all Americans .... • The most profound r:eault of thal r:ecomlllt:ndation is the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976. 'lbal statute pointedly establishes a federal policy to retain public lands. 

RR- 2032 would reverse thal policy. And that is solllt:lhing with which we fundamentally disagree, because 

dispoaal, whether to states or other entities, probably would mean less management to conserve resources and 

leu public access for recrealional purposes. 

Federal public lands are great assets to lhe western states, in our view. They not only provide significant 

income to lhe states and counties, lhey are what in large measure makes the West different from tbe Midwest, 

East and Soulh. They are tbe reason people in all parts of lhe country admire western states and unfortunately are 

moving there in increasing numbers. The Weat now is lhe fasteat growing area of tbe country. Rural areas in tbe 

West are expected to gain 800,000 people by the year 2000. Without federal public lands, the West would not be 

unique. Plus, tbe quality of life of all Americans would be reduced. A rich recreational iegacy would be given 

away. 

Public domain lands are lhe most ecologically diverse lands managed by any federal agency. The varied 

landscapes support nearly 3,000 species of wildlife, including every native Nonh American big game animal, 23 
125 

2 

species of upland game bids, intematiooally recognized raptor habitats, and more than 215 threatened and 

endangered species. The 270 million acres of land and 174,000 miles of feasible streams provided more than 65 

million recreation visits in fiscal year 1994. 'This popularity is reflected in the estimate that 70 percent of all 

travel to the western states is pleasure. lt's.the best of both worlds .... people come, spend their money and leave. 

The worth of recreation on BLM lands is impossible to estimate confidently. For sure, it is many billions of 

dollars annually. 

It is highly unlikely, in our view, that these recreation resources could be maintained under state or 

private ownership. Virtually all public land states require that state lands be used for maximum revenue 

generation, which stacks the deck in favor of commodity production in the minds of most state land managers. 

At least that is the case so far. 

What H.R. 2032 would give away in commodity resources is easier to approximate. Aside from timber, 

livestock forage and hardrock minerals, BLM lands contain 12.5 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves, 

1.4 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and about one third of the nation's coal supply. The value of future 

royaltieS from federal oil, gas and coal reserves is $16.4 billion, $11.3 billion and $5.4 billion respectively. With 

all the hard work now underway to eliminate national deficits and debt, bow could we possibly justify giving 

away these valuable resources belonging to American taxpayers? Indeed, they belong to all Americans. 

Mr. <llairman, the states already get half of most income generated by public land resources, plus 

generous payments in lieu of taxes. Purthermorc, individuals and families in public land communities benefit 

also. Surveys by the Economic Research shows that family income in counties with public land is approximately 

$2,000 higher than income in counties without a public land base. 

We cannot think of a problem that would be solved by this legislation. But we see many that could be 

aeated by it. 

Thank you for considering our views. 

20-051 0 - 95 - 5 
126 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIONAL PARKS. FOREST AND LANDS 

ON H.R. 2032 

August I. 1995 

We thank you for this opportunity to appear here today to express our views on HR. 2032 

that would require the Secretary of Interior to offer to transfer the public lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land management to the states in which the lands are 

located. I am George Lea. president of the Public Lands Foundation. As a national 

organization of retired but stiU dedicated former BLM employees. the Foundation is a 

non-partisan advocate for sound public land management and has a unique body of 

knowledge and expertise regarding such. What is more important we have kept up with 

public land issues and truly understand what is happening to the public lands. 

Historical 

The idea of transferring public lands to the states is not new. During the 1930's the 

Garfield Commission made such a recommendation which was not acceptable to the 

American public and Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act to strengthen the concept of 

federal management. In 1964 the Classification and Multiple Use Act (CMU) provided 

criteria to be applied to the lands before determining which should be identified for 

retention or disposal. In this process of public involvement many public meetings were 

held with state and local officials resulting in over 175 million acres being classified for 

retention in federal ownership. This began.a process for stabilizing the tenure of retained 

public lands augmented by the Public Land Law Review Commission's report in 1970 that 

lead directly · to another important event: enactment of an "Organic Act• for the public 

lands administered by BLM. the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA). In FLPMA Congress made a final legislative recognition as to the future status 

of these public lands by declaring that "the public lands be retained in Federal ownership. 

unless as a result of the land use planning procedures provided for in the Act; it is 

determined that disposal of a particular tract will serve the national interest." This policy 

declaration by Congress is the same as the decisions made regarding the status of public 

lands administered by the Forest SerVice in the Forest and Rangelands Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. 

Who is to Benefit 

With the introduction of HR. 2032 and similar legislation in the Senate. one needs to aslc 

again. "What is the benefit of giving such gigantic public assets to a few states. What 

benefit does the average US citizen. the owners of these lands. receive by giving these 

assets. without compensation. to a small segment of the population." In our view there is 

little or no benefit to justify such a wind-fall giveaway. There are more than just dollars 
127 

and cents involved here. At stake is the protection and management of assets that belong 

to all citizens and our furure generations. Over the shan term a small net reduction in 

annual federal appropriation customarily required for management of the lands might be 

the only benefit with nearly an equal loss to the US Treasury in receipts from these lands. 

In FY 96 BLM land will return S 1.2 billion in receipts. In the end, such savings of 

federal appropriations may not become a reality because none of the states currently have 

the resources to acquire the professional work force or the funds to support the 

management and protection of these lands and in all probability would accept the lands 

only on the condition that the needed financial resources come with the lands from the US 

Treasury. It is important to note that the federal receipts would be substantially greater 

had Congress authorized the coUection offair market value and/or royalties for the natural 

resources harvested from pubtic lands, and a greater percentage of these receipts to be 

retained in the US treasury. 

The reaction to this legislation on the pan of the states will be most interesting. Currently, 

states receive close to SO% of the receipts from BLM lands (75% in the case of the 

Oregon and California lands and 90% of mineral receipts in Alaska) with no responsibitity 

for management, protection, law enforcement, or liability and the associated expenses of 

such. Since these receipts will be over $340 million in FY 95 plus a sizable (S I 04M) 

federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PIL T), one has to wonder why a state would support 

this transfer. It should be noted that this proposed giveaway is coming at a time when 

states are also trimming their budgets with the same reformist impulses domination 

Congress this year. Fire protection and suppression alone will require large annual state 

appropriations and "deep pockets" to handle emergency fire suppression costs and 

associated liabilities. Sadly, two fire fighters died last week on a BLM fire in ldabo. 

Currently the only management that most state school lands receive is that provided by the 

management of the surrounding federal lands. This is understandable since most state land 

department's are quite small and their only· mission is to generate revenue for the school 

system from the state lands with no effort directed towards management or protection. In 

Utah and most states a loss of the receipts ( in Utah over $3M in FY93) from public 

lands to the State School Trust Fund would have major impact on Utah schools. In many, 

if not all states, the state constitutions may require amendment to provide authoritY to 

acquire and retain the public lands. 

On the other hand in the case of Wyoming and New Mexico, one could understand why 

they could support this legislation. BLM manages about 33 percent of all coal resources 

in the US, a 200 year supply, with nearly 65% of the current total production coming 

from federal reserves in Wyoming. In addition when the deVelopment now underway of 

the Green River Formation is completed, Wyoming will become the largest producer of 

natural gas in the US, the majority of which will come from BL\1. lands. In the case of 

New Mexico, over 3.5 million acres are under federal oil and gas leases. 

With state ownership, the public land livestock user, other federal lease holders and large 

corporations see this legislation as one step closer to the day when they can acquire title to 

2 
128 

the public lands. Many states like Nevada have already disposed of much of the lands they 

received under their Enabling Acts. We see this hope of private ownership as a major 

force behind this legislation. 

Legislation shortfalls 

If Congress is sincere in their effon to give federal assets to the states, then other public 

lands should be included in the offer. We have been told through the years that BLM 

lands are, after all, the "lands no one wanted"; thaf "they are what was left after the good 

lands were all homesteaded", etc., leaving just rim rocks. scab lands and alkali lake beds. 

This is not the case, but some may believe it to be, and to be fair with the states 

Congress should not limit the choices to just BLM lands but provide the states the 

opportunity to acquire perhaps higher value lands therefore the public lands administered 

by the Forest Service, including the National Grasslands. and the public lands managed by 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service must be included in the legislation. In the case of the US 

wildlife refuges. the ultimate status of these lands has not been determined by Congress 

with the passages of an Organic Act as in the case of BLM and FS lands. In addition, the 

state fish and wildlife agencies are perhaps ·the best equipped of all state agencies with 

professional capabilities to manage these refuges. In the case of the National Grasslands, 

they were at one time under private agricultural production and the states may be 

interested in acquiring them for sale to private ownership for commodity production 

again. 

HR 2032 proposes a minimum of a 12 year hiatus period in which the management of the 

offered lands would be in limbo. Two years for the Secretary to offer the lands, with no 

time limit for the Governor to respond to the offer, is then followed by a ten year delay 

in transferring the lands after the date on which the offer was accepted by the Governor. 

During this indefinite period one would assume that the BLM, FS or FWS would continue 

to manage the lands but not without the States involvement. For example ifFS wanted to 

issue a 30 year ski-lift permit one would think the state would want to be involve in such a 

decision. The uncertainty during this period (it could be 20 years), the limitations on BLM 

appropriations and waning interest in management by the federal agency( s) would indicate 

that if the lands arc to transferred to the state it should be done much more promptly. 

Numerous federal statutes arc being negated covertly by HR 2032. The Wild Hone and 

Burro Act, the Antiquities Act, ESA. NEPA. and the 1872 Mining Law to name a few. In 

addition HR 2032 does not address the future management of such areas as the Snake 

River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, all other NCAs, Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Also it is not clear how other public land 

withdrawals would be handled by the states. For example would existing mineral or 

recreational withdrawals be honored by the state? And how wiD public access for hunting 

and recreation to these lands be assured by the states? 

Under HR 2032 aU valid existing leases and permits would be honored by the state. 

Military withdrawals would be honored but those lands for which there is to be no 

continuing military use, arc to be decontaminated by the federal treasury. This, of course 

would be a multi-billion dollar expense. Many of the existing military withdrawals wiD be 

expiring in the next ten years. If it is decided to continue to use the public land for 
129 

national defense purposes the federal government would lind itself having to pay a 

commercial rate for the use of land that it had just given to the states. 

An Alternative 

We see no way that this legislation can be fixed so that it is in the public's interest. 

However, we offer the following as an alternative that would contribute to progressive 

public, state and private land management. 

It is a well know fact that the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

management are the remains of the original public domain. Due to the nature of 

settlement and other public land disposals and reserves over the past two hundred years, 

the lands under BLM stewardship are more an accident of history than an orderly system 

of land tenure. The resulting pattern of the public land ownership of the western public 

land states, while containing substantial solidly blocked areas, is a scattered ownership 

pattern in many areas. The need to reposition this ownership pattern grows daily and is 

elementary to efficient management of all ownerships of land involved and particularly to 

effective management of the public lands as required by the Federal land Policy and 

Management Act. A strong case can be made that the existing land pattern in many areas 

is most inefficient and costly for all land owners in the public land areas. We believe it is 

time for the federal government to become pro-active and committed to a program of land 

exchange and the selling of isolated public land tracts all designed to improve the 

ownership pattern of the public land areas. The primary purpose of this new program 

thrust should be to improve the BLM public land pattern and not to use BLM public lands 

to establish or improve National Parks, Forests. or Refuges. These land transactions 

should be kept local, within each County as much as possible as not to disrupt the current 

PIL T program. 

The PLF proposes a I 0 year program to accelerate improvement in the public lands land 

pattern. Our proposal would contain three phases as foUows. A similar program may be 

beneficial in improving the land patterns and to tighten-up and straighten-out the 

boundaries ofFS and F&WS management areas. · 

Phase 1- Congress mandates a I 0 year program. First 18 months-BLM, State, and the 

private land owners and the general public would identifY those public lands to be 

available for non-federal ownership through exchange; state and private would identity 

non federal lands available for exchanging with the BLM land. In many cases BLM's 

Resource Management Plans liave already identified areas needing land pattern 

improvement and/or public lands available as trading stock in exchange for private/state 

lands. 

A Public Land Pattern Commission would be established to over-see and help expedite the 

land adjustment program. Membership would come from the state, private and BLM. 

The program would also encourage Jrd party "facilitators" to aid exchanges and authorize 

such groups for reimbursement of their costs to facilitate these exchanges not to acceded 

3% above their costs including acquisition costs. 

To facilitate such reimbursements and to aid in equalization payments, a "Public Laads 

Trust Fund" would be established. Receipts from public land sale and other public land 

receipts would be placed in this fund to aid and expedite future land exchanges. 

4 
130 

Phase II- A 8 1/2 year period of proactive land exchanges. To expedite this program we 

suggest that the clearance phase for public lands leaving public ownership not be required 

at the time the federal title transfers. A more appropriate time for these assessments and 

clearances may be when a proposed change in use is made and a detennination by the 

responsible entities. be they local, state or federal, is made that the use is consistent with 

the local and use plans or if special authorizations and pennits are required. 

Phase Ill- At the end of the 10 year period, the remaining public land originally identified 

as available for disposal through exchange, would be reassessed if they should be retained 

as public land or sold or transferred to the State. 

We note that the Report on HR 1977, the Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriation Bill, 1996, contains two requirements both directing the Secretary 

of Interior to work with the States in developing pilot plans and alternatives to wholesale 

transfer of public lands to the states. One of these directives has elements of our three 

phased proposal. HR 1977 directs the Secretary to work with the State of New Mexico 

to identifY BLM lands potentially suitable fur disposal through sale or exchange. The 

other direct the Secretary to develop pilot plans for joint federal/state management for 

selected BLM resources area or counties. It occurs to us that Congress should have the 

benefit of the results of these experiments before proceeding with a public land disposal 

policy. 

Mr. Chairman, we hope these comments and our suggested alternative will be of value to 

the committee. We are sincere in our efforts to see the public lands managed well. 

5 
131 

Testimony of Dr. MikeL Baupman 

to Bouse Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests aDd Llllds 

Concenrin& Transfer of PubUc Land Maaapment 

to States IIIICl Locales 

Aupt 1, 1995 

Mr. Cl8innan, members of the Committee, my name is Mike L BauJbmm and I am 

President of Intencch Services Corporation, Carson City, Nevada. Durin& 1994, Intenech was 

put of a team of cof!SUIIants retained by the Board of Eureka CQunry Commisaioners to 

investigate the compar.uive eo:."ts and revenues of land manaac:ment by several western states 

and the Bureau of Land Manaaement. Based upon this c:ompantlve analysis, prelimirwy 

estimates of the revenues and expenses of an expanded state land IIWUigement function were 

developed for Nevada. In addition, the rese&JCh identified a variety of instlrutfonal factors 

which miaht serve to influence costs or revenues. The study for Eureka County was manaaed 

by Resource Concepcs, Incotporared of Carson City. Intenec:h's role was to develop the 

comparative analysis and es1imatea of land manapment costs and rerums. 

Within Nevada, an estimated 87 percent of the land area is IIIIMBed by the federal 

aovemmenL Approximately 76 pm:ent of the lands within Euralca County are administered 

by the Bureau of Land MtnaaemenL CIIITent uses ·or public lands In Eureka County are very 

diverse. Geo~hermal eneriY sourees have been developed. Outdoor recreation, in<:ludin& 

lnmrinc and fishing brin& tourist dollars into local· economies. Eureka CQunty is bast to 

several of the wotld's Jaraest open-pit aold mines. The !UIJe livestock industry has been a- lon&·standina source of stability for the local economy. · 

In response to institutional uncertainty reprdina minina related access and !8nchinll tenure 

upon public lands, the Baud of Eureka County Commissioners have embarked upon a cowse 

to better understand the merits of local and saue adminislmion of public lands. To date the 

County has established a Public Lands Commission, biRd a natural resources IJIIII&&er. and 

has undertaken the study entitled, ldcntjf!catjon of Public Land Dansfcr Tuna and 

Pre!jmjnary Comamtjve f.congmic AMim. Ourently, Eureka Coumy is evaluatin& 

alternative opcratina strucrurc:s for· expanded Slate or state/local manajement responsibilities 

on public: lands. Each of thc:sc: activities is intended to inform local, state and fedeml decisionmakers as well as prepare the Coumy fot the possibility t1mt it may be vested with an 

expanded land management authority. The balance of my testimony will focus upon the: 

preliminary comparative economic: analysis prepared for Eureka County. 

TCIIimmy o( Dr. Milo: L Baupman Hooa S'*""'mi- "" Nolioaal P:lrb. 

Fcrosa and Lands 

AUCUJII,I~ 
132 

2 

Faced wilh the institutional Wl<:cnailll)' associazod with federal adminislralion of publle lands and 

eontlonted with the potential for expllllled swe &lld/'or local authority to manap said lailds. the 

Board of Eun:lca County Commissianas ~ -= intended ro answ• the followina 

questions: 

1. To what degree have Clhcr staleS been able to pnerate net revenues u a result of land 

IM!Ialement aetivities? 

2. What levels of revenue and expenditure have other states historieally incwred in the 

management of lands? 

3. What have been the major revenue sources from land manapment aetivities of other 

states? 

4. In the event the State of Nevada wete sw:cessfu1 in assuminaadministrative authority for 

public lands within the state, what levels of revenue miaht be possible and what levels 

of expenditure miaht be requiRd? 

S. In the event the State of Nevada wete successful in assumin& ldminisallive authority for 

public lands within the swe, what is tbe porealia1 for relltod laDd manaaement revenues 

to execed CJipcndinln:s? 

6. To wlw dearee has the Bureau of Land Mmwpmenr been able to aencmo net revenues 

as a result of land management adivitia 1rilhin selected states? 

7. What levels of revenue and cxpeoditure has tbe Bureau of Land Manqement eypieally 

historically incurred throulh IIIIIIAicutelll of lands? 

8. What have been the major revenue sources from land manaaemenc aclivities of !he 

Bureau of Land Manapment? 

The c:ompvative analysis focuses upon land 111811&pment aelivides within the Slates of Arizona. 

New Mexico, Utah and Idaho. The four swes were selected on the buis of their similarities to 

Nevada. Por exlll\ple, Utah contains a pxtion of the Great Basin and consequently haa many 

similar physioaraphie c:haracteristics to NeVIda. Altboulh the four swes have many natural 

features similar to NeYllda, there are importarU cl.itfetau:es which tend to inlluence public land 

ToodiiiOily ol Dr. Mike L. llouchm• Aupot I, 1995 
133 

3 

management costs and revenues. Utah. for e.umple, contains coal producing regions. Idaho is 

characterized by utensive forest resources. New Mexico's land ua supports e>o:~ensive 

production of oil and ps. The Sllldy considenld both revenues llld COlli and production of 

outputs for both federal and state land mana&ement acencics. In addition to usin& data ftam 

multiple states, thereby providina spatial centre!, information coverina live fiscal years was 

utilized (FY89 - FY93). Data oblained for this analysis was consequently able to reflect broad 

&eoer.aphical and temponl conditions. 

At the federal level, the evaluation was limited to consideration of the Bureau of Land 

Manaaement (BLM). Because BLM administers the vast majority of all public lands within 

Nevada, focus upon this aaency within this preliminary study was appropriate. The analysis of 

BLM included statewide revenue, cost and output features for 1M states of Idaho, Utah, Arizona, 

New Mexico and Nevada. BLM data on revenues and outputs was obtained laraely from annual 

reports (USDI, 1989 through 1993). Expenditure and employment infonnation was provided by 

BLM state office staff in the form of unpublished tables and reports. 

Because Nevada presently does not administer a compan~ble level of land an:a, collection of 

statewide land management revenue, cost and output data was limited to the states of Idaho, 

Utah. Arizona and New Mexico. The absence of comparable Nevada data should not be seen 

as a deficiency of this analysis. In fact, a primary objective of this reseateh was to develop an 

ISSIUIIed cost and revenue struetule for an expanded land manapnem: function by the Stare of 

Nevada. State land manacemcm eost, re¥enue, output and employmeN data wen1 obtained ftam 

annual reports and contaCt with staff of state land manaaemem apacies. 

The compiled information was rust IJ!llyed by stale and by year to facilitate multi-year 

comparisons. Observed hiah, observed low, and five and four year averaaes were Ibm derived 

for the stare and BLM data. n:spec:tlvely. This approach provided stare by state !Wiles of 

revenue, expenditure and outpat information. The five and four-year avera1e data for states and 

BLM, respectively, were then combined to derive multi-state averaaes for revenues, expenditures 

and outputs. The multi-state data provided a picturl of olarved hiah, obsaved low and avoraae 

revenues, expenditures and outputs acrou all states. The derivation or this lnlomtation for Slate 

land mana&ement agencies was particularly useful in establishing boundillllimits within whic:h 

praopective annual figures for Nevada might be derived. 

Having estimated observed hiahs. observed lows and qlUiti-statc average revenues, expenditures 

and output levels. estimates or prospective fiJUres for Nevada with an assumed expanded state 

land base were developed. These initial estimates assume that revenues and cosu usociated with 

management of an expanded state land base in Nevada would fall within the ranee of observed 

costs and revenues observed in other states. 

Testimmy d Dr. Milo: L. Bauahmaa Houoe S ......... llliucc Gil National hrb. 

""-'" and !.ado 
134 

ReifeSSion analysis was also applied to observations of cost and tevenue fOt other stale$ to 

attempt to explain the relacianship of uxal ac:zeap: to net fiscal condition. In addition, trend 

analysis was utilized to provide an altanative estimale of tevenues and costa whidl mi&ht 

characterize manaaemem by the State of Neveda of an arimated 48,000,000 acres (BLM land 

area in Nevada). Eac:ll of !IIese medtods provided different estimates of the potential tevenue and 

cost f01 111 e>tpanded state land manaaement authority in Nevada. The analyses did however, 

provide a useful set of financial boundaries upon whiell funher invesnaation can be focused. The 

collection and analysis of stale and BLM land manaaement costs and revenues produced a variety 

of findinas useful to clccision-malcers consU:!erinc expansion of tile state mana&ement 

responsibilities for public lands in Nevada. 

Table 1 provides a summary of trends in costs, tevenues, output and employment for land 

manacement activities of the states considered within this study. The table suuests that durinc 

the five year study period, revenues per acre have shown a consistent increase across aU states. 

For all states considered, tevenues have inc:zeased faster than expenses resultina in increasing net 

profits per acre. In every case, total acreap: of Slate lands dccteased durin& the five years. This 

tmld supests a consi!<lent pattern in which states are sellinc and/« cxchan&inalands under their 

jurisdiction. 

The number of pe.-s employed by slate land -p:ment aaencies hu arown in Arizona, 

Idaho and New Mexico (Table 1). Utah an the other band lias ldlieved a zeduction in PTE's 

durin& the five year period. On an 1a11 per PTE buis, Utah wu the only sCMe 11110111 thole 

CODSidered whidl adlicved ID illczase in tbc IWIIIber of ICI'CS manaaed per peJSXL Eac:ll of the 

four states considered established a lftlld of inc:lasing reveaues per FJ'E durinl the five years. 

Utah wu the only stare evaluated which anained a reduction durin& tbc study period in expenses 

per FJ'E. With the exception of New Mexico (whcft 110 appm:iable diana• was detected), each 

state considered has increased its ne1 pmfil per FTE durin& the five years study period. 

In the case of JTBZing revenues per acte, little clwlae wu detected during the five yean in the 

states of Arizona and Idaho.. New Mexico and Utah. achieved powth in arulnl teYe~~ues per 

acre durinl the five yar period ~ 1989 and 1993. In only one case (Idaho) was an 

appreciable inaease ia animal unit momhs (AUM) offence per ~a~~ identified durin& the study 

period. A UM per ac:rc levels in the other ates COIIIidcred remallled larp:ly unchanced durin a 

the same period. 

T<Siimcny ol Dr. Milac 1.. ......... AIJI'IIf I, 1995 
135 

Tlble 1 

Percent Olanao in ~. ReYenua. Outpur and Employnwnt for 

Selected Slate Lind Manaaement Pl'oplms: FYI9 to FY93 

.. . Arizona . 'Idaho . .. . .New Mexico ;Utah 

Revenues Per Acre +14 +87 •IS +13 

Expenses Per Acre +32 +45 +41 -34 

Net Profit Per Acre +11 +1.6 +14 +43 

Total Acra -1 ·1 -1 0.01 

Total FTEs +8 +14 +13 -3 

Acn:s Per FTE -8 -13 ·13 +3 

Revenues Per FTE +S +63 +I +16 

Expenses Per FTE +21 +26 +24 -32 

Net Profit Per FTE O.ot +1.26 O.Gl +47 

Orazina Revenues Per Ac:re +S +7 +4.1 +8 

AUMs Per Acre 0.01 +4 0.01 -1 

Durin& the five year study period, Idaho achieved the hiahest five-year averqe revenue per acre 

(S 15.~) amona the four states considered (Table 2). klabo's ability to a:enemc peater revenues 

per acre is felt to be related to the sicnific:ant COIIIribation of timber sales on ate lucls. Idaho's 

fcnst manaaement prosram contributes to that swe havina the hiaJ!cst five-year average expense 

per acre. 

Dwina the period of 1989 through 1993, New Mexico ac:hicved the lowac CllpeiiSe per acre of 

state land manaaed ($0.43). This relatively low expense rate per acre is in put the result of the 

fact that New Mexico manaces oae-dtird to five-times u much land u do other Slates c:onsiclcred. 

New Mexico's low c:osc per acre sunests that c:csiS may decline u !OW . acreaae manaaed 

inc:reues. Due laraely to irs oil and ps resources, the State of New Mexico had the second 

highest five-year average revenue per acre ($10.00). As a consequence of it's relatively hiah 

revenue per acre and low costs per acre, the Slate of New Mexico enjoyed the patest profit per 

acre from state lands durina the five year study term. 

TasoiiRCIIy o( t>r. Mllr.e L. BauaJmm Aucua 1, 199$ 
136 

Table l 

. Five Year A venae R8YCIIIICI, Expeudituns. Emplo)'111811t IZid Output 

for State Lind MIDapzne~~t Ac:livilia iD Selected Stares: (1989-1993) 

-~· 

. .::;;:·:: ·: +·~~."*~~~~;., . ,;-:.. :B ><·· .. Uioll . 

Revenues $SUN.095 SJ7.uUn $133,2£3,099 c..mm Ea....- $9.153,056 S21.$24.l7S SS,103,916 Sl-'lll,435 

Ncl Prolk <L<*l $W,143,039 $15,611).197 $127$,113 $16~.017 

TolaiA .... 9.44%. ... 2.319.144 13.320,000 3,731.m 

~- .... """' u .n $1$.$6 110.00 SU6 

~porAcre Sl.o- 19.01 S0.43 S2.30 

Ncl Profll por Acre SU7 $6.$4 $9.57 $4.36 

Tocal FTEs 161 2~ 1 140.4 "'-"' Ac:noo por FTE ,.,,.,. 9,W 95,037 39,636 

Rc.~uesporm S336,2S4 SI$Z,Il7 Sll49,0U $263,W 

Ea....- por PTE $61, 114 111.676 $4CU17 $90,757 

Nee Proftc por PTE S27S,140 $63,161 SIOU71 $172,929 

Onzinaac-.. $1,7..0,020 $1,172,133 U,901,11l $437,464 

a-in&~ 1.»9 1.21!1 3,400 IJ20 

Taoal O.raia1 Acnor &.""'-'43 1,&16,132 &.7IXI,OOO 3,51111J100 ..__.,..Acre SO.ll SI).Q so.a S0.12 

AUMs~ 1,%14,66) 1.712.000 

AUMsbyllftll- I,I$Z,III 239,.$67 140,000 

AI.INo ......... por- 0.1439 Cl.l%70 G. Ita CIJMS7 

PlbporAUN SU2 SUI sus Sl.fO 

Tllllbor Salao Rcv<lllla S2S.«<U96 $2.1.159 

Timber Sold (Jo4Bf) 224,133 1,412 

"'--porMIIf $113.19 S27:r1 

011&011'-~ $17,712 $14,411101 $2.27U30 

ouaa.....,.._ SICM,.S1.011 ..... ., ouaa..~ 62 UTI 

Oil a a. Acns 1.-.1 16,060 1.521.615 

ae-.. por '-'I- SUI SU9 

ll.oJaltlet por lAMed - SU9 

Odoer MIMnl ......_ $201,325 $157,616 $3S4,436 $30,146 

Olhor MiMnl ...,..._ Sl.41t.13S S63.HS 

Odlcr Millml ~ S11 

Olhor MMal Ac:noo 1...-.d )1,343 

~-,.. x-.1 Aae SU7 

aa,<ieo por Lcacd Acre 

6 

TOIIimcny ol Dr. Mlloo L. ......... -'""'"'I, 1995 
137 

7 

Amoncthe four stares considen:d; esrimaled averaae revenue per acre durinclhe pur five years 

was $9.48 (Table 3). This averace compares 10 obse:ved hich aDd low revenues of $".56 and 

ss.n per acte, respectively. State land IIIINICement expenses averaged an aWnated S3.20 per 

acte during !he period 19891hrough 1993. During !his same period, the observed hich and low 

expense levels per acre were $9.01 and $0.43, respectively (see Table 3). These ranges of costs, 

revenues. employment and ourput provide bounding within which estimates of fiscal outcome 

associated wilh an expanded stare land base in Nevada might be developed. 

A priDwy objective of !his research was the development of estimates of !he potential cosrs and 

revenues which might attend assumption by !he State of Nevada of administrative authority for 

the nearly 48,000,000 acres of public laDd now managed by !he Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). Information regarding the prospective fiSCal viability of stale administration of an 

expanded land area is essential to decision-makers who might now or may in the future deliberate 

upon a uansfer of administrative responsibility. 

The analysis of state land management agency COstS aDd revenues for Arizona, Idaho, New 

Mexico and Utah help frame assumptions about fiscal outcome associated wilh an expanded state 

land base in Nevada. Wtth reprd to revenue patential, the states of Arizona and Utah were 

judged mosr analogous due 10 !he limited timber and potentially limited oil and ps resources 

within Nevada (key outputs for Idaho and New Mexico, respectively). With regud to expenses, 

the experience of other states may not expUcitly suuest a lower per ICt8 bounding limit, largely 

due 10 economies of scale which would be expected. However, confounding factors such as fire 

suppression cosrs could serve to prevent such economies from beinc fully IUiized. 

Table 4 provides a sununary of estimated fiscal and operational outcomes associated with the 

assumed administration by the Slate of Nevada of !he 47.966.217 aaa of public land now 

manaced by the BLM. When the observed five-year averace CO$t and revenue structure for each 

of the four states considered is appUed to !he assutned land manaeement uea of Nevada, annual 

revenues ranaing from a quarter-billion to lhree-quarters of a billion dollars are derived. At 

observed five-year averaae expense levels, administration of an expanded laJid base in Nevada 

might require aMual expendi!lm:S rangins from $20,000,000 to over $400,000,000. Assumed Det profit from state land manacement activities estimated by applying observed five-year averaae 

Det profit levels michr ranee from between 5225,000,000 and $460,000,000. When the pur fiveyear history of revenues and expenses for !he four swes is considered to produce an overall 

average, the assumed level of revenue and expense for an expuded Slate land base in Nevada 

is $454,000,000 and $1!53,000,000. respectively. Under !he four-state averaae conditions, net 

profits of approximately 5300,000,000 are assutned for an expallded state land administrative 

function in Nevada. · 

Teolimony of Dr. Mike L. Bauahman K"""' Subcaauni""" <11 Nllioaal Port... 

l'alull IIIII Londo 

AIIIUSI I. 1995 
138 

Ta!U 3 

Multi·Sblre <lblcnal HicJa. Observed Low mel Averqe fllr Revenues, E.paditurcs, 

ElnplaymcN IIIII Oalpal b Sblrewidc w-a-- Acdvilies: (1989-1993) .. . :::,:; ?: ~~···· ~fJF• :·!· :1~,, ... .. 

..__ 4~ Sll3,l4l.099 $Z4,179,nl $C,]l3,412 

~ SZI.nA.%75 SS.10UI6 SJJ,411,571 

Nor Pro& <L-1 Sll7,539,11l SIS,6111,87 $SO.IH,IOZ 

TCIQIAaa 1J,l20,000 2.3111,144 7,%2l,470 

kwllla por Acre SUJ6 ss.n S9 .... 

l!lqaioa por - S9.01 10.43 $3.20 

Nor Pia& por- S9S7 ' $6.36 / $6.19 

TCIQI FI'Es lAl.l 94.34 159.46 

AcrelperFTE 115,11)7 uaa 50.117 

..__porFTE SM.OII $152,437 $423,366 

~porFTE S90.1S7 S4QJ11 S1G.266 

Nor 1'1'0111 por FTE I!IIIU11 $63,761 S:US,IOO 

o.-.ae- sun.m SG1,464 SU13,04 

o.-,t.- 3,400 1.21$ ~ 

TCIQio--.Acrel 1.100,000 1.IM.I32 S,l32,619 ._,_,_ so.a 10.11 10.41 

AUMI ......... 1,712,000 1,214M) 1,463,332 

AUM111J--- LI.SZ.III 110,1100 Sl1,4" 

AUMI~por ... 4.1JA ll.O&S7 0.1213 

Ptlc:a por AUM su• SL4 SU9 

11Dobor SliM.._ as.-.- D4.2S9 $12,716,421 

n.toor Solll (M8P) 324,1J3 1,412 113,122 ._,.._ $11119 S%7.%7 S10.SI 

011& Gil"-.._ $14,43,101 SI1,11Z 15,616,640 

011&0.....,.... SICN,4:1U112 . ...,., W,46S,IS4 

Oil&O.l.- 'UT7 Q 1,310 

011 & 0.-1.-' I,Sli,IIS .,.,_ ,.,.,, -... ~.-...~- SIM $1.11 SI.J4 

ao,.llillporl.-.l - SU9 SS.I9 SU9 

Odlor ...... .._ $354,.436 SJ0,146 SIIS,III 

Odlor ....... ...,.... IS.41f,235 S6l,I6S Sl,741,;so 

Odlor-.1~ , .. Sll Sll 

Odlor _..-Leo.~ ]4.]43 ]4.]43 34.]43 --per 1.--1 Acre $6.37 S6.J7 $6.37 

lloJaldoo per 1.--1 Aae 10.00 10.00 10.00 

Aupc I, 1995 

I 
139 

9 

Table 4 

Esti!lwed Revenues, ExpendituJes and Employmeac for &p8llded Stare Land Manaaemcnt 

Activities in Nevada Usina OOer Stalll Fiscal Models 

Sta!C' of ~Yida. :estlmala · · ·· · .. 

Arizona fdaho. N~ Meltieo (li&IL. Avenap 

Model Model ... , MocJel Model Model 

Tcxal Acres (I 992) 47,966,217 47,966,217 47,966,217 47,966,217 47,966.217 

Revenues pet Ac:re S.S.72 S1S.S6 $10.00 $6.66 $9.48 

Expenses pet Acre $1.04 $9.01 $0.43 $2.30 $3.20 

Net Profit per Ac:re $4.67 S6.S4 $9.57 $4.36 $6.29 

Revenues $274,191,774 $746,1S0,851 $479,831,253 $319,273,1)23 $454,861,725 

Expenses $50,076,146 $432,376,759 S20,SS6,S37 $110,146,840 $1S3.289,070 

Net Profit (Loss) $224,1 15,628 $313,774,092 $459,274,716 $209,126,183 $301,S72,6SS 

Acres per FTE 58,704 9,888 95,037 39,636 S0,817 

Toea! FTEs 817.08 4,850.76 S04.71 1,210.16 943.91 

GIIZina Acres 47,282,!570 47,282,!570 47,282,570 47 ,282,!570 47,282,570 

AUMs preferenc:ed 2,412,358 2,412,358 2,412,358 2,412,358 2,412,358 

Price per AUM $1.42 $4.98 $3..SS $1.60 $2.89 

Gtuina Revenues $3,416,984 $12,003,893 $8,563,871 S3,8S4,948 $6,959,924 

As shown In Table 4, 500 to 1,200 FTE's might be requited to provide INIIIIgement c:apebillties 

for an expanded state land base in Nevada. Economies of s:ale woilld sugaest that u the total 

land area to be managed inc:mlses, the numbet of acres per FTE would also Increase. As a 

eonsequenc:e, 1111118pment of the 47,966,217 acres of public: land now administered by BLM In 

Nevlda might be possible using less than SOO PTEs. As with revenues and expenses, the ac:tual 

number of FTEs required for administration of an expanded state land base in Nevada would be 

Jaraely dependent upon land INIIIIIemenl policies adopted by the state. 

Potential net revenues on the order of $200 to $300 million dollars implies a potentially Iuc:mtive 

motivation for pursuit of tru!Sfer of administrative authority of existinc BLM lands to the Sute 

of Nevada. As 1101ed previously, several fadors may serve to reduce the &dUal potential level 

of net profits or revenue whic:h niay be derived from an expended state land base. Pethaps most 

imponant wiJI be the natural resource c:harac:teristic:s of the lands themselves. As has been 

discussed, lands administered by the State of Idaho c:onl&in cztenslve eommerc:ial forests which 

c:ontribute to hiah revenues per ac:re. New Mexico state lands include extensive oil and gas 

Talimony a( Dr. Miloe L. BauaJnu H.,.. Subccmmiaee .., Nalioaal Parb. 

Pareols llld Lancls 

Au .... ll,lm 
140 

10 

resow"CeS which ha,. famnd hip revenue aeaaarion per acre. Likewise, Utah state lands 

contain utallive faail elll:ll)' and minerU n:soun:ea. While an capandad - land bue in 

Nevada would lilcely -ua Jllinera1ized uas lnd patclllial for foai1 fuel production. the 

liblihood tlw such ,__would be c:onlained within tiiOSt or the 47,966.217 -now ldminislered by BLM is net peat. As a c:onsequence. a sipficuu (yet ldmitkcny Wllmown) 

pottion or the public lauds in Nevada would not have !he potential to geneme net revenues of 

the mapilude obser¥ed for adler au:s consideled in this study. 

To further wufcrSbnd the possible implicatiaus of diminishina rerums per ~C~e ICI'OSS an 

expanding land bue, trend mal:ysis was applied to cost and revenue dala collected for the four 

states considered in this leiCIICh. When !he results of the trend analysis were employed to 

predict po!enrial annual reveaucs and expenses for an explnded state land buc in Nevada, net 

revenue on d1e order of SlSO,OOO,OOO is estimated (Rvenues of $172,000,000 and expenses of 

Sl8,000,000). At 47,966,217 aczes, the C05l and revenue per acre for an expanded state land base 

in Nevada would be $3.511 aad S0.3&, respcctively. A 1111111111ary compuilon of revenue, C05l and 

net profit estimlra for cxber states CODSidered and d1e Slate of Nevada (under conditions of an 

assumed espudcd - land bae) is pmvlded in Table S. 

TableS 

Summary Comparisoa of Slate L1lld Manaaemezu 

Rev-, eo. llld Net s.-ue Estilnates Pw Al:ft: 

Slate of Neva and Selected Sillies 

3.511 S.7l S.72 1S.S6 

.311 3.20 1.04 9.01 

10.00 6.66 

.43 3.20 

Net Profit 3.20 l.Sl 4.67 6.S4 9.57 6.29 

PwAcre 

1/ DeriVed llaoalh um 1 anaJ)'SIS or comDIIIeCI nve-year avaage Oifa tor 

cxber - ccasiderecl. 21 Derived baed UJIClll .pplic8bca of lowest obsczvcd avaage revenue per acr. and 

hiahat (Clldudiq Idaho) observed avaage expense per acre. 

3( Five-y.:.r averaaes. · 

T..a.._,. ol Dr. Milre L ........... Aupst I, 199$ 
141 

II 

The malysis of adler._ land manaaemcnr reYenue, coa, employment and 0111p11t c:lwxterisrics 

is useful in andersr:m:tin& prospecdvc fiscal implications t'ar an expanded state land base in 

Nevada. Althoup limited to four ltllte land manacement end!ies. the results provide clear 

evidence of du: pcxemial fer ate land manaccment activities in Nevada to cencme revenues in 

excess of espenses. Several caveats in1ISf be considered however when -Icing to estimate 

piOSpeC!ive revenues md costs for an expanded state land base in Nevada. 

First. are the V31'iatioas in physioaraphie clwacteristics between Nevada and other states 

COIISideftd ill the anlllysis. These differences concem bath avail&billty of non-renewable and 

renewable I'CSIUfCes. Unlib Idaho, Nevcda does not have appreciable C0111111et'Cial forest 

resoun:cs. The availability of oil and gas resources withill Nevada is ~ Mineral 

potential has been demonstraled by extensive mininc activities within the Slate. The potential 

for additional mininl development is considered good, but hichly dependent upon market forces. 

For Nevada to derive the levels of net revenues previously described, extensive oil and ps and/or 

expanded lllillinlll:tivities would libly be necessary. It is important to note that Nevada derived 

just over S40 million in net proceeds mininc taxes durin& 1993. If minina in the Slate were to 

be ~ sipif"ICIIIIlly, minin& tax revenues micht be sicnifiantly increased 

Second; the .-lysis of c:ost llld revenue data conducted durin& the JNdy did not explicitly 

c:onsidcr diffcn:nces ill-land manapmcnt policies. The Jtlldy does suuest that manaaement 

polieies do diffet between Slates and between Slates and BLM. l.aDd sales, are Ul important 

sour= of ~. bath for states · ind. fer BLM. If total revenues pet acre of the maiiJiitude 

previously clac:ribe are to be achieved tlvough .manaaemcm of Ul expanded Slate land bue, land 

sales may be required 10 bolster revenue aeneration potemial. The potential for land sales (at a 

rate COIIIIDellSaiZe with existiq federal manaaem=t stmepes) to provide sianiflcant revenues 

to the State of Nev8da appeus very real. Accordill& to existilla BLM plans, 380,000 to 1.4 

miJllOilaaa may be suilablc for disposal or exchanae in Nevada. At sm pet acre, disposal of 

these lands would cmente $190 million to $700 mllllon in revenue. Placed Into a!NSt, proceeds 

from these invesced funds could provide Ul important soun:e of revenue 10 sustain land 

manqellll:lll Ktivities. 

1binl, it is ilnponant to note t1w this study did not account for uends in nanual resource 

condition. Stares may be &ener.ldnl excess revenues it the expense of ecosysteDt condition. As 

a c:onsequeaee the ability to SIJStSin levels of revenue aencntion in the future may be c:haUenged. 

Alternatively, srates may be manaJinJ their natural resources in a manner consistent with 

SUSiaincd yields. Addilional researdl into Slate land manaccment policies and practices which 

bave produc:ed reponed patterns of revenues and expenses is recommended. 

Filially, !be szudy 'idenrified a variety of institutionalllepl issues which could serve to influence c:oa and re'ICDiie associaled with manacement of an expanded land area by the State of Nevada. 

Tadmaly ol Dr. Miloe L Baa.,._ H.,... Subo::cauulaloe 011 Nalionol Parka, 

"""'""'and Llads 

A"JIIII I, 199$ 
142 

12 

As a hiahly urbanized swe (the vast majority of NeYIIda's midents reside in mettopolitm ueu), 

much uncatainry anends the IWIIlll of the manapment pbi)olophy which mlaJtt be adopted by 

the srare. A manaaement approach. placinJ hiahat priority upon praervaticm of raaurces rniJht, 

Ill contrut 10 a syscem promoclnJ maximization of short-cam economic returns, tend 10 increase 

costs and mlu" revenues. It is not clear what policies would be adopted by the swe repnlina 

fire suppteSSion. Costs for beth ~ suppression and lepl services were not considered in the 

$tlldy. Pre~xistin& ri;hts may resttiC'islare management of public lind resources. In addition, the 

SWe may assume liability for environmemal problems associated with historic:al land uses 

(mining. refuse disposal). Decisions would need to be DWie reprdin& disposal of llnds u an 

ac:c:eptable facet of an expanded srate land management propam. Sipificant net revenues may 

lead to establishment of a arowinaland manaaement bureaucracy. 

What then does the analysis suaaest with reaard to the questions posed at the beJinnina of this 

testimony? Following is a brief answer to each of the previously srated questions. 

!. To what degree have other srates been able ro aenerate net revenues as a resull of land 

management activities? In eacb of the four states coasidered, clurina eacb or lbt past 

live years, annual oet positive revenues raiiPIIJ from 54.67 to $!1..5'7 per ~~ere bave 

been achieved. 

2. Whal levels of revenue and expendilure have orher Sll!eS hlsrorically inc:umcl Ill the 

manaaenwu of lands? Durio& tbe pat Oft years,~.- 11111Ual ..__ aero~~ tbe 

rour states C0111ldered Ia tbll analys!J '-e l"IDpd l'rom $5.12 to $15.$6 per acn. 

Expeadltu res have ranaes from $0.43 to 59.01 per acre. 

3. What have been the major revenue sources from lancl manacement activities of other 

States? Primary revenues sources from state land maaapmeat ac:dvlties lnc:lude on 

IDd ps, limber, laDcl sales and mlninJ. 

4. In the event the State of Nevada were suc:c:cssful in asuminl adminisaative aurhority for 

public lands within the state, what levels of revenue might be poaible and what levels 

of expenditure mi&hl be required? Based 11)1011 observed le•els of re'ftiiUe aud 

expenditure for oeiJhborinc states, rev- or $3.51 to ss.n per acre aad 

expenditures or $0.38 to S3.l0 per acre may be plausible tor au expandell state land 

base In Nevada. 

$. In the event the State of Nevada were successful in assumin& administrative authority for 

public: lands within the state, what is the potential for related land man&lement revenues 

10 ~ expenditures? Based upon the txperitllce or other states, It Is vvy poulble 

that revenues would exceed expenditures ror admlnistratloa of an expanded state 

Talimony o( Dr. Mike L Bau1hm111 Houso Subcaumiuoc "" Nalional Pcb. Faresl3 ud l.uldt 

AUCUStl. 1995 
143 

13 

6. To what deane has lhc BWII&ll of land Manapment been able to aenerate net revenues 

as a rault of land mauaement activities within selected mtes? Durin1 tba periocllll89 

tllrou&h 091, BLM lancl IIWIIlpment pro1J111111 In tbe states of Nevada, Arizona, 

ldabo, Utah aad New Mexico each speat sipiflcantly mon than was eenerated in 

l"efttllleS. 

7. What ~Is of NYenue and expenditure bas the Bwau of land Manaaement typically 

bismdcaDy incurred thmu&h manapment of lands? DuriD& tbe period 1919 throuab 

15192. BLM nvames averapd $0..22 per acre acrou the li--.tat• Rlldy area. 

Duriac tbis same period, expenditures by BLM for land tllllnapmentaveraaed Sl.08 

per acre. 

8. Whal have been the major revenue SDUrCOS from land management activities of the 

Bwau of Land Manaaement? Amonc tbe most slpifiaant nvenue sources for BLM 

obAnoed durial the period of 1919 tllrouab 199l were lfUina, land sales, .ad 

roy8lties from oil, PI and miDirals. 

In claliDa. 1er me empbasia that our llUdy impli• that ate llllllllpment of public lands in 

Nevada can be dane in a IIIIMCr resultinc in Del -. This result ISIWIIel however, that 

a - laDd ....,._ approKh would mor. claady JeSillllble odlcr swe land manapment 

phl!oqlbla rather than diose carremly prac:ticed by lhc federal pemment. SWes appear to 

-ae lmds fiom a perspective of pnaalinc of net revenue& Alternatively, BLM appears to 

be --.mrd by fedaal requirements raultina in expenditure of sicnificant IUDII of money on 

1111111qa11e111 IICiivilies .-ltin1 in liltle oc no economic renun. Conditions impascd by the 

Ccnlftlll md/oc the Courts upon state adminisuation of public: lands may significantly impact 

upaa resukin& land manaaemau c:osts and revenues. 

T...a-7 tJI Dr. Mile L Bauahmm H .... Subcaamiaec Cll Nalioaal Pub, 

l'cxals ancl Laada 

Auaus• I, 199' 
144 

• 1612 K STREET, NW, SUITE 808 • WASHINGTON, DC • 20006 • 202-887-1872 • 

Statement of 

Mineral Policy Center 

presented by 

Philip M. Hocker, President 

to the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests, and Lands, 

Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman, 

of the 

Committee on Resources, 

United States House of Representatives 

regarding 

H.R.2032, 

"A Bill to transfer the lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management 

to the State in which the lands are located." 

a.k.a. 

The Triple-Trillion-Takeover 

1 August 1995 

Washington, D.C. 
145 

Chairman Hansen, members or the Subcommittee: 

MINERAL POUCY CENTER 

STATEMENT, 1Au&9S, I 

My name is Philip M. Hocker; I am President of Mineral Policy Center. 

Mineral Policy Center is a nonprofit national citizen organization of 2,500 

members, dedicated to the adoption of policies which serve the long-term national interest for environmentally-clean and fiscally~responsible management of 

our mineral resources. 

On behalf of the Center and of many other concerned citizens, I thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee today. My testimony 

will address only the mineral aspects of H.R.2032. 

H.R.2032, the Triple-Trillion Takeover, is an irresponsible proposal. 

It would Balkanize American lands, creating little Bosnias and Serblas in 

the American West in place or the United States' common public-land heritage. I urge the Resources Committee to abandon this bill, and to move forwaro 

toward comprehensive reform of the 1872 Mining Law, and a more modest and 

balariced approach to United States land management issues. 

H.R.2032: A $3.29 TRILLION Betrayal of the National Interest 

H.R.2032 would give away $3.29 Trillion in mi,.--al wealth which belongs to the people of all the United States. 

H.R.2032 should be "scored" as Tripling the Federal Budget for FY'96, 

since the United States wealth it would give away is more than twice the entire 

FY'96 expenditure approved in the Budget Resolution ($1.588 Trillion). 

H.R.2032 would not only give away ownership of these minerals, it 

would give them away with no management controls, no obligation to pay a 

royalty to the United States for their sale, and no safeguards for national strategic security interests in these resources. 

Public Lands, Public Interest, and Public Debt 

Since the Founding of the United States, individual states have joined 

together to strengthen the whole nation. Pooling the nation's unsettled lands has 

been an important part of that unification since October 30, 1TI9. Then, Congress asked those states which held vast territories in the West, beyond the 

Appalachian divide, to cede their claims to the whole United States. 
146 

MINERAL POLICY CENI'ER 

STATEMENT, JAu&9S, 2 

Seven of the original states made immense land concessions to bind the 

whole country together. Virginia's grant was the largest. It deeded over to the 

United States most of the area nonh of the Ohio River, west to the Mississippi. 

Altogether, these gifts totaled 237 million acres- 10.2% of the United States' 

total area, more than thirty-seven times the area of Maryland. 

The United States lands have been considered an important financial resource, and linked to the public debt, since passage of the Funding Act of 

4 August 1790. This law pledged the proceeds from sale of national lands for 

the discharge of the national debt.[Dewey] At times, revenue from the public 

lands has been a major portion of the total annual income to the United States 

Treasury. 

Now, in 1995, the national debt has been more rapidly increased since 

President Reagan took office than ever in our national history. The storehouse 

of wealth on the United States' lands is a vital financial asset which should be 

used prudently to help offset current-account budget deficits. It would be incredibly foolish to give away the trillions of dollars in minerals these lands contain. 

The Triple Trillion Takeover 

Three-Point-Two-Nine Trillion DoUars worth of coal, oil, gas, gold, 

silver, sand, gravel, and other valuable minerals would be disposed of under 

H.R.2032, and the Treasury would not receive a penny! 

The $3.29 Trillion Dollar Talceover is made up of the following major 

components: 

• Coal: 2,872 Billion Dollars The United States owns about 132 billion tons of 

coal in the ground in six Western states: Montana (80.8), Wyoming 

(33.3), and Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah. Alastain 

reserves (which H.R.2032 would also dispose) are not counted. At current overall average prices, this coal in the ground would bring $2,872 

Billion dollars if sold. [Averitt, EIA] 

• Oil & Gas: 288 Billion Dollan, is the market value at current prices of the 

12. 1 billion barrels of oil, and 65.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 

which are estimated to lie in onshore Federal reserves (mean estimates). 

This number is conservative because today's spot price for natural gas 

which is used, $1.43/mcf, is far below the $2.44 level at which some 

futures contracts have traded this year. Also, these figures are for conventional recovery and do not include reserves which enhanced oilfield 
147 

MINERAL POUCY CENTER 

STATEMENT, 1Auc9S, 3 

recovery techniques will access in the future.[Dolton, NYT] 

• Gold, Silver, &c: 130 Billion Dollars worth of gold, silver, and other "Hardrock" minerals which are disposed of by the 1872 Mining Law are estimated by Mineral Policy Center to remain under the public lands which 

H.R.2032 would dispose. In 1992, the General Accounting Office identified $64.9 billion in hardrock minerals on United States lands at currently 

operating mines. This amount did not include resources in the ground at 

inactive mines, and had no estimate of ores still to be discovered. Over 

the life of the 1872 Mining Law that Act has given away $231 Billion 

worth of United States minerals. MPC believes that doubling the 1992 

GAO figure is a very conservative estimate of the total hardrock mineral 

value which H.R.2032 would give away for free.[GA0-92, MPq 

• Rock & Stone: 0.375 Billion Dollars worth of construction rock, sand, building stone, and other "common variety" minerals will be sold or given 

away from Bureau of Land Management property over the next fifty 

years, at current annual rates ($7.5 million in FY1994).[BLM) While 

low in dollar value, these materials can be very important to local projects. 

Not Counted in these figures are United States deposits of phosphates, 

lead, and other important materials. These are worth billions of dollars, but 

would not significantly change the total amount of H.R.2032's giveaway. Also 

not included are oil shale, tar sand, and tight-formation gas and oil deposits. 

These hydrocarbon reserves EB!kt greatly increase the total dollar figures if 

they were included. They are not economical to recover at present, though 

many experts predict that they will become economical in time. 

All figures cited are gross values of the mineral resources, in place, that 

would be affected by this legislation, based on best available geologic estimates. 

Costs of extraction and processing are not deducted. 

An Irrevocable Step: 

H.R.2032 would not merely create a policy of free giveaway of United 

States mineral resources, it would make the giveaway all-encompassing, permanent, and irrevocable. 

Congress has changed national policy regarding management of mineral 

resources from time to time. The enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920, for example, placed the "fuel and fertilizer• minerals under a leasing sys-
148 

MINERAL POUCY CENTER 

STATEMENT, IAu&9S, 4 

tern in place of the claim-location regime of the 1872 Mining Law. The 1920 

Act established rates of royalty payments to the Treasury. These rates can be 

changed, or waived, from time to time in Congress's judgment. 

However, when United States minerals pass into state or private ownership the disposal is one-way. The minerals cannot be re-acquired without just 

compensation, nor can the United States change its policy on payment for production, or on proper environmental standards specific to public lands. 

The General Accounting Office has called for reform of the 1872 Mining 

Law for just these reasons: • Although the federal government has never collected revenues from the sale of hardrock minerals ... GAO questions whether the 

government should be precluded forever from doin& ;;o. "[GA0-89, 

emphasis added] H.R.2032 would preclude the United States forever from 

adopting different management policies for the public minerals. 

An Unprecedented Raid 

H.R.2032's total disposal of the public lands is totally unprecedented, so 

far as Mineral Policy Center's research could discover in the limited time available for this hearing. 

There have been proposals to give away the lands owned by the United 

States before. President Hoover, in 1930, proposed to give the remaining unappropriated federal lands to the Western states. However, even Hoover believed 

that the minerals benetUh the /Gilds should remain in United Stoles ownership. 

[Voigt] 

In 1946, Senator Robertson (R-WY) proposed another land disposal 

scheme. Robertson's bill, S. l945, introduced 14 March, 1946, would have 

allowed thirteen Western states to claim more than just Bureau of Land Management areas within their boundaries. The states would also have been empowered to excise lands from National Forests and take them over, and a process for state takeover (with Secretarial acquiescence) of grazing lands in National Parks and Monuments would have been created. 

Robertson's outrageous 1946 bill drew a firestorm of hostile national 

public reaction, and, though Robertson's pany briefly controlled the Congress in 

1947-48, no bill like it was re-introduced. But, shameless as it was, even Robertson' s bill created rules for stole mantlgtmenl of the minerals, and required 

the stales lo coUecl a royally on aU coal, oa, gas, and hardrock minerals produced from the lands. 
149 

MINERAL POUCY CENTER 

STATEMENT, IAu&9S, S 

H.R.2032, more irresponsible than even Robertson's bill, does notrequire the states who would receive United States lands and minerals to manage 

them prudently. Unlike Robertson's 1946 bill, H.R.2032 would allow states to 

sell or give away subsurface minerals (Robertson required that, when lands wete 

sold, the subsurface be reserved, Sec.6(b)). H.R.2032 does not give any direction on how the proceeds from disposal of the United States' lands should be 

spent. 

A Threat.to National Security 

The United States' minerals are important for our national defense, as 

well as for their financial value. Lead reserves were retained, in whole or in 

part, by United States actions in 1785 and 1807.[Carstensen] Concern that the 

U.S. Navy would have adequate fuel supplies led Presidents Roosevelt and Thft 

to withdraw all remaining public-land coal deposits from claims, starting 

1906.[Averitt] The Naval Petroleum Reserves were also set aside to protect the 

national security. 

When United States oil and coal resources were re-opened to private 

enterprise in 1920, a leasing system was adopted so the nation would retain title 

and ultimate control. The courts have upheld the concept that the United States 

as lessor holds rights over the management of leased minerals that it would relinquish if the resources were sold outright. 

H.R.2032 would remove the United States' ability to ensure that the vast 

mineral resources under the national lands will be used · in the national interest in 

case of emergency. Individual states and private parties would wholly control 

the development of these strategic minerals. 

Furthermore, even non-BLM defense reserves would be threatened if the 

management of what are now BLM lands were handed over to states, and eventually to private companies, under H.R.2032. For example, in Wyoming the 

Bureau of Land Management did not lease 25,486 acres for oil development 

because it feared that production from the lands would drain from the adjacent 

Naval Petroleum Reserve.[GA0-81] Disposal of BLM lands would expose the 

Defense Department resources in the Petroleum Reserves to damage. 

Unfair to Non-BLM Landowners 

Since passage of the Agricultural Coal Lands Act of 3 March 1909 the 

United States has reserved rights to coal, and later to all minerals, when patents 
150 

MINERAL POLICY CENTER 

STATEMENT, 1Aug9S, 6 

to public land were granted to private persons. As much as 139,816,000 acres 

of these "split-estate" lands exist around the country.[BLM, table 8] 

Because H.R.2032 disposes of "all lands and interests in lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management to the State in which such lands and 

interests are located" [emphasis added], title to the minerals beneath these splitestate lands will be disposed of to the states, and may eventually pass to private 

parties. The rights of the surface owners are protected by several United States 

statutes so long as the minerals are managed by the United States, but serious 

conflicts will be created if private owners of split-estate mineral rights (obtained 

through H.R.2032) attempt to exercise their property rights. 

Several National Wildlife Refuges contain subsurface minerals which 

BLM administers. Negotiations between the agencies take place to protect wildlife values on the refuges from damage caused by incompatible mineral development. If the subsurface mineral interests are disposed of to states, the Refuge 

system will suffer. 

Administrative Problems With H.R.2032 

H.R.2032 contains many ambiguous statements and instructions. Many 

of these apply specifically to mineral-ownership matters. Because very large 

sums of money are involved, these unclear legislative directions would, if enacted, lead to endless litigation. The uncertainty of title which would result would 

interfere heavily with the orderly development of these mineral resources. This 

interference would impede the economic benefits that the Nation, and the states 

involved, would otherwise expect to enjoy from the historic management of 

these mineral deposits. The provisions regarding property record maintenance, 

and mining claim patenting, are two examples. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, time does not permit a full catalogue of the fiscal foolhardiness, the unfairness to all but a handful of the states, the weakening of our 

national defense, and the threat to private landowners' rights that H.R.2032 

would create. I have attempted to present enough data to demonstrate why this 

proposal should be abandoned. 

This is not merely an unfortunate proposal. It is an inflammatory one. It 

will not help to bring reconciliation and peace to the tensions that make administering the United States lands a difficult and dangerous job for many hardworlc-
151 

MINERAL POUCY CENTER 

STATEMENT, IAu&9S, 7 

ing professionals today. I recommend that this Subcommittee turn, instead, to a 

serious attempt to solve some of the small, real, problems which fester in the 

West, and turn away from the Triple-Trillion Th.keover. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify. My thanks 

also go to Rhonda Williams and Kelly Maroti of my staff who assisted ably with 

the research for this testimony. I would be pleased .to answer any questions you 

or the Subcommittee may have. 

•• •• •• 

Sources: 

The following works provided source material and statistics used in the 

preparation of this testimony; of course, there is a myriad of other pertinent 

writing on this field. 

Averitt, Paul, Coal Resources of the United States, January 1, 1974, U.S. Geological Survey, 1975. 

BLM: "Public Land Statistics 1993," Bureau of Land Management, September, 

1994. 

Carstensen: Carstensen, Vernon, The Public Lands, Studies in the History of the 

Public DomLlin, Wisconsin, 1968, p.xx 

Dewey, Davis R., Financial History of the United States, New York, 1903. 

Dol Budget: "The Interior Budget in Brief, FY 1995, • U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 7Feb1994. 

Dolton, G. L, et al, Estirriates of Undiscovered Conventional Resources of Oil 

and Gas for Federal lands ... , U.S. Geological Survey, 1990. 

EIA: "Coal Data: A Reference," Energy Information Administration, US 

Department of Energy, November 1991. Price data, Table 27. 

GA0-81: • Actions Needed to Increase Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development, • General Accounting Office, EMD-81-40, February, 

1981. 

GA0-89: "The Mining Law of 1872 Needs Revision, • General Accounting 

Office, RCED-89-72, March, 1989. 

GA0-92: "Value of Hardrock Minerals Extracted From and Remaining on Federal Lands, • General Accounting Office, RCED-92-192, August, 1992. 

MPC: Golden Patents, Empty Pockets, Mineral Policy Center, Washington, 

1994. 

NYT: The New lVrk Times, commodity prices for 26 July 1995. 

Voigt: Voigt, William, Jr. , Public Grazing Lands, New Jersey, 1976, p. lOO. 

•• •• •• 

TESTFYOI.AUS 
152 

GIVING BLM LANDS TO THE STATES: 

A WSING PROPOSmON* 

I. INI'RODUCTION 

On July 13, Representative Jim Hansen (R-Ul) introduced H.R. 2032, a bill to transfer 

lands managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to state in which 

they are located. In the Senate, Craig Thomas (R-WY) has introduced identical 

legislation, S. 1031. If enacted, this legislation would represent the most sweeping 

change in federal land ownership since 1867, when the United States bought Alaska 

from Russia. 

Under these proposals, states would have up to ten years to decide whether to accept all 

the BLM lands within their borders. The bills place no restrictions on state management 

and give states virtually free reign to sell or do anything else they want with the 

transferred lands. With the exception of wilderness areas, which would continue to be 

protected, other national assets could be exploited or opened to development. 

Furthermore, neither bill provides compensation to the American taxpayer for the loss of 

revenue from commercial activities, assets, or even the land itself. This paper details 

how transferring BLM land is not in the economic interest of the states, could restrict 

recreational access in the West and would frustrate efforts to maintain the 

environmental sustainability of western lands. 

The Department of the Interior's BLM currently manages some 268 million acres of 

federal public land. Located principally in the eleven western states (including Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, 

Wyoming) and Alaska, BLM lands are characterized by a great diversity of natural and 

scenic resources, including 2,000 miles of designated rivers in the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. Additionally, BLM lands provide habitat for more than 3,000 

species of wildlife and fish. Included in these are 1,000 plant and animal species either 

listed or designated as candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. BLM 

• This analysis was prepared by Robert Dewey who directs Defenders of Wildlife's 

Habitat Conservation Division and Tom Uniack, also of Defenders' Habitat Division. 
153 

also manages its lands to suppon an abundance of recreational activities, including -

wildlife viewing, photography, camping, family picnics, mountain-biking, and hunting and 

fishing. More than 156,000 miles of fishable streams and 6,000 miles of 787 hiking trails 

help attract 65 million recreational visits each year. These activities provide huge direct 

and indirect economic benefits to rural communities. Moreover, BLM management is 

subject to statutory mandates that help assure input for all Americans on how a large 

ponion of America's heritage is managed and preserved for future generations. 

Although far from exhaustive, the analysis in this paper describes four ways in which 

H.R. 2032 is fundamentally flawed: 1) transferring BLM lands is not in the economic 

interest of the stateS; 2) H.R. 2032 is anti-recreation; 3) transferring BLM lands to the 

states could destroy their environmental sustainability and undermine the protection of 

cultural, historic and religious sites; and 4) H.R. 2032 fails to recognize that BLM lands 

are the heritage of all Americans. 

I. TransferriDg BLM lands is not in the economic interest of the states. 

Through activities such as management of lands and resources, range improvements, 

road construction, fire management and fire-fighting, the BLM makes huge annual 

investments in many western states. These investments totaled $875 million in 1994 

alone.' Many of these investments are much more cost-effective for the federal 

government to make than for each state. Moreover, most states are hampered by fiscal 

crisis and balanced budget requirements that will constrain the ability of states to 

manage their lands as effectively as the federal government. 

Below is Defenders of Wildlife's analysis, based on BLM data, of how nine states would 

likely lose a total of $392 million if H.R. 2032 were enacted. 

1 From Public Rewards From Pulilic Lands, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior, August 1995. 

2 
State 

Alaska 

Arizona 

California 

Colorado 

Idaho 

Montana 

Nevada 

Oregon 

Washington 

154 

Economic Consequences to States from H. R. 2032 

(In Millions) 

Federal BLM State 

Collections Investment Economic 

(+)2 (-)' Outlook' 

$7.77 $84.81 $-77.04 

$5.91 $54.34 $-48.44 

$57.32 $74.06 $-16.74 

$79.15 $143.75 $-64.60 

$10.38 $62.5 $-52.12 

$58.84 $41.5 $-32.90 

$39.08 $65.22 $-26.14 

$71.1 $142.1 $-71.00 

$2.06 $5.29 $-3.23 

• All data based on BLM statistics.' 

By Defenders' analysis, only three states might gain from a land transfer. These are: 

New Mexico ($248 million), Utah ($16 million) and Wyoming ($456 million). These 

economic benefits would be reduced, however, if the indirect economic benefits of 

federal ownership described below could be accurately quantified and factored into the 

projections. 

2 This column refers to Federal collections from BLM-Managed lands and minerals 

including grazing fees, recreation use fees, miscellaneous receipts, sales of land materials, 

national grasslands, mining claim holding fees and mineral royalties, rents and bonuses. 

' This column refers to BLM investment in the state including management of lands 

and resources, land acquisition, range improvements, construction and access, fire 

management/fire-fighting, service changes, deposits and forfeitures. Payment-in-lieu-oftaxes have also been included here. The states will lose these revenues unless they sell 

the transferred land to private interests. 

• This column refers to the net estimated economic advantage ( +) or disadvantage 

(-) to each state if H. R. 2032 were enacted. Note that various indirect economic 

benefits of federal ownership are not considered. 

' From Public Rewards From Public Lands, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior, August 1995. 

3 
155 

BLM management of western lands provides many additional indirect economic benefits. 

BLM is a major economic force in many rural communities by employing people and 

purchasing equipment. Data by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic 

Research Service, for example, indicates that rural communities with a public land base 

have annual family incomes some $2,000 higher than rural communities without a public 

land base.• BLM's departure could produce significant economic dislocations in some 

areas. 

BLM management also helps generate substantial recreation-related revenue to western 

states. In fiscal year 1993, there were nearly 2 million visits to BLM administered areas 

in eleven western states.7 In Fiscal1994, there were 65 million recreation visits on BLM 

managed lands with an estimated economic value of $2.38 billion.• Outfitters and 

guides alone provide an estimated $50-$60 million in revenue annually.9 

D. H..R. 2032 is Anti-Recreation. 

As indicated in the introduction, BLM lands support an incredible diversity of 

recreational activities. Given the patchwork of access limitations in the various western 

states -- restrictions which also differ between agencies in the same state -- the public 

could literally be shut out of public lands. 

Access to BLM and other federal lands is currently guaranteed through the "multiple 

use" doctrine imposed by the governing statue, the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Access to state-owned land, however, is less 

certain. Those states which choose to accept BLM lands will likely take one of two 

actions: either manage these new lands as state trust lands or sell them off to private 

interests. 

States often set aside some portion of lands which they manage as trust lands, using the 

revenues to support schools or other public services. Trust lands are often managed in a 

manner to bring about the greatest revenues which can reduce or limit the recreational 

access to these areas. For example, in Arizona, state trust lands are not open to the 

6 Understanding Rural America, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin Number 710. 

7 From Public Land Statistics, 1993, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. 

8 From Public Rewards From Public Lands, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior, August 1995. 

9 From Public Land Statistics, 1993, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. 

4 
156 

public except with written authorization from the State Land Commissioner.•• In 

Idaho, there are some developed recreation areas but grazing and timber are the 

primary uses of state lands." 

Some states may look to a land transfer as a way to capture financial resources by selling 

these lands off to private interests. The land-transfer legislation now before the 

Congress does not prohibit selling off these lands. In the current fiscal climate, states 

have found themselves in a financial struggle. Decreasing budgets, a reduced tax base, 

and balanced budget requirements in most states severely tax their ability to absorb new 

financial responsibilities. Selling off these lands to private interests, real estate 

developers and multi-national corporations would certainly limit access to what is now 

public land and would eliminate some of the last wild and open places in America. 

m. Transferring BLM lands to the states could destroy their environmental 

sustainability and undermine the protection of cultural, historic and religious sites. 

BLM derives primary direction for the management of its lands through the multiple use 

mandate contained in the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. 

According to this statute, 

The term "multiple use" means the management of the public lands and 

their various resource values so that they are utilized in the 

combination ihat will best meet the present and future needs of the 

American people .. . 12 

Further, the FLPMA requires that: 

1. The public lands and their resources are periodically and systematically 

inventoried. -

2. Their management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield. 

3. They be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, 

ecological, and environmental values. 

1

° From Public Rewards From Public Lands, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior, August 1995. 

11 From Public Rewards From Public Lands, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior, August 1995. 

12 See 43 U.S.C. Section 1702 (c). 

5 
157 

Besides conserving natural resources, federal management of BLM lands also protects 

rich archeological, paleontological and historic sites including 22 cultural sites designated 

as National Historic Landmarks and 228 sites listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. For example, in Alaska BLM land in the Brooks Range includes the 11,700 

year-old Mesa site which preserves some of the earliest evidence of human migration to 

North America. 

Transferring BLM lands to states could subject many of these lands to less stringent 

environmental protections or allow them to be sold off by the states to the highest 

bidder. Lands transferred to the states of Idaho, Arizona or New Mexico are especially 

unlikely to be managed in a manner that assures their environmental sustainability. The 

Idaho Constitution requires that the state Board of Land Commissioners manage state 

public lands "in such a manner as will secure maximum long term fmancial return."" 

In the case of Arizona, the State Land Department manages 9.36 million acres of school 

trust land to generate maximum revenue for the school fund 14 In New Mexico, the 

state land trust advisory board is charged with "maintaining the highest standards for 

maximizing the income from the trust assets."" With respect to the sale of school trust 

lands, the Wyoming Constitution directs the board of land commissioners to, "realize the 

largest possible proceeds."16 In selling public lands, the State of Montana must realize 

"full market value."" 

IV. H.R. 2032 fails to recognize that BLM lands are the heritage of all Americans. 

As described above, the applicable management statutes for BLM lands help assure that 

BLM will manage its lands for the benefit of present and future generations. 

Management of these lands by individual states or by private interests almost certainly 

will divest future generations of an important part of their American heritage. 

Equally important is the assurance provided by FLPMA that all Americans are afforded 

a say in how BLM lands are administered. As a statement of policy, FLPMA states that 

the Secretary of the Interior shall, 

13 Idaho Const., art. IX, Section 8. 

14 From Public Rewards From Public Lands, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior, August 1995. 

1

' N.M.S.A. 1978, s 19-1-1.4. 

16 Wy Const. art. 18, Section 3. 

17 Mt Const. Art. X, section 11. 

2D-051 0 - 95 - 6 

6 
158 

be required to establish comprehensive rules and regulations after 

considering the views of the general public; and to structure 

adjudication procedures to assure adequate third party participation, 

objective administrative review of initial decisions, and expeditious 

decision-making18 

V. CONCLUSION 

BLM lands are now managed pursuant to the multiple use mandates contained in the 

Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 and various other federal statutory 

requirements. These federal mandates collectively help assure an effective balance 

between resource utilization and the protection of other values including recreation, 

wildlife, religious and cultural and historic preservation. Once transferred to the states, 

BLM lands would no longer be subject to these important federal laws and would 

instead be subject to state mandates or sold to private interests. State laws often fail to 

provide the basic protections for non-economic values of public lands and, in fact, 

sometimes require that maximum economic return be achieved. In shon, subjecting 

BLM lands to state law, or worse, the whims of private interests, is likely to destroy the 

delicate balance that currently exists in the management of these lands. 

18 43 C.F.R. Section 1701(a)(5). 

7 
159 

Testimony or 

RAY POWELL 

COMMISSIONER OF PUBUC LANDS 

onH.R.2032 

The Proposed Divestiture or the Federal Public Lands 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

or the Natural Resources Committee 

Chairman Jim Hansen 

Tuesday, August 1, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, 

Thank you for allowing me to present this statement to the subcommittee. 

We in New Mexico are truly blessed. We enjoy a multicultural society that is a model of 

cooperation and power sharing for the entire nation. Our legendary blue skies, agreeable climate and 

uncluttered landscape have attracted visiton and new residents for centuries. 

It is the landscape I want to Ialli: about today. 

New Mexico is approximately 34 percent federal land, including national forests, Bureau of 

Land Management land, military bases and national parks. About 12 percent is state trust land, which 

my office administers. Another 10 percent is Indian land. Just under 44 percent of New Mexico is 

privately owned. 

This reasonable mixture has allowed New Mexico to develop healthy urban areas, a solid 

permanent fund for the suppon of public education, and an adequate land base for Native American 

tribes. 

The federal land gives urban residents the opponunity to enjoy nature in substantial numbers. 

It gives rural residents, especially livestock producers, the opportunity to usc large tracts for grazini: 

that they could not otherwise afford to buy. 

But what many New Mexicans consider the greatest aspect of our land ownership structure is 

the ready access to vast amounts of federal land - open for hunting, picnicking, camping, bird-
160 

watching and, in some cases, small-sale resoutee gathering. 

It gives everyone the opportuoity to look outside their windows and sec unspoiled mountains 

and valleys, in which they as federal taxpayers have ownership interest. 

The land is open and IIXeSSI"ble to all. 

In the legislalion be!OM you !Dday, t sec the end of public access, flee or rusonably priced. 

I see the end of all Americans' ability to enjoy tbe dlings that really represent the WesL I see the end 

of the livestock industry as we kDow it !Dday. 

I say that bel::ause a co-sponsor of this lqi.slalion, who is the senior c:on~man from my state 

- Representative Skeen • has made perfedly dar the ullimale goal of this legislation and its special 

interest supporters. I..et me quote to you from a newspaper anicle published in Mr. Skeen • s home-town 

newspaper, The Roswell Record. 

"Turning the federal land over to the SQie would help the state ctQte a laX base in those areas 

when: none exists, Skeen said. The state c:ould auction off portions of the land which are used for 

grazing purposes or oil and ps drilling or mining and collect property la.Xes which could then be used 

to maintain roads in those areas." 

Mr. Chairman, I say to this committee that priVlllizalion is the last thing the people of New 

Mexico want to see happen to the federal public lands. We need only look to our neighbor state of 

Texas to see the teSult: Families 1oolc out of their windows at land they cannot enjoy without paying 

a price. Fewer and smaller areas are desi:nated for general public access. The privilege of hunting 

the public game is much more ~sive. 

The federal public lands contribute greally to the people and the governments of New Mexico. 

The royalties from federal land lllinenl production tot!l nearly S280 million a year, half of which is 

returned to the state's genenl fund. 

Another $10 million is dislributed to counties in the form of payments in lieu of la.Xes, often 

in amounts greater than could be realized through propc:ny la.Xes . 

. With federal impaa aid for education and forest payments, the federal lands already contribute 

well over $300 million to our state. 

Meanwhile, evt:ry Oilier Amc:ricaD has a SlUr; in these lands as well. What federal land income 

is not returned to ~ Mexico supports valuable federal programs, including land purchases for 

national parks. 

People from Washington State to Florida have the right to use and benefit from the nation's 

public lands. 
161 

Loc:ally, lands that were once open to the public for hunting, fishin& and c:amping will 

eventually ;o into private ownership or control by the special interests under the plan laid out by Mr. 

Skeen and his supporters. 

I pose the question, Mr. Chairman: Will a livestock producer who. already is having a hard 

time making a living be able to purchase that 20,000 ~ to which he now has an exclusive grazing 

permit1 

I think not. Once the federal government abandons ownership of the public lands, it will be 

all too tempting for short-sighted stares to balance their budgets through land sales. The buyers will 

be large corporate and institutional investors, rich private individuals and foreign interests. 

This process will inevi!ably drive small family·fanns and 131lches out of business. 

Mr. Chairman, if we allow the federal government to divest itself of this priceless legacy -

our public lands - our children and their children will never forgive us. 

Thank you. 
162 

PUBLIC REWARDS F ROM 

PUBLIC LANDS 

AUGUST 

1 9 9 5 

United Suztes DepArtmmt of tiN Interior 

Th~ B""'IZJI of und Ma!Uignnmt 
163 

P U B L I c REWARDS 

P U B L I c. LAN D S 

At; American citizens consider how to we the considerable resourceo of the nation's public lands, it is important 

that they do so with a full understanding of the value of these 

lands. The enclosed report, Public &wards from Public 

Lands, is a contribution to the discussion of how to best manage these lands for present and future generations. 

America's public lands extend across diverse terrain and 

contain a wide variety of resources. Public &wards from 

Public Lands describes these resourceo, which include energy 

and mineral deposits; rangelands; forests; fish and wildlife 

habitats; and sites of cultural, historic, and recreational 

importance. 

To promote more effective management of these 

resources, BLM has entered into numerous collaborative 

partnerships with State and local governments and others. 

BLM shares revenues with the States from activities on the 

public lands, and provides Counties with payments in lieu of 

property raxes. Public &wards from Public Lands documents 

these revenue transfers. In addition, the report shows the 

extent of the annual BLM investment in each State. 

Public lands have many uses, including enjoyment by all 

Americans of those wide-open spaceo for which the West is 

f.unous. Public &wards from Public Lands shows the number 

of visitors who enjoy the diverse recreational opportunities on 

the public lands, including hunting, mountain-biking, fishing, camping, off-highway vehicle use, photography, and 

f.unily picnics. 

The extraordinary natural resourceo of this country's public lands provide rewards for all Americans. Public &wards 

from Public Lands lets the public know more about the value 

of their resources. 

F R 0 M 

August 1995 
G u I D 

s T A T 

Unless otherwise indicated, .U colJeaions, payments, and appropriation& 

arc for FY94, which runs from October 

I, 1993 to Scpt<mbcr 30, 1994. 

Federal Colleaioao from BIMMmapl Laado aod Mincralc 

Gruing Fm: This category identifies grazing receipt collections autb~ 

rized under the Taylor Grazinc AI::L 

!Ucruti4n 4NI u,. Fm: Thac fus 

arc collected under the authoriry of the 

Land and Water Conservation Act u 

amended. They include cntnnec fus 

to National Conservation Areas; recreation usc fus for campgrounds and opccWiud outdoor rccrca.tion lites. f.acili. 

(ies, equipment, and services; special 

recreation permit f<cs, and Gold ~c 

and Golden Age passport sales. BIM 

retains up ro 15 percent of these revenues to offset the oost of collccti.ng the 

fees. The remainder is available in the 

following year to the Management of 

Lands and Resources appropriation, 

and the appropriated amounu are d.is.-

uibutcd proportionately to the individual sites from which they wen: oollcaed. 

MisctU.n~w &«ipts: These fees 

result primarily from filing fees for 

applicacions for noncompetitive oil and 

gas leases, and from rights-of-way (excluding oil and gas righu-of way) 

and rent of land. This category also 

includes collections from fines. penal- ties, forfcircd money and propeny, u 

wcU as interest charged by BIM. 

S4es of l.Anri •'"' MIIUriA/s: This r;;uegory includes rca:ipu from the sale 

of public land and materials. including 

sales of vegetative and mineral matcri· 

w. Timber n:ccipts arc indudcd h<r<. 

N.tW...J Gross/muir: This category 

includes grazing, oil and gas rcnu, 

bonuses: royalties, and other rcccipu 

derived from activities on National 

Grasslands. 

Minint Cltzim Ho/Jint Fm: Tb- uc annual mainlcn&nce fees and were 

approved by Congress in the Omnibus 

R«onciliation /v:;t of 1993. BIM uses 

collections to administer the program. 

Collections that exceed BIM' • bud&a 

authoriry go to the Tn:asury. If they do 

164 

E T 

E D 

not exceed BLM's budget authority, 

BIM n:cains .U oolleaions. 

Mm-1 h]tJtier. //nus, d- Btmosn: 

This figure rdlccu mineral receipts 

from .U Fodcnl lcaocs. rosudlcss of sur- face ownership or management. 

1\tvmUC$ an: from .U Fodcnl mineral 

leases. including lcaxs liH coal, gootha- mal, oil, and gu. This figure includes 

revenues from oil and ps rights-of-way 

coUcctcd under the Mineral Leasing 

Aa. h also includes n:ccipu from mincrollcasiog on acquired lands, including 

Nacioaal Gnsslands; these rca:ipts arc 

collected by MMS and transferred to 

BIM fur disbwxmcnL 

In addition tO the reaipu identi· 

fled above, the following rcccipu go 

directly into special and tru$( funds 

used by BLM to support a variety of 

activities on public lands. In FY94. collcaionsw~ 

ScrvK:c CJwgcs. Dcpcuits, 

& Fodcirurcs1 • •••••• ••• $9,689,000 

Dcpooia fur R...d 

Maintcoanc:cand 

R=osuuction ....... . $1 ,689,000 

Rtna and Charges 

fur Quanm ..... . .. .... $243,000 

Land and Raouroes 

~t 

Trust Fund ...... .. ... $9.295,000 

Alasb T ownsitc• 

Trust Fund .... .. .... .. .. $2,000 

This acaion identifies paymcnu 

made to the State from collcctions and 

ru:cipu from aaivilies on BLM·man· 

aged Jaod_ This Jeetion also includes 

appropriations made under the 

Paymcna in Lieu ofT axes program. P,_,u ist Lin •f T _, (PIL 1): 

Congras appropriata PILT payments 

annually. and BLM admininen dis~ 

bunemenr to individual counties. 

n-figw<s ..Sect the total PILT for 

aU Fodcnl land in the State. PIJ.. T payments are dctcrmiaed according to a 

formula that includes population, the 

0 

A T A 

amount of Federal land within chc 

county, and offsets for certain FedcraJ 

paymcna to the counry, such as grazing 

and oll and gas fees. 

Gruing Fm: These funds arc the 

ponion of the gr:u.ing receipu shared 

din:cdy with the State. BIM payments 

are either 12.5 percent or 50 percent, 

depending on the statutory authority. 

Payments identified in this category 

include the local share of n:ccipts from 

mincrollcasinc on acquired lands under 

the T aylot Grazing /v;t. Thac figun:s rdlcet payments as of 9/30/94; i.e., II 

months from FY94 plus I month from 

FY93. 

Proctds •f s.ks: This is the portion of n:ccipu from the sale of public 

land and materials, including timber, 

thar is shared with the Swcs. 

N•tiono/ GrtUs/o7Uis: This figure 

rcflcas the payment made directly co 

the State from revenues derived from 

National Gras.slands. These figures 

include allocation of mineral rcce.ipu, 

which at< collected by MMS, but transfern:d to BIM for disbuncmcnt. These 

figures rcllcct payments made in calendar year 1994 for rcccipu collected in 

calendar year 1993. 

MinntdlltryolsUs, //nus, & Btmrmr: 

These figures reflect the ncr disburse· 

mcnt ro the State of mineral receipts 

from Federal leases, including those on 

BLM-managed land. MMS collects 

receipts and makes disbursements. 

Payments arc from revenues derived 

from Federal mineral leases, including 

leases for coal, geothermal, oil, and gas. 

These figures do not rcOcct disbursemenu from leases on acquired lands, 

including National Grasslands, which 

arc included above under "National 

Grasslands." 

BM lnvaunenu in the State: 

n-figw<s represent FY94 funds 

appropriated by Congress for BLMmanagcd programs in each State. They 

do not include the MMS program costs 

for collection of mineral revenues. 

These figures identify appropriated 

funds, unless otherwise indicated. 

M111111gcmmt ofUuuls 4NI &sourm 

(MLR): MLR appropriations fund a 

I Ill rddicion toW. r-k, c-.,_ U ea.lr. --..,.......... M aScnoior a-p. Depc.iu.lt: ·. wbic:h ~ d~ more Nlly in the aqory "BLM 

lrnactna~t dwS..:.." 
variety of programs, including mineral 

leasing programs, initiatives to protect 

wild horses and burros, recreational 

activities, as well as programs ro 

improve land, soil, and water quality. 

Land ktpisition: These fund. are 

ust<l to acquire land and to administer 

exchanges in accordance with the provi~ 

sions of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Aa. 

&mgt lmprDvtments: The lUnge 

Improvement Fund is funded by the 

Federal share of grazing receipts, plus 

the Federal 5hate of mineral receipts 

from leasing on aoqwmllanw. Fund. 

ace used for the construction, purch2.se, 

and development of range improve· 

ments. 

Construction c!r Auess: These 

appropriations fund a variety of pro• 

grams, including the construction of 

rccreadon facilities, roads, and trails. 

Firt Managtmtnt!Firtjighting: 

"Prescribed Fire/Presuppres.sion" shows 

appropriated fund.. ..Firefighting and 

Rehabilitation" shows actual expenditures (these do not include the leave 

surcharge). Only a portion of BLM 

funding for fire programs is identified 

here; BLM provides further funding 

through allocations to other 

Department of Interior agencies and to 

the Secretarial fund. Additionally, 

BLM funds firefighting activities 

through appropriations to the National 

Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, 

and the National Training Center in 

Phoenix, Arizona. 

s~rvic~ Charges, Deposits. 6 

Foifti,m: Tb..,e fund. are wed for 

adrniniruative expenses and other cosa 

relating to public lands, including the 

processing of rights-of-way and other 

applications, and the Adopt-a-HorseProgram. 

In addition to the services identified above, BLM disbursed money from 

the special and trust funds discussed 

above under "Federal CoUeaions from 

BLM-Managed Land. and Minerals." 

In FY94, disbursements were as fOllows: 

Service Charges, Deposits, 

& Forfeinms .. ... . . . . . $10,752,000 

Deposia fur Road 

Ma..inrenanc::e and 

Reconstruction . ....... $2,273,000 

165 

Renu and Charges 

for Quarters . . . .... .. ... $221,000 

Land and Resources 

Management 

Trust Fund .. . ........ $7.409,000 

Alaska T ownsitcs 

Trust Fund . ............. $6,000 

Other lnvcamenu in the State 

Derived in Pan from BLM-Manoged 

Land. and Minerala: 

&c/4mazion F•Ni: These: fund. are 

appropriated annually by Congress; 

these figwes do not include appropriations for Western Area Power 

Administration projects. Funding for 

the Rcdam2cion Fund is derived from 

several sources, including 4:0 pcrc:ent of 

the Federal slwe of mineral reccipu, 76 

percent of the Federal share of timber 

receipts from public and aoquimllanw 

in the .. Reclamation States, "2 75 percent of the revenues from FLPMA land 

sales, and revenue from the sale of 

Power Marketing Administration 

power. In FY94, activities on BLMmanaged land generated the following 

revenues for the Reclamation fund : 

$406 million from royalties on natural 

resources, $1 million from sale of timber and other products, $21 million 

from sale of public dnmain land. 

Allocation of Stare Share of Federal 

Mineral Rocoipu: 

Rocoipu from Fedora~ mineral leases are shared with the State in which 

the leases are located. Many States have 

dedicated expenditures for these 

r<aipts, which are identified in this section. 

Roaeational Aaivity on BLMManap!Lancl: 

BLM-managed lands offer a variety 

of recreational activities, including 

those provided by Wilderness Areas, 

National Conservation Artas, Wdd and 

Scenic Rivers, and Back Country 

Byways. Data on the number of visitors to BLM-managed land in FY94 

comes from BLM's Recre:ationa.l 

Management & Informational SyS[em 

(RMIS). RMIS is a PC-based data base 

for compiling and monitoring key 

recrc:uional management data for the 

BLM. 

3 Recreational data is according 

to administrative state. Some recreational categories include several activities: 

Hunting includes visitor data on 

hunting for big game, small game, 

upland bird, waterfowl, and trapping. 

Phorogr11phy, picnicking. ~u , 

includes visitor data for caving, climbing. environmental education, gathering 

of noncommercial products, hang-gliding, interpretive exhibit viewing, nature 

study, rockhounding, viewing, and 

windsurfing. 

MotorizuJ trllv~l includes visitor 

data for off-highway vehicles (OHVs), 

all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), motorcycling and dune buggy riding, and driving for pleasure on byways. 

Hiking, b«/rp«king, bitycling, ttc., 

includes visitor data for road and 

mountain biCycling, walking! running. 

horseback riding, and pack nips. 

Total Visitor Hours: This figure 

shows the total number of hours spent 

by visirors to BLM-managed land. 

To'llli 'Visits: This figure shows the 

number of people visiting BLM-managed land for recreation. (The number 

of visits differs from the number of participantS becawe people who visit public land may participate in more than 

one activiry.) 

Recreation data is derived from a 

number of different sources, including 

traffic counters, trail registers. visitor 

surveys, State reporu, and highway censwcounts. 

Revenue Generated by Selected 

Recreation Vioits to BLM-Managed 

Land: 

These figures identify the ... timated 

economic value to the administrative 

state generated by hunting and wildlifeassociated recreation visirs to BLMmanaged land.. Data is from Tht 1991 

Nlllional S"rvty of Fishing, Hrmrint•Ni 

WiiJJifo-AnoriauJ &cr~ll.tilln; revenues 

do not include income generated by 

skiing or fishing. 

Wi/Jiifi-Associlli~J Rtculltion: 

Thc:sc include visits for camping. photography, picnicking, observing 

wildlife, ere. 

Huting T ripr. These include visiu 

to hunt deer, elk, waterfowl, and small 

game. 

2 'The -R«..&maDooS....arr lll ofdv.C!COII;~--t.d-ofthc-IOOdt.-ndian: Nonfl Dab>ca. Soudl Dakota. Ndlrab. KaNa., OklaborM. Taaa. Monlana. 

W~it!J. Colorado, Nnr Maico, lcbho, Uah, Atboaa. WtdUapo. Orqoe, N.-fa. aed CaliiOmia. 

3 1M Yili.10r firua lOr FY"' an:'-' becawe ol~cic:J ralddns &om awuitioa 10 a new data mllo:Oon syaan. 
166 

P U B L I c REWARD s F R 0 M 

P U B L I c LANDS 

The BIUCIW ofx-1 Mam&emmt (BLM) is lapOIIsible for managiDc "''''rozi_.jy 270 millioo oaa of 

public land that an owaed by the Amerie&D peopleMOll of thae laods aoe locaud iD the We~~a~~ UMod 

StalCI,1 and are rich iD a.amnl., culnual, md sc:atic 

mources. They ..,....! - a ...n.ty of maio. aod 

..., cbarac=ized by ......awe palaoda. foresu, hi&b 

mountains, uaic: IIIDIIn. aod cDons. BLM odmioiaon 

di..,.. ICIOU1'COI aod ,_ 011 the ouioa'o public laoda, 

iodudiog enav aod ..a-la. limber, liwsmck........, 

fish and wildlife .laabitat, safaic aad recreatioa.al 

- 'lrildemcs- ..... ~ aod bio- coric sites. BLM .....,... ao additional 300 millioo 

acm of oubowfotoe miDo:al rips ._...t by the Fedaol 

govmu>l<lll aod bold iD ...... r.. puhlic beDdit. Our public laods IIOdq .,. what ......U. &om the 

original 1.8 billioa aaa of public clomaill, acq.w.d 

duoup .....,, pun:baR. or CODqUCII by the Federal 

JO'<RIIIICDI OD behalf ci aiJ Amais:aDo- }y & c:DIIditioa 

of enuy 10 the Uaion,-w ....... S..... _.., requin:d 

10 disclaim offic:iaJiy .......... 1ide ... the""'~'~""~" 

ated Fodera~ ...... ftmlliaiGc widlia doeir bouDdarioo .. 

the time of oa<eboocl. Ia ftbiiD for Fri"' up aor clairm, ocwly1clmimd s-.....n.d IIIDd .-&om 

the Fedaol .,_-• port cl docir E.aallliDt; Am-2 

Althoup oome S..... oold them, tbcR oripaal puc 

w.u llill ....... up the majority cl Score ....... iD -

w.....,s...... lD maoapag the public lands, BLM p..r....... a 

wide -..ricty cllimaioas. n-iadadc pcq>otiog laod 

we pluu ud .-iDe ....u...u-aal impo<a; -- ins; iGuiDg !.-; ~ pamit c:oodisiolll; daipiog and coDIUUCiiag road. ud otbc:r im.pnm:meolu; 

and 

ratoriog 

pro...aiag 

dopadal 

lipilicuc 

fish ..... aanaral. wilclife 

cultural, 

babia<; ~ 

aod ..,..._ 

arion ........_ ud -imriD&- ooadicioas. lo 

additioo, BLM maiowDI the oripnal property ud 

cadalcn.l IIU'ftY .-rds cl the Uoitcd StaiCL Bl.M 

....... these.... ,;!,jljrj, wid> ........... public ponicipatioo. aod u. a>ocdiaotioo ..m. FcdcnJ ..,..a... s-. tribal, aod local ......,......a. • ...u .. other alliocud 

io......._ 

Public lands ue port of the oatioD 's bcrir:ap:-ao 

imponaoc lcgocy ioloaiad by the people cl the Uoimd 

Swes. A. public land policies cvotv., ic is imponaoc co 

aploc< fully the sigoificaocc of chcoc lands, aod their 

coaaibwioo to the couoay today. The pwposc of this 

"'f''it is to cumioc: some of the public bcnefia daiwd 

&om puhlic owocrsbip of tbc lands and their reoourca, 

and 10 cootribur< IX> our uodemaodinc of how publk 

lands meet the oceds of pi<ICilt aod future generatioos 

cl Amcricaos. 

From the nation's earliest days, Conpess recog· 

aa.d dw the public domain - a Dational -. and 

110011 it 10 punu< public policy goals. Foe more thao a 

oeoruzy, public lands _. disposed of tbroush a series 

cllegislaiM ioiDaa.a as pan: of a Fede<al dl'on: 10 pro-

- omlemcot of the W<at. These ioiDaa.a iodudecl 

militaly bowuics; pua for the collltniCtioo of wagoo 

ro.ds, caoaJs. and nilroods; the Homesteading Laws; the 

Mioiog Law of 1872; the Daen: Uoc!Aa of1877; aod 

the Timber and Stooe Aa of 1878. Of the origioal 

public domain, the pvernment gave away or sold 

.t-~ m s ..... aod m priv:ar< citizcas. The 

Gcaonl Lmd Ofticc, aablisbod by eo..,.. iD 1812 IX> 

........, the diopositioa of Fedaolland, ..... the forebearcr of coday's BLM, maltiog BLM the oldest of the 

o.par-t of the loraior'slaod maoapmeot agencies. 

The late 19th oeoruzy marlrod a aiUft in Fockral 

land .............. t prioritiea. eo..,.. aaiOd the first 

National Foraa io the Pacific Non:bwcot to protect 

them &om the F.rc of ~ forcsa. which bad been 

daaoded by 1lDI<gUiatcd logiDa. A. the same time. the 

JOftfDIDCDt carablishod the lim Natiooal Pub aod 

Wildlife RdUp. Br withdnwiac chcoc lands. eo._ 

sipaJod a aiUft iD the policy goals .....d. by public land. 

lmtad of usiDg them 10 promote aettlcmeot, Coograa 

reoopized dw - of them shoUld be hdd iD public 

.....-hip bcc:ause they had other raourcc values. 

1o the culy 20th ccorury, eo..,_ cook additiooal 

""P' ........t ~the value of the aaea on public lands. The Mio<nll.asiog Aa of 1920 provided for 

lasiog. aplorarioo, aocl productioo of odcaed commodities, iDdudiog coal, oil, gas, and sodium. This 

emuml dw the ~t ....mcd cooaol of impor10111 CIICIIf - nthcr thao permitting thao 10 pas1 

io10 priv:ar< owocrsbip. When ovagnzing W......ed ro 

I 11w ...;ori1r fli ...... ._..-: ...... ill d. 12 ,_ s- AWatr, ~ ~ ~ W... w-a., Ncw.da. Mew MaicD. o..p., lh& ... _ ... ..._ 1 c..&forail; ................... ., .......... s.-. ..... ...-_....,... ..................... ..._.. 
167 

PUBLIC REWARDS FROM 

reduce Western rangelands to a dustbowl in the 1930's, 

Congress approved the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 

which rcgulared grazing on the public lands throush the 

we of pennia. 

Public appreciation of the value of public lands 

continued to grow. In 1964, Congress esabllabed the 

Public Land Law ~ Commission to malu: recommendations on how the public lands should be managed. This bipartisan effon resulted in a publuhed 

report in 1970, 0,.. Thin/ •f* N.uUJns LturJ, which 

t<COmmended that: 

The policy of la!ge-scale dUposal of public lands ... 

be revu.d and that future dUposal ahould be of 

only those lands that will achieve maximum bcocfit 

for the general public in non-Federal ownership, 

while r=ining in Federal ownership those [lands] 

whose values must be p.....ved so that they may be 

used and enjoyed by all Americans .... 

Congress tesponded to the ComrnWion's n:port by 

approving the Federal Land Policy and Management ltD. 

in 1976. Section 102(a)(l) implemented the 

Commission's major policy n:commendation by declaring it the policy of the United StateS that, 

... the public lands be n:tained in Federal ownerahip, unless as a t<Sult of the land use planning procedun: provided for in thU ltD., it is cletamined that 

dUposal of a particular pa=1 will serve the national 

interest .... 

With passage of FLPMA. Congress also repealed 

many of the land dUposallaws enacr<d sinee the mid19th century. One of the most important features of 

FLPMA is the requirement that BLM manage public 

lands fot "multiple use:" 

The t<rm "multiple use" mearu the management of 

the public lands and their various n:soura: values so 

dw: they arc utili:zecl i.n the combinacioo that will 

best meet the present and future needs of the 

American people .... 

How Our Pablic Lands .,. Uaed 

Use of the public lands has changed over time, and 

continues to evolve. Originally viewed as the Great 

American Desert, then primarily as a source of livestock 

forage. timber. and energy and mineral resources, 

inereasingly the public lands are valued for their environmenal n:sources, the n:creational opportunities they 

offer, the cultural resources they contain, and, in an 

increasingly W'ba.n world, their vast open spaces. 

FLPMA's multiple-U5e mandate bu enabled BLM to 

manage the public lands to meet these changing needs. 

In the 1960's, publication of Rachel Carson's Si/nu 

Sprint prompr<d Americans to cake a new look at their 

surroundings and launched the c.nvironmcntal move· 

ment. In 1969, Congress approved the National 

Environmenal Policy Aa, which required Federal agencies to document the environmenal effu:ts of proposed 

development. Congress bas passed several other statuteS 

providing fot the care of the land and its n:sowt:cs. The 

Endangered Speci .. Aa, the CL:an Water Act, the Ckan 

AU Aa, the R<sourc:e Conserwtion and Rocov<l}' Aa, 

the Wilderness Aa, the Wild and Scenic Riv<n ltD., the 

National Historic Preservation Aa, and othes legislation 

aU rd1cct. the country's resolve to protect noncommod.ity 

rcsowccs auch as wildlife, fisheries, clean water, and siteS 

of culrural significaoce. 

One of the mor~ recent demands on the public 

landJ has come from the desire for more recreation 

opportunities. In 1994, there wu. more than 65 million recn:ation visia to BLM-managed lands for hunting. 6ahing. camping. hilting, and othes leisure activities. 

These ,..,e provided by a vari<ty of apecially-<leaignated 

land, including Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildernos.s 

Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and 

Back Counuy Byways. A. the number of visitors to 

Federal lands inqeases, BLM-managed lands help meet 

oome of the demands that populas National Parla and 

National Foresu an: unable to sawfy. 

Vwrors are drawn also m BLM-managed lands by 

archeological, historic, and paleontological sita; together these form one of the most important bodies of cuirural and scientific n:sourc:es in the United States. They 

include the 11,700-year-old Mesa site in the Broola 

Range, Alaska. which preocrves tome of the earliest evidence of human migration to the North American continent, and the prehistoric Arwazi complex that extends 

across portions of Utah, Arizona, and Colorado. Public 

lands also hold historic sites dating fiom mon: recent 

periods, including the remains of Spaniah aploration in 

the Southwest, and portions of the original trails used by 

omlers moving westWard. Additionally, BLM hdps pre-
168 

PUBLIC LAN D S 

serve significant Natiw: Americaa relipous aices and 

resources rdating m me histoty of ranching. nUning. 

railioadiog. and~ 

TM 270 miDioa :aaa adminismed by BLM are me moot ccoJosically diftne !oDds "'"""""' by any Fcdcnl 

agency, wim ""-p1om and mimal c:ommu.aitics J'IJI8iDI from tho - commoa m tho m""' eodan- ga<d. The ..nat taniD and lmclocope pr<Mde habitat 

for CMt .:1.000 North Amaian fish and wildlife opeci<s. 

inc!wlillg maAT his so- ODimols md fish tpeeics that 

are imporant Q) me oport lisbiac iDdway. They abo 

provide babiur auciolliw me f'IOII'Ciioo md ........., of 

cm:r 1,000 plmt and mimal tpeeics cidler u-1 or=-

didata for 1is<iaJ ua<la- me Elldaapml Species I= 

BLM is allo pwoui11s a ..nay ciiairiaiva m help pccoatt 

sp«ia liom beiaslilad aa m-...1 or~ 

Oue of me - impan:ult mots use! by BLM m 

meet cbaapag pul>lie clemmds is lmd c:zdwlp. For 

....,pie, a laod a.c:baDF helped creatt tbe Sao Pedro 

Riparian NaDcmal c-..Don Ara ia Arizoaa, wiUch 

atttacu ruima from alloou me -deL By ttadiag lmd 

of high coJIIIIIacial nlue ill me Pbocaix mottopolitm 

area for lmd oo me Sao Pedro Riwr, BLM is meetiac 

public CODiaftlioa Deed. while bclpiag prcmdc loal 

economic beodics. 

BLM .,_ bolmce ......, clcmaDdo oo pul>lie lmd 

wim more uaditioaal ,_ iDcludias OOIIIIIIOdity c:unction and puiDs. BLM-manapllaoda cocain 12.5 

trillion cubic f<ct of pnm:n natural pa .._..., md 

about L-6 billioo barrels of pro•cn oil reserves. 

App~ onHbinl elmo nazioo'• supply of coal is 

found nn pul>lie lands, and ..,.W.. from cool, oil, pa. 

and oobor mjpcab pcnsc income for the ""'1"'1<'· 

The atiDw<d value ci fimue ooyaltia ci Fedcr.a1 oil is 

$16.42 billion, pa rap1tica arc -rm .,_ $11.31 billion, and rap1tica .., coal .....- are valued ar appmzimatcly $5.44 bi1lioo. 

In the !at 3 .,...., oil and polcaling bas inacasal 

siplicaDdy oa BLM-ID&IIII"i lmda. Public laoda now 

hold more man 63.000 prodw:iDg wdls-an incraoK of 

30 percent from 1985. Fedcnl ..... uDder oompctitivc 1casinJ has ina.-! m 39 million acres, and bonus 

bi<ls and applicuialll for pamirs m drill him: both rileD. 

1nrcnsmo aplorarion is und<rway on public lands in 

soulhwat Wyomirls. w1ocre iadusay projccu mar lhcrc 

will be bccwccn 6,000 and 11,000 new wclls by the year 

2015. 

Every year, thousands of individuals and companies 

apply m BLM m obtain a fisht-of-way gru>t to usc public bod for projects such as roads, pipelines, rransmission lioa, and communication sita. Many of these 

npu-of-way provide for me basic infrastruaw. of our 

society, meeting the n...U of local cities, to,.,.., and 

commu.aitics. 1Dc ""'"' dramatic example is me Tta!UAiuka Pipeline authorized in 1974. The 800-mile 

pipdlne dcliV<rs about 2 million barrel& of crude oil 

daily from its soura: ar Prudhoe Bay ro me icc-&cc port 

ofValdca. 

GlUing is anolhct important activity oc:auring on 

BLM-manaplland.; domatic livestoCk gnu about 

170 millioa aaa of public rmgdands. A sipificant 

portion of me feeder cartle produced for the Watcm 

fccdloa spcad part of lhcir IM:s on public ro.ngdands. 

md about 50 perccot of m. Iambs produced ia me u.s. arc rsiscd on public rsngc1and. Altboup me condition 

of the uplaod range impro...d signific:antly following 

pasage of me Taylor GlUing Aa. riparian arcu continue to be scvcrdy dcgradcd. The Department of the 

Interior's new grazing regulations will imptOV< conditiom ia riparian .,_ which support 50 pcra:nt of the 

biodivasity found on public rsngc1and. These cqulatiom provide mother aarnple of the collabonrive dccilioo-making procas employed by BLM. 

BLM bas a variety of prognms to protect public 

bcallh, safety, and propeety. Fire maJrJP<nt is one of 

BLM's most importmt rcoponsibilitieo-ia FY95, BLM 

will ~ approltimatdy $236 million on fire proteCtion. Another critical BLM role iJ ro inventory and 

dean up contatninana present on public lands, including abancloaod mine li..._ baaardous -. uncsplodcd 

onlnanoe, and impropctly apped oil and pa wdls. 

Retaaco .... ~ Bendia 

from Oar Public Laads 

BLM collcca fca tiom many of me activities thar 

take plaa: on public lands; in FY94, revenues totaled 

mo~ thm $1 .2 billiol!.' Through a variety of mc:cbanisms,l these receipts ue shared between the U.S. 

T rcuury md me public laoda Staas. 

l,......_ .. .., .............. ,_ • ....-.,,...uo..,.,_.._~ .• .,o..--•w.--..£-.-.r~FucL. 

4 nu.&prt..._, •.• .._ • .....,_..-..,........._,...._ • ..----, • ........-.llllllllsJ17...ar-&omCID8ecDoaam-Oihcr ~-,..._.._....._.,.....,.,....,_...,..._....._ ... (U.S.Dq.r.catelcbel..-JudrJ..-..-..FD6acp. l•l). 
Some of these receipts are mumed directly to the 

States through stacutoty receipt sharing requirements. 

For c:r:ample, public domain mineral ~pu arc: $harcd 

equally with the States.' The State often allocates these 

revenues for specific pwpoaes, such as education and 

uansportacion. 

Sometimes, the States beodit indirectly ftom the 

revenues generated by BLM-manged lands and minerals. 

In the cue: of mineral receipts, 40 pereeot of the Fedenl 

share goes to the R.eclamarion Fund, wbieh is recumed 

to the States through the appropriation for the Bureau 

of R.eclamarion. 

Counties where public lands art located benefit 

from the Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) 

Ptogtam, which compensates local juri<dictions for loss 

of property taX r=uea. PILT paymeoo (approximately S10jl million annually) are determined according to a 

formula shar includes populacion, the amount of Federal 

land within the county, and ol!sea for eertain Federal 

paymen1S to the county. BLM admini.ncn PILT payments for all Federal land, n:gardkas of ownenhip. 

Public lands maD: both social and economic conaibutions to the communities where they are located. 

Public lands help maintain open spa« in an increasingly 

urbani<ed West, and provide signili<:ant local economic 

benefit. Data compiled by the Economic Re.earch 

Service demonstratea the positive relationship betWeen 

the public land base and State economic activity. 

Annual fmWy income in cural countiea with public land 

is approximately $2.000 higher than income in thoJC 

rural counties without a public land base_' 

The ...ned uaea ofBLM-manaeod lands, &om commodity e:maaioa to recreation, all promote local economic p>wtb. For eaample. the Sapx>o<b Draw Unit 

narural gu field in IOUthweat Wyoming will produce 

submntial menuea for State, County, and local governmenu, u well u for local school diraica. The ....,cure 

s taAW:a.•s-..-.JOpacaac.ol ............ 

169 

is projected to generate over $37 million in ad valorem 

taXeS, $30 million in severance taxes, and $71 million 

ftom Federal royalties and rentals ftom producing wells. 7 

Recreational opportunities on BLM-managed land 

provide another =mple of the indirect benefits generated by Federal invcsaneoL As part of its il«m#iqn 2000 

initiuive, BLM lw been working to inac:ase economic 

opportunities for local communities. Nearly 70 percent 

of all travel to Western States i.s plea.surc-rdated. Deer 

hunting in the Western U.S.··the majority of which 

occws on public land-generara $729 million in retail 

sales, conaiburcs $411 million in salaries and woges, and 

provides 21,000 jobs annually. State governments benefit ftom the $40 million in sales taXCS and $18 million in 

State income taXes. 1 OuditteiS and guidea provide an 

estimated sso .. $60 million in revenue tO the Western 

States annually, a large part of wbieh ames from activities on BLM-managed lands.' 

Conclusicm 

u,. of the public lands has changed, and continuea 

to change. Americans are placing greater and more varied demands on them than ever before. BLM's multipleuse manda.ce enable~ the agency to balance these 

demands, and to provide both tangible and intangible 

rewards to all Americans. Theae include revenues for 

the T=swy, divezsc rccteational opportunities, and, in 

an increasingly wbaniud West, wide open •pacea. 

As the present generation of Americans considers 

optiom for the future ~t of theae lands, it i.s 

important shar they do so with a full undemanding of 

this unique legacy. Americans have inherited this 

reaouroe, and they have the opportunity to pas it on to 

fUture geDeratiom. In the current debate over land 

management policies, it is imponant that we do not 

foreclooe our optiom for the furure. 

l5 ~lbM~U.S.n.,.-aE~~a-cb~Apiallaanl~BaleaaNGIIIba-7JD. 7 T--•~O.WUIIitDalt .......... r..p.ccs.--.~Couary,WJ'IIIZiiai;U S.DI:panmemofdaeiA.ior ,.._olt.dw...-, ... .....,,_,.,..,..._ ..... ._.._ ..... ,m. 1 o.a. ... ......_ '-nr.._..-,_tfo-.JaliMMr•• •--u.~MarioF. Ta.&&:.,.I.SowMrict.SDalbwick~ 

',...,,_._"'"u.s.,__. .... ._-.."""'...._ 
170 

BLM-MANAGED LANDS' 

Mona.aa 

8.08 million aau 

Wyomiltc 

-~--L--,_._j 18.4 million aaa 

Surface Aaeage of Land 

Managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management: 

270 million acres. 

Ucah 

22.15 

million a= 

Colorado 

8.31 million acres 

NcwMaiclo 

12.89 

million acres 

Deparanent of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 C Sueec, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 
171 

B L M M A N A G E D 

Federal Collections &om BlM-Managed Land.t and 

Minerals: 

Grazing Fees 

Recreation & Use Fees 

Miscdlaneous Receipts 

Sale of Land and Materiili 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

National Grasslands 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

Direct BlM Fmancial Truufen: 

Payment in Lieu ofTaus (Pn.n 

Grazing Fees 

Proceeds of Sales 

National Grassland.t 

Nevada Land Sales 

Oregon and California Grant Land.t 

Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

BLM ln>atmenta: 

Management of Land.t & Resources 

Land Acquisition 

Range Improvements 

Construction and Aa:as 

Fire Management/Firefighting' 

Prescribed Fire/Presuppression 

Firefighting and Rehabilitation 

Service Charges, Deposits, & Forfeirures 

TOTAL 

18,817,000 

2,062,000 

10,591,000 

79,371,0001 

31,404,000 

1,709,000 

1,129.376,000 

$1,273.330,000 

99,333,000 

3,245,000 

780,000 

537,000 

288,000 

97,642,000 

625,000 

523,183,000 

$725,633,000 

599,860,000 

12,122,000 

10,025,000 

10,467,000 

117,143,000 

116,674,000 

9,690,000 

$875,981,000 

Other ln>atments DerMd in Part &om BLM-Managed 

Lands and Minerals: 

Reclamation Fund . $813.377,000 

L A N D S 

l S70.714'-.dM:_.ofa.bcrudSI.657 '-adlc 

..&eofbad.&lld.odl.r---

3 n-&pa iadu.k.,....._.IOr BlM•~ Dooc-~el- -nor'• ,.,......r-1. ,.e.a a ....p..,.BI.Jo(baDOOI..,O.. 
172 

Estimated Value of Future Royalty Receipts:' 

Oil 

Gas 

Coal 

$16.42 biUion 

$11.31 billion 

$5.44 billion 

FY94 Rea<:atioaal Aaivity ..... BLM-Maa.ogeol Laad: 

Activity Participants 

Camping 9,138,000 

Fishing !§§%§§ 4,590,000 

Hunting 5,340,000 

Photography, Picnicking. cu:. 22,824,000 

Swimming &: Water Skiing 3,555,000 

Boating 6,479,000 

Motorized Travei 1.-!;~:· .. ~~J 16,035,000 

WinterSpo~ 1,092,000 

Hiking. Backpadcing. Bicycling. etc. 1-- ! ,' :- ~ ~ ' l 10,144,000 

1.-!;~:· .. ~~J 

1-- ! ,':-~ ~ ' l 

~ 

TOTAL RECREATION VISITS 65 million 

1994 

Hours 

199,405,000 

21,226,000 

50,126,000 

56.162,000 

7,554,000 

33,272,000 

64,095,000 

5,872,000 

44,639,000 

Puticipana Tor:al Vuitor Houn 482 million 

Estimated Economic Value of Selcc:ted R=arion 

Visits to BLM-Managcd Land: 

Wtldlife-Associated Rt:acarion 

Hunting Trips 

$680 million 

$1.7 billion 

of 'I1terc ftpra- c:a&aa&..d. '-od oe. Is-,_..,_.. ol~..d:ropkyi'CICIC:ipa....d.._or 

-.....t Fcdaal mi-.1 ,......,. 
173 

Reaeation Fcatwes and Opportunities on BLM-Managed Lands: 

• 2,000 miles of 33 designated rivers in 5 States in the National Wud and 

Scenic River System 

• 2,500 miles of9 National Historic Trails 

• 500 miles of 2 National Scenic Trails 

• 1.7 million aaes in 68 National W'udem= ~ 743 study areas 

(23 million a=s) 

• 14 million aaes in 8 National Conservation Ateas 

• 65,000 a=s in the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area in 

Califurnia 

• 80 acres in National OutStanding Narur.al Area (Yaquina Head. OR) 

• 22 cultural sites designated as National Historic Landmarks; 228 sites 

are listed on the Nalional Register of Hist6.ric Places; 5 sites have been 

designated as World Heritage properties 

• 43 National Natural Landmarks (600,000 a=s) 

• 2,381 day use and 16,698 f.unily camp units on 50,000 acres 

• 908 developed and 3,047 undeveloped recreation sires 

• 355 special and 161 c:nen.sive teereation management areas 

• 56 visitor cenrers 

• 21 concessions 

• 8 long-rerm visitor areas 

• 300 watchable wildlife viewing· sites 

• 3,000 miles of 62 designated National Back Country Byways in 

11 States 

• 65,000 miles of roads suitable for highway vehicles; thousands of miles 

of back country a= • 90.8 million acres open to off-highway vehicular use 

• 54.4 million acres open to limited off-highway vehicular use 

• 4.1 million a= of lakes and reservoirs; 24 million a=s of riparian 

wetlands 

156,000 miles of fishable sueams and 183,000 miles of riparian sueams 

• 9,500 miles of floatable rivers along 746 river segments and 533 boating access points 

• 350 miles of21 National Recreation Trails 

• 6,000 miles of787 ~ uails and 5,200 miles of617 equestrian trails 

• 19,000 miles of motorized vehicle trails 

• 897 recorded caves and cave systems 

• 

MISSION 

The BIIIU# oflAnJ M~~N~gtmmt srmtzins the hellilh, 

tliversity, muJ prvduaiuity of the public latuis for the use 

muJ mjoyment of p~t muJ foturr gmmllwns. 
174 

ALASKA 

- BLM-Managed Lands 0 BLM State Office Locations 

0 BLM Distria Office Locations 

Major Highways 

Surface Acreage of Land 

Managed by the 

Bureau of land Managcmcnc 

88.86 million aaes. 

Alaska State Offia: 

222 West 7th Avenue, #13 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7599 
175 

A L A s K A 

BlM-managed public lands (88.86 million acres) ate 

located throughout Alaska and are characterized by forested 

hills, small mountain ranges, and arctic tundra. The largest 

contiguous block of public lands is the National Petroleum 

Reserve in Alaska (NPRA),' a 23-million-acre =a on the 

North Slope that is about the size oflndiana. Here, 50,000 

lakes provide habitat for millions of nesting birds because the 

pcrma&ost p=ena water from draining. 

BlM-managed lands on Alaska's North Slope ate 

thought tO contain about 6 billion bands of oil, and more 

than half the bituminous coal in the United States. BlMAiaska manages 952 miles of the National Wdd and Scenic 

Rivas System (about 10 percent of the entire system), a 

Natiooal Conservation Aica, a National Recreation Aica, and 

227 miles of the National Trails System. Recent archaeological discoveries on public lands, including the 11,700 -yearold Mesa me in the Brooks Range, have contributed to our 

knowledge of human migrations to the Western Hemisphere. 

BlM-Aiaska cooperateS with State and other Federal 

agencies in managing these lands. For example, nine federal 

and stan: agencies ate involved in the development, management, and operation of four Alaska Public Lands Information 

CenterS. These centers ate open yeu-round, and provide 

one-m.p shopping for visitors wishing to lcam more about 

the recreational and resource values of public lands. BlMAiaska is pursuing other collaborative land management practices, including a project with Dudu Unli71UuJ, to develop a 

more oost-df.ctive land and habiw inventory, which uses 

computers ro analyze data collected by satellite. 

By comparison, there ate approximately 88.17 m!llion 

acres of land owned and managed by the State of Alaska. 

Beginning in 1978, Alaska combined revenues from most 

Swe lands inro one fund, and earmarked a percentage to 

finance schools. Revenues from some State lands (including 

the University Lands Trust and the Mental Health Lands 

Trust) are dedicated specifically to education. Generally, the 

State of Alaska managcs State lands for multiple use, but they 

have special designations for =as with high resource values, 

such as State parks or critical wildlife habitat =as. Most 

State lands ate available for recreation. 

I Ct..:d ia 1913 co hdp ~die DMion't 

parolcwD-. &II N'PRA '-l!.&t"C loataiacr apindOI'b.a~ Today. dlc.-neJI'V"'ida; 

...u.ble~WH.~mipllofy.....m.l.cl 

~--'I IOt chcpotQ~pitw.c:riao.llwtd. 
176 

Federal Collections from BIM-Managed Lands 

and Minerals: 

Recreation & Use Fees 

Miscellaneow Receipts 

Sale of Land and Material. 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

Mineral Royalties, Rena, & Bonuses2 

TOTAL 

Direct BIM Fmancial Trans&rs to Alaska: 

Payment in Lieu ofT axes (PILT) 

Proceeds of Sales 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

BIM ln..-ment in Alaska: 

Management of lands and Resources 

Land Acquisition 

Construction & Aa.as 

Fue Management!Fircfighting 

Prescribed Fue/Presuppression 

Fudighting and Rehabiliration 

Service Charges, Deposits, & Fomirures 

TOTAL 

Allo<:ation of .Aiuka Share of Federal Mineral 

Receipt R.m:nues: 

No earmarking of funds. 

57,000 

286,000 

127,000 

960,000 

6,335,000 

$7,765,000 

4,886,000 

6,000 

5.377,000 

$10,269,000 

52,163,000 

20,000 

1.356,000 

16,226,000 

9,600 

555,000 

$70.329,600 

1994 

2 n-..... _iecWr ............... ....... ..._._ __ _.___,.._ .. ....... FYtt 
177 

Reaatioaal Aahity on BLM-Managed Land: 

Aamty Participants Hours 

Camping 1- !,•; ~· j 34.000 1---',':,' ~ · j 794,000 

FIShing 6.000 21,000 

Hunting ~ 27.000 ~ 195,000 

Photography, Picnicking. etc. 201,000 288,000 

Boaring 2,000 69,000 

Motoriu>d Travel 46,000 103,000 

Wmw:Spons l..o;~:· .. ~~l 19,000 1.""!1 ~ .. ~~ l 288,000 

Hiking. Baclqiacking. Bicycling. etc. 49.000 140,000 

TOTAL ALASKA VISITS 178,000 

Participana Toal Vllitor Houn 1,898,000 

Eatiawcd Economic Value to Alaaka of Sdectcd 

Reaarloli Vuits to BLM-Managed Land: 

Wddlife-Associated Recreation 

Hunting Trips 

$25,906,000 . 

nla' 3 NCK•'IIiW!k. ne-pac•-~-_.. fW utiiCQinlt..a..-. 

• 

MISSION 

TIN B..,_ of Lznd M4Ntgemnu nutllins the hukh, 

Jiwnity, 111111 prtN/tlaivily of the publie l4tuls for 1M,_ 

111111 mjoymnrt of presmt 111111 future gmerllliDru. 
178 

ARIZONA 

- BLM-Managed Lands 0 BLM State Office Locations 

0 BLM District Office Locations 

Major Highways 

Surface Acreage of Land 

Managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management: 

14.26 million acres. 

Arizona State Office 

3707 North 7th Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85014-5080 
179 

A R I z 0 N 

BLM-managed lands (14.26 million acres) arc found 

throughout Arizona, with the greateSt concentration in the 

northwestern comer and the cenaal-westcrn corridor of the 

State. They c:ncnd across four major descra: the 

Chihuahuan, Soootan, Mohave, and Grmt Basin Dcscns. 

Public lands also include pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine 

forest, as wdl as small amounts of riparian/wetland habitat. 

Some of the nation's best preserved prdllstoric and historic sites arc found on Arizona's public lands. These include 

mammoth kill sites, remnants of a Spanish miliwy fort, and 

Indian dwellings OYer 1,000 y=s old. There arc also 47 

Wtldcrncss Areas, 2 Riparian National Conservation Mcas 

(RNCA), and 16 concessions along the Colorado River, 

which provide full..scrvic:c campgrounds and aailcr and =reo 

ational vehicle parks. The San Pedro RNCA. provides one of 

the best czamplcs of a fimaioning riparian arm in the desert 

southwm. Another popular attncrion on Arizona's public 

lands is the annual SCORE 400 off-highway vehicle race. 

Arizona's public lands arc visited by more than double the 

number of people who visit the Gtand Canyon each year. 

BLM-Arizona has cnmed into a number of collaborative 

agreements to improve the management of the public lands. 

BLM worb with the State Land Dcpamncnt to manage grazing allotments wbcrc ownership is intermingled. The agency 

has joined with the Arizona Game and FJSb Department to 

proJDOU: a number of wildlife projects, including the Lake 

Havasu FJSbcrics Improvement Program. 

Additionally. BLM-Arizona has inaeased partnerships by 

adopting an in=disciplinary management process, which 

brio&' ouaidc interests into the planning process, and eliminates the aeed Cot multiple plans for a single area. For example, the Black Mountain Inwdisc:iplinary Team has brought 

together sporamcn, representatives from the livestock industry. wilderness poups. and organizuions for the proteCtion of· 

bighorn sheep and wild bwros to collaborate on an enVironmental plan and usessmcnt for the Blaclt Mountain 

Ealsysmn. 

By comparison, there arc I 0.3 million acres of land 

owned by the State of Arizona. The Stare Land Department 

manages 9.36 million aaa of school aust land to generate 

maximum revenue lOr the school fund. Although mining. 

A 
180 

grazing, agriculrural, and commercial leasing all take place on 

State lands, the State is not required to manage the lands for 

multiple use. Swe uust lands are not open to the public 

except with written authorization of the Stare Land 

Commissioner. However, hunting and fishing are permitted 

on designated State trust land with a valid license from the 

Arizona-G2me-.md Fislr Deparmrertt. The Jem2ining ·St=-

land is managed by the Arizona Game and FISh Department 

and the Departments of Adniinistration and Transportation. 

Arizona State Parks manages a limited recreational program 

with a very small land base. However, recreational use occurs 

in the parks year-round. 

Federal CollectiotU &om BLM-Managed Lands 

and Minerals: 

Grazing Fees 

Recreation & Use Fees 

Miscellaneous Receipts 

Sale of Land and Materials 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

Direct BLM Fmancial Transfers to Arizona: 

Payment in Lieu ofT axes (PILn 

Grazing Fees 

Proceeds of Sales 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

BLM Investments in Arizona: 

Management of Lands & Resources 

Land Acquisition 

Range Improvements 

Construction and Ac.ccss 

F~re Management/Fudighting 

Prescribed Fire /Presuppression 

Fudighring and Rehabilitation 

Service: Clwges, Deposits, &: ForfeitureS 

TOTAL 

996,000 

286,0001 

840,000 

837,000 

2,803,000 

148,000 

$5,910,000 

8,580,000 

228,000 

31,000 

94.000 

$8,933,000 

37.o49.000 

1,853,000 

602,000 

302,000 

1,495,000 

4,070,000 

397,000 

$45,768,000 

1994 

.. .-..... .. ...... o..o... ...... ... ......_ 

~-...... 1 ~ft¥111-&omll..M~wtaa -*ISI, ,OOOiaFYM. 
181 

Other Investments in Arizona Derived in Part from BLM-Managcd Lands ~d Minerals: 

Reclamation Fund $139,617,000 

Allocation of Arizona Share of Federal Mineral R«eipt Rewnues: 

General Revenue 100% 

FY94 R=ational Activity on BLM-Managed Land 

Activity Participants Hours 

Camping 

Fishing 

Hunting 

, .' ,' :' ' ~ ' 1 2,636,000 ,~, ,' ,' : ' ' :: ' 1 82,988,000 

Photography, Picnicking. etc. 

Swimming & Water Skiing 

Boating 

Motorized Travd 

Wmtcr Sports (docs not appear on charts) 

Hiking. Backpacking. Bicycling. etc. •••• 

1,000 

7 10,000 

TOTAL ARIZONA VISITS 4,722,000 

1,089,000 

2,252,000 

6,735,000 

3,044,000 

5.498,000 

3,000 

5,122,000 

Partic:iponu Total Vnitor Hows 113,566,000 . 

Estimab:d Economic Value to Arizona of Selected 

ReaealiOsi Vuiu to BLM-Managed land: 

Wddli&-Associated R«reation 

Hunting Trips 

$49,984,000 

$186,353,000 

• 

MISS 1 , 0 N 

The lltuwta of IAnJ ~ nutllins the belllth, 

~ llllll p...Jt.aivity of the p..blie /4nJs for the lUI! 

...a mjoymnu of prunu ...a fimn'e gmertlli4m. 
182 

CALIFORNIA 

- BLM-Managed Lands 

~ BLM State Office Locations 

@5 BLM District Office locations 

Major Highways 

Surface Acreage of Land 

Managed by the 

B=u of Land Management: 

17.28 million acres. 

California State Office 

Federal Building 

2800 Cottage Way, E-2841 

SacramentO, CA 95825-1889 
183 

c A L I F 0 

The majority of BLM-managed lands (17 .28 million 

acres) are located in the California Desert in southern 

California, with smaller, but significant cona:naations 

thtoughout the State. The terrain coveted by public lands is 

exttemdy diverse, ranging from sagebrush plains to old . 

growth forests, from sand dunes to the Pacific coasrline, and 

from land bordering rivers tO arid high desert. 

Public lands provide tremendous rewards tO the people of 

California, and to others who use them. Their noncommercial benefits are considerable. They provide habitat for mote 

than 800 species of plants and animals, many of them considered thr:eatened or endangered. BLM-managed lands support 

rangeland for wild horses and burros, and provide rc:creation 

opportunities for thousands of visitors thtough hiking uails, 

rivers, off-highway vehicle ar:eas, campgrounds, and over 3.7 

million acres of wilderness. Notable recreation ar:eas include 

the King Range National Conservation Area near Ukiah, the 

Bizz Johnson Trail ncar Susanville, the Imperial Sand Dunes 

in southern California. and the Merced River in the Mother 

Lode of the Sierra Nevada. 

The commercial benefits derived froin public lands ate 

equally important. "The Geysers," located partly on public 

land in Northern California, ranks among the most productive geothermal fields in the world, generating elccuicity for 

950,000 people annually. California is also the fourth largest 

oil and gas producing Stare in the nation, supplying 18.5 million barrels of oil from public lands. These resources generate 

millions of dollars in revenues, half of which is given dir:ectly 

to the Stare of California. Wmd energy from sires in 

Southern California provide power for some 125,000 people. 

Additionally, the public lands are one of the primary suppliers of sand and gravel for California's ever-expanding infrasuuaure of roads and buildinf;.. 

To improve public land management, in 1991 BLMCalifornia initiarcd a collaborative effim that resulted in the 

hisrorlc Biodivenity Aglec;ment. This Statewide agreement 

includes mote than 25 Federal and State agencies, all ten 

County R.:ponal Associations. and numerous other partners 

who have joined together in several cooperative multijurisdictional planning diirts. This agreement has helped promote 

grass-roots, loal involvement in r:esoura: management practices that meet biodiversity and economic needs. 

One biodiversity planning d!On in southern California's 

West Mojave region has brought public and local land managers together to prepare an interagency plan to manage habitat for the desert tortoise and other sensitive species on public 

and private land. A comprehensive planning d!On is underway in the Coachdla Valley to cnsur:e long-renn survival of 

R N I A 
184 

species, while providing for economic growth in the region. 

In the Klamath region of northwestern California, the 

Biodiversity Agreement has helped bring public and local 

land managers together to restore steelhcad and salmon runs, 

protect significant foothill and riparian resources, and provide 

important habitat for raptors and migratory birds. 

By contrast, the State of California owns approximately 2 

million acres, of which nearly 1.3 million acres are managed 

for recreation and preservation. The California State Lands 

O,nunission manages an additional 580,000 acres to generate income for the State Teachers Retirement System. The 

State is required to maximize revenues from these lands, but 

must do so while complying with State environmental Standards. 

Federal Collections from BLM-Managed Lands 

and Minerals: 

Grazing Fees 

Recreation & Use Fees 

Miscdlaneous ReceiptS 

Sale of Land and Materials 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

Mineral Royalties, Renrs, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

449,000 

184,000 

4,177,000 

2,138,000 

3,070,000 

47,305,000 

57,323,000 

Direct BLM Fmancial Transfers to California: 

Payment in Lieu ofT axes (PILT) 9,964,000 

Grazing Fees 134,000 

Proceeds of Sales 124,000 

Mineral Royalties, RentS, & Bonuses 21,544,000 

TOTAL $31,766,000 

BLM lnvatments in California: 

Management of Lands & Resources 

Land Acquisition 

Range ImprovementS 

Construction & Al:ass 

Fire Managcment!Firefighting 

43,763,000 

3,152,000 

401,000 

1,745,000 

Prescribed Ftre/Presuppression 6,414,000 

Fudighting and Rehabilitation 7,675 

Service Charges, DepositS, & Forfeirures 952,000 

TOTAL $56,434,675 

,___ -... --- ~-

- T...._ . .,.,.. 

1994 

....... 

--iooc.A.Iioo •c.-... o.... ........ 

---- -
185 

Other Investments in California Deri-t in Pan &om BLM-Managed Lands and Minerals: 

Reclamation Fund $139,617,000 

Allocation of CalifOrnia Share of Federal Mineral Receipt R,evenues: 

Primary School Trust 85% 

Community Colleges 15% 

F¥94 Recreational Activity on BLM-Managed Land: 

Aaivity Participants 

Camping 11,307,000 

Fishing 

Hunting 

Photography, Picnicking, etc. 

Swimming & Water Skiing 

Boating 

Motorized Travel 

231,000 

.:::IIO::;;.o:::o.-:::o.;;:> 3,430,000 

Hours 

35,695,000 

850,000 

3,137,000 

6,382,000 

899,000 

1,711,000 

14,351,000 

Wmtet Sports (does not appear on charts) 1,000 3,000 

Hiking, Backpacking. Bicycling, etc. 21,46,000 ~ 9,890,000 

TOTAL CALIFORNIA VISITS 8,958,000 

Total V11itor Howt 72,918,000 

Estimated Economic Value to Califo..W. of Selected 

R=tion Vuits to BLM-Managed Land: 

Wddlife-Associated Recreation 

Hunting Trips 

$205,677,000 

$297,771,000 

• 

MISSION 

The B""""' of lAtuJ Mtttuzgmrmt nutllitu the heabh, 

Jiwrsity, muJ proJr.aiflity of the p..blie i4ntJs for the rue 

mul mjoymmt of pmmt muJ fi->Y gmerlllUJns. 
186 

COLORADO 

- BLM-Managed Lands 

~ BLM State Office Locations 

® BLM District Office Locations 

Major Highways 

Surface Acreage ofLutd 

Managed by the 

Bureau ofLutd Management: 

8.31 million acres. 

Colorado State Office 

28 5o Youngfidd Srreet 

Lakewood, co 80215-7076 
187 

c 0 L 0 R A 

Colorado's public lands (8.31 million acres) are concentrated primarily in the western portion of the State, although 

smaller parcds are scattered over the eastern plains. These 

lands ~ a wide variety of terrain, from alpine rundra in 

the southwest, to arid and colorful canyons and mesas. They 

support pinyon-juniper scrub foresu, shrubs, and sagebrush. 

In the east, public lands extend primarily aaoss the open 

plains. 

Colorado's public lands support a range of important 

activities, including mineral cxttaaion and grazing. Oil and 

narural gas supplies are marketed nationally. Many ranching 

operations rely on nearby public lands for seasonal forage for 

their livestoCk. Other significant resources on Colorado's 

public lands include ruins fiom the prehistoric Anasazi culture, and BLM-maaaged lands throughout the State provide 

babitat for deer, elk, and antelope. as wdl as dueatened and 

endangacd species. 

The wide range of elefttion, from 4,000 feet to 14,000 

feet. and the variety of terrain and v.geration, provides an 

important scenic raour= Lower elevation public lands and 

back country byway routeS help supply year-round recreational opportunities oo public lands. 

BLM-Colcndo bas concluded Memoranda of 

Undenwlding with State or County governments to provide 

several services, including land use planning. law enforcement, wildfire conaoL and road maintenance. One important cooperui..e diOrt is in the Kremmling Resource Area of 

the Cnis DiRrict, where BLM is working with other Federal. 

State, and County RpRSmtarives. as wdl as with private 

~ to manage 240,000 acres of intenningled land. The 

initiarM bas impro¥al. babitat for watetfowl and upland 

wildlife, clomesric IMstod< grazing, big game bunting, and 

wawshed pr=aion. 

In odditioa to BLM-managed laods, there are aJ.o 

3.35 million aaa of State-OWned lands in Colorado; these 

f.ill into three c:uegories. The majority are trust lands 

(approximaldy 2.88 million acta), which the State manages 

to maximiu n:venue for the school system. These lands are 

not managed for multiple use; formerly lessees could dose 

them to hunting. Ra:a>tly, however, some lessees have begun 

to open these lands for public use. 

D 0 
188 

The Colorado Division of Wildlife manages approximately 310,000 acres for fishecies, waterfowl, upland birds 

and animals, as well as for big game habitat. These lands are 

open to the public for hunting and fishing. The remaining 

State lands are located close to major metropolitan areas and 

are used for recreation. 

Federal Collections from BLM-Managed Lands 

and Minerals: 

Grazing Fees 

Recreation & Use Fees 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

Miscellaneous Receipts 

Sale of Land and Materials 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

873,000 

106,000 

945,000 

465,000 

512,000 

76,248,000 

$79,149,000 

Direcr BLM Financial Transfers to Colorado: 

Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (PILn 

Grazing Fees 

Proceeds of Sales 

Minetal Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

BLM Investments in Colorado: 

Management of Lands and Rtsoutees 

Land Acquisition 

Range Improvements 

Construction & Ac=ss 

Fue Managemenr/Firdighting 

Prescribed Fire/Presuppression 

Fuefighting and Rehabilitation 

Service Charges, Deposits, & Forfeitures 

TOTAL 

6,368,000 

147,000 

20,000 

34,372,000 

$40,907,000 

122,716,000 

1,056,000 

401,000 

850,000 

2,487,000 

9,107,000 

476,000 

$137,093,000 

Other BLM Investment in Colorado Dermd in Part from 

BLM-Managiod.l.ands and Minerals: 

Rtclarno.tion Fund $98,022,000 

.,_ ... -.... a_w ....... ...... 

a-. .. T .... ..._., .c...-. 

1994 

--;.c-... O.c......lo 

~-~-­ ......._ 

~-w--. 
189 

Allocation of Colorado Share of Federal Mineral Receipt ~nua: 

No specific allocation, but revenue generally wed to fund the school system and transportation. 

F¥94 Recreational Activity on Bl.M-Managed Land: 

Activity Participanta Houn 

Camping 299,000 9,685,000 

FIShing ~ 301,000 ~ 1,192,000 

Hunting 290,000 7,063,000 

Photography, Picnicking, etc. 3,123,000 9,692,000 

Swimming &: Water Skiing 19,000 46,000 

Boating 546,000 1,720,000 

Motorized Travel 1.~! :· .. -:~1 2,330,000 1.~~~:·.,~1 6,874,000 

W~nter Sports 29,000 166,000 

Hiking. Backpacking. Bicycling. etc. ,._ -',': .. ~ 'l 1,184,000 ,._ -',': .:~ · j 3,808,000 

TOTAL COLORADO VISITS 4,715,000 

Participana Total VISitor Houn 40,246,000 

Eatimated Economic Value to Colondo of Sdeaed 

Recreation Vuiu to Bl.M-Manapl Laod: 

WUdlife-Associated Recreation 

Hunting Trips 

$45,251,000 

$92.713,000 

MISSION 

The&.-. qfLftul~ nut4itu 11H huJib. 

Ji.ermy. .-1 p~ qft!H pwblk lmtJs for IIH ,_ 

llllll mjoymm~ qf pranu llllll fi-rr gmnwtUms. 

20-051 0 - 95 - 7 
190 

EASTERN STATES 

....... 

Sub-surface Minenl &tate Acrnp In lhe 

Eutem United States Muuop by lhe 

Bureau of Land Management 

~artment of lhe lllterior 

Eutem States 

7t50 Boston Boulevard 

Sprinsfielcl, VA 22153 
191 

E A S T E R N S T A T 

BLM-Eastern States is responsible for the stewardship of 

30,000 acres of public lands and resources in the 31 states 

bordering upon and east of the Mississippi River. Additionally, 

Eastern States is responsible for administering more than 39 

million acres of federal mineral estate. 

One of the most important responsibilities of BLM-Eastern 

States is to maintain more than nine million historic General 

Land Office (GLO) records dating back to 1787. These records 

are in demand by title companies, researchers and genealogists. 

BLM -Eastern States is a pioneer in the field of historic records 

automation and is preserving and improving access to these 

records through the GLO Automated Records Project. This 

project has already produced CO-ROMs containing all the 

records in our files for five states, with more to come. 

There are a number of significant resources on lands managed by BLM-Eastern States. About two-thirds of all wild 

horses and burros adopted under the BLM's Adopt-A-Horse 

program find their homes in the 31 eastern states. With one 

contract adoption center and 20-30 satellite adoption events 

more than 4,000 animals are adopted through the BLM-Eastern 

States each year. Additionally, BLM-Eastern States oversees the 

leasing and development of federal minerals including coal 

mining, oil and gas exploration and production and lead and 

zinc mining in 21 states. 

While a comparatively small amount of surface acres is 

managed by the BLM-Eastern States, their locations make them 

very important. In the heavily populated east, the BLM's lands 

are of prime importance for recreation and partnerships with 

local governments. Cooperative management agreements with 

state and local governments provide key recreation sites such as 

the Lake Vermillion Islands in Minnesota, scenic beaches in 

Florida and historic lighthouses in the Great Lakes .and along 

the Florida coast. Developing partnerships through Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act leases provide much needed opportunities for large numbers of people to use and enjoy their public 

lands. 

Another priority for Eastern States is the development of 

partnerships, environmental education and outreach programs, 

which help introduce residents of the eastern United States to 

public lands in the west and in Alaska. BLM-Eastern States 

holds environmental education' camps, and works with local 

schools, school boards, and state departments of education and 

natural resources to promote stewardship of the public lands. 

E s 
192 

Fedml Collections £rom BLM-Mana~ Lands and Mjnm!s; 

Miscellaneous Receipts 

Sale of Land and Materials 

Mining Claim Holding Feea 

Mineral Royalties, Rents & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

Direct BLM Financjal Transfers to the Eastern States; 

Payment in Ueu of Taxes (PIL n 

Mineral Royalties, Rents & Bonuses 

BLM Investment in the Eastern States; 

Management of Lands & Resources 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

66,000 

?'9,000 

21,000 

21,607,000 

$22,103,000 

13,589,000 

4,857,000 

Sl8,t46,000 

$ 12,807,000 

Federal Colleclioos Direct BLM Financial BI.M IDvesanem ill 

from BLM-MID.Iged TI'IIIISfers to the !be Eastern Slates 

lands and Minerals Easlem Slates 

1994 
193 

fY94 Recreational Activity on BLM-Managed Land 

Camping 

Fishing 

Hunting 

Photography, picnicking etc. 

Swimming & water skiing 

Boating 

Hiking, backpacking, bicycling etc. 

TOTAL VISITOR HOURS 

Participants 

01 

2,000 

1,000 

2,000 

4,000 

1,000 

1,000 

TOTAL EASTERN STATES VISITS 

5,000 

3,000 

4,000 

2,000 

16,000 

2,000 

02 

32,000 

9,000 

Estimated Economic value to the Eastern States of Selected Recreation Visits to BLM-Managed Land: 

Wildlife-associated recreation 

I This figure reflects reporting error. 

2Jbid. 

$18,301,000 

MISSION a 

v 

The Bureau of land Management sustains the health, 

Diversity and productivity of the pul1lic lands for the use 

and enjoyment of present and future generations. 
194 

IDA H 0 

Surface Acreage of Land 

Manapbythe 

Bureau ofl.and Management: 

11.85 million acres. 

- BLM-Managed Lands t BLM State Office Locations 

BLM Diltrict Office Locatioru 

Major Highways 

Idaho State Office 

3380 Americana Temcc: 

Boise. ID 83706-2500 · 
195 

I D A H 0 

BLM-managed lands (11.85 million a=s) are scattered 

aaoss Idaho, with the lugest concenaation located in the 

southwest comer of the State close to the <mgon, Ncwda, 

and Uub borders. Public lands extend u:ross a variety of ter· 

rain, &om alpine and timber to cold desert and lava flows. 

VISitors and midena alilrc enjoy numerous recreation 

opportunities on Idaho's public lands, including world-class 

hunting and 6shing. BLM-managed lands provW!e public 

occ:ess to lakes and rivers throughout the State. Lake Coc:ur 

D'Alene and the to-r Salmon and Oearwater Rivas are 

located in the north; the desert river canyon lands are round 

in the 10uthwm; the Snake, Salmon, and Lemhi Riven, as 

well as the Great Rift lava flows are in the central part of the 

state; and the South Fork of the Snake is in the east. 

k part of its landscape-based approacb to management, 

BLM-Idaho is participating in several partnerships to enswe 

that d«isions teganiing public land use are made in c:oopen.-

tinn with intamcd groups. For example, the South Fork 

Coalition in Idaho Falls has helped BLM develop management plans ror the South Fork, and the Boise Front Coalition 

assisa BLM in planning and managing the heavily used 

foothills ouaide the State capital. 

By comparison, there are approximately 2. 47 million 

aCR:S of land owned and administered by the State of Idaho. 

The State manages them ror muimum rerum, and JeVenues 

support the school system. Although the State has some 

developed recttation arcas, gJ2Zing and timber are the primary uses of State land. 
196 

Federal Collections &om BLM-Managed Landa 

and Minerals: 

Grazing Fees 

Recreation & Use Fees 

Miscdlaneous Receipts 

Sale of Land and Materials 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

Mineral Royalties, R.:nts, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

Direct BLM Financial Transfen to Idaho: 

Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (PILT) 

Grazing Fees 

Proceeds of Sales 

Mineral Royalties, R.:nu, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

BLM Investment in Idaho: 

Management of Lands and R.:sources 

Range lmprovemenu 

Constiuction & Ace= 

Fire Management/Firefighting 

Prescribed Fire/Presuppression 

Firefighting and Rehabilitation 

Service Charges, DepositS, & Forfeitures 

TOTAL 

2,014,000 

126,000 

467,000 

681,000 

1,669,000 

5.420,000 

$10,377,000 

7,277,000 

279,000 

29,000 

2,509,000 

$10,094,000 

32,788,000 

1,203,000 

120,000 

14,028,000 

6,760,000 

317,000 

$55,216,000 

Other Investments in Idaho Derived in Pan from 

BLM-Managed Landa and Minerals: 

R.:damation Fund 

Allocation of Idaho Share of Federal Mineral 

Receipt R.:wnues: 

$25,661,000 

Counties of origin receive I 00% of receipts. 

... --- ...... T ...... 

- --

1994 
197 

FY94 Recreational Aaivity on BLM-~ Land: 

AaMty 

Camping 

Fishing 

Hunting 

Partic:ipanb 

~~~~ 523,000 

Houn 

!~~! 11,219,000 

3,620,000 

3,212,000 

Photography, Picnicking. etc. 

Swimming llc Water Skiing 

Boating 

~!!!' 569,000 ~ 412,000 

~1. "'~Y!:!· .. !.!!J 959.ooo 1."'! :· .. :"-1 2,188,ooo 

~ 126,000 493,000 

r- :,, : _; ~ ·1 494.ooo r- :,, : _; ~ ·1 2.515.000 

Motorized Travel 

Wmter Sports 

!!!! 

~ 

970,000 3.687.000 

507,000 ~ 3,716,000 

Hiking. Backpacking. Bicycling. etc. 534,000 1,778,000 

TOTAL IDAHO VISITS 4,059,000 

Participants Total Vuitor Houn 32,428,000 

&timaud Ecnnomic Value to Idaho of Selecred 

Reaarion Vuia to BLM-Mauaged Land: 

Wddlife..Associatcd ~tion 

Hunting Trips 

$26,612,000 

$49.240,000 

• 

MISSION 

The lhrMM .j'IANI M-.-nutllitu tiN hu/th, 

tlirJnrily. - ~ .j'the poMie I-ii for the -

- mjaymnrt -1 pmmt-jimm prurtlliMu. 
198 

MONTANA 

- BLM-Managed Lands 

• BLM State Office locations 

0 BLM District Office Locations 

Major Highways 

s~ Acre2ge of Land 

Managai by the 

Bureau of Land Managcmenc 

8.08 million acres. 

The Montana State Office 

aiJo has jurisdiction owr 

BLM-managed land in 

North and South Dakota. 

Montana State Office 

Granite Tower 

222 North 32nd Street 

Billings, MT 59101 
199 

M 0 N T A N 

The public lands in Montana (8.08 million aaa) an: 

widely scaaaed, with the grcarcst cona:naations in the western, southeastern, and cenaal parts of the Sta~ BLM-managed lands er:tend aaoss a ~ety of types of land, including 

mountainous terrain, forests supporting douglas fir and ponderosa pine, and plains. 

Montana's public lands an: rich in archaeological and historic significance-Native American burial sites and arti&as. 

sacred zdigious sites, and dinosaur fossils an: all found on 

BLM-managed lands. Then: an: also important historic sites 

dating liom early explotation of the country; Pompey's Pillar 

is the only remaining physical evidence of the Lewis & Clark 

es:pedition. 

Minetal resources on Montana's public lands include 

gold, coal, oil, and gu. The country's only underground 

phosplwc mine is found on BLM-managed lands. There an: 

also luge surfxc tiline$, which recover gold using heap leaching. u ...a! u places mines. In addition, eztensive =tiona! opponunitia m ~leon Montana's public lands. 

including hunting. fishing. boating. camping. and biniwatching. 

BLM-Montana hu entaal into a number of cooperative 

agreements to improYe public land management, including 

Memoranda of Undemanding~ with -m counties 

to control the spn:ad of noxious~. Noxious ~pose 

a major threat to public lands in Montana, overtaking 

approximardy 200,000 acres in the last 10 yean. The 

Department of the Interior is considering a major government-wide initiaUve to combat the spread of noxious~ 

nationally. 

Another succcaful coopctative agreement hu resulted in 

the Riclwd E. Wood Watcba.ble Wdcllife Ala. Located in 

the Havre Raource Ala, du. uea pnrvides babioat for nesting bUds and wildlifi:. BLM bought the properry in 1990 

and rached management apemena with~ iWnln; 

the State Department of FISh, Wddlife, and Pula; and local 

fanner, James Woods. Mr. Woods <»ntinucs to &rm the land 

and barvat the com in acbange for his labor and usc of 

equipment. He also help mainoain roads and conaol ~. 

In addition to Montana's BUd-managed Ianda, then: an: 

approximardy 5.5 million .aes owned and managed by the 

A 
200 

Swe of Montana. Revenues from these lands fUnd the 

school system. The Department of Swe Lands and the 

Montana Department of FISh, Wddlife, and Pub are the 

rwo primary State land management agencies. l...iU public 

lands, State lands are managed for multiple use and are open 

year-round for a variety of recreational usa. However, some 

State lands, such as aopland, are not legally accessible to the 

public. 

Federal Collec:tions from BLM-Managed Lands 

and Minerals: 

Grazing Fees 

Reaeation & Use Fees 

Miscellaneous Receipts 

Sale of Land and Materials 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

National Grasslands' 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

DiRct BLM Fmancial Transfers to Montana: 

Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (PILT) 

Grazing Fees 

Proceeds of Sales 

National Grasslands' 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

BLM ln'YeStmenu in Montana: 

Management of Lands and R=urces 

Land Acquisition 

Range Improvements 

Construction & ~ 

Fue ManagcmentiFudighting 

Prescribed FiWPresupprasion 

Fudighting and Rd>abilitation 

Service Charges, Deposits, & Fo.ttirures 

TOTAL 

1,662,000 

91,000 

101,000 

990,000 

2,618,000 

1,652,000 

51,730,000 

$58,844,000 

7,783,000 

315.000 

44,000 

524,000 

23,995,000 

$32,661,000 

28,033,000 

268,000 

802,000 

200,000 

1,553,000 

2,622,000 

238,000 

$33,716,000 

1994 

) ~1914J#Jia ....... ...,.... ....... ...._ 

1 P&J-iDfnr'bS..m-ofCY9!ftiCI:ipa. 
201 

Other Investments in Montana Derived in Pan from BLM-Managed Lands and Minenls: 

Reclamation Fund $23,206,000 

Allocation of Montana Share of Federal Mineral Receipt Revenues: 

School truSt I 00% 

FY94 Recreational Aamty on BLM-Managed Land:' 

Activity Participants 

Camping 139,000 

Fishing 

Hunting 

Photography, Pimiclting. etc. 

Swimming & Water Skiing 

Boating 

Motorized Travel 

Winter Spans 

Hiking. Backpacking. Bicycling. etc. 

227,000 

I.-!; y :· .. ~l 376,000 

380,000 

8,000 

1-- _.,,:" )- 0 

~ 

J 124,000 

126,000 

19,000 

647,000 

~ 

1.-!;~ :· .. ~~ l 

1---',' : .. -;- 0 J 

TOTAL MONTANA VISITS 1,405,000 

Hours 

585,000 

105,000 

1,811,000 

643,000 

o• 

54,000 

214,000 

19,000 

476,000 

Participants Total VJSitor Hours 3,907,000 

Estimated Economic Value to Montana of Selected 

Recreation VJSits to BLM-Managcd Land: 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation 

Hunting Trips 

$14,924,000 

$102,035,000 

3 ~claD.&Ddlile--of...nc.lrecremoz, Yil:ia ro BLM-manapd..laadl ~ aca:miiDs ro admiDilu.DYC-. ThadOre. bol:h u-caapria UKtude 

dMa fOr !40,000 aaa ol'au.t ............. lud in Notdl 

&ad Souch Dllkoc:a. u-aas b BU.(~ Ud iD 

--4 Thb fipuc rdlec:a a rcponioa enw. 

• 

MISSION 

The BurettM ofLmtl Mtmagemmt S1IStllitu the health, 

tlivnsity, lliUi prot~Mctivity t>f th1 publie fllluU for the uu 

muJ mjoymmt of preunt anti foturr gmerlltiotu. 

2D-051 0 - 95 - 8 
202 

NEVADA 

- BLM-Managed Lands 

0 

0 

BLM State Office Locations 

BLM District Office Locations 

Major Highways 

Surface~ ofl:!nd 

Managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management: 

47.97 million aaes. 

Nevada State Office 

850 Harvard Way 

P.O. Box 12000 

Reno, NV 89520-0006 
203 

N E v A D A 

BLM is the primary land manager in Nevada overseeing 

about 67 percent of the state (47.97 million acres). The terrain is varied: BLM-managed lands extend from the Sierra 

foothills in the west to pinyon juniper woodlands in the east. 

In the north, the public lands include high desen, which is 

used for grazing and is also the site of many of the nation's 

gold mines. To the south is the Mojave Desen, which is 

home to the rare desen tonoise, and the Red Rock Canyon 

National Conservation ~ a major tourist attraction. 

BLM-Nevada consults extensivdy with Stare and County 

governments on planning and environmental studies. One of 

the most effective pannerships has been between BLM and 

the State Department of Minerals regarding surface management of mining operations. The twO agencies review and 

approve jointly plans of operations, which include reclamation and revegetation requirements, water management, and 

bonding. A single bonding system meets the requirements of 

both agencies. In addition, BLM-Nevada has an agreement 

with all counties to provide for joint land-use planning. 

Another BLM-Ied mining initiative is the Butcher Boy 

Pilot Project, which has studied the feasibility of enhancing 

Great Basin mine reclamation with biosolids. The Cities of 

R.no and Sparks have sent sewage sludge to enrich degraded 

mi~e lands; the project has received awards from R.new 

America and the National Awards Council for Environmental 

Sustainability. 

When Nevada became a State in 1864, the Federal 

government granted lands to the new State. The State of 

Nevada exchanged these lands for about 2 million acres, most 

of which it then sold. Only about 3,000 acres of State school 

trust lands remain, which have been left largdy untouched 

and do not bring in any revenue. However, the Stare does 

receive some income from acquired lands used primarily for 

State parks or wildlife usc. 
204 

Federal CoUeaicnu from BLM-Manapl Lands 

aDd MiDerals: 

GnzingF«s 

&creation &: Use Fees 

Miscdlancous m:eipts 

Sale of land and Mm:ri:alr 

Mining Oaim Holding F«s 

Miner.al Royalties, Rena, &: Bonuses 

TOTAL 

Payment in Lieu ofTues (PIL'D 

GnzingF«s 

Proaeds of Sales 

Nevada Land Sales' _ 

Miner.al Royalties, Rena, &: Bonuses 

TOTAL 

BLM lnvemnent in Nevada: 

Management of Lands and Resources 

Land Acquisition 

Range lmproYaDena 

Coostruetion &: llca:ss 

Fu:e Managcment!Fudigbting 

Prescribed Fite/Presupprcssion 

Firdigbting and RdJabilitation 

Service Clwges, I:leposia, &: Forfeinu:es 

TOTAL 

2,758,000 

54,000 

1,468,000 

.7,546-;00& .. 

14,883,000 

16,374,000 

$39,083,000 

6,850,000 

349,000 

202,000 

288,000 

7,542,000 

$15,231,000 

37,936,000 

81,000 

1,905,000 

545,000 

5,649,000 

11,383,000 

870,000 

$58,369,000 

Other lnwsaDenu in Ncv.da om-1 in Pan &om 

BLM-Manapl Lmds aDd Minenlo: 

$12,412,000 

......__ -... --....... T~ 

- ·-

1994 

... - --............. o.tor.ila ........ 

-

....... _ 

I Ulldlrdlt &.noa-Smtiai A4 of 1910, __,. 6om 

araiaiMd ... ialhcl.uVcpV..,.il...:lropurcl.e J.d ia t..-T.t-NaDoa11 Foc.c. T• pm:entol 

NDEipa il--' lida110 Cluk Cowscyor • die Ocr ott..v..,. Fi'IC...--olr..apa: .. ~md. 

Sa& The &p.. w..cww ia .. CMCp1 fllilr., ... 

11DG1 ,.,_a 110 bodl CiqfCouory aad. dies-. Tbae ,.,_-hal CIIIIDrkr,.. 1995 readpa. Calendar 

7'111 1994 ftiCiipcs- S%71.200. which ,.w be dilbuaed 

iac::.&cacW,_r199S. 
205 

Allocation of Newda Slw:e of Federal Mineral Receipt Revenues: 

Cities, counties, towns, & schools based upon their taX rate multiplied by 5. 

FY94 Reaeational Activity on BLM-Managed Land: 

Activity Participanta Hours 

Camping 274,000 4,378,000 

Fishing ~ 275,000 ~ 1,392,000 

Hunting 473.000 . 3,024,000 

Photography, Picnicking. etc. 2,629,000 6,234,000 

Swimming & Water Skiing 42,000 123,000 

Boating 56,000 279,000 

Motorized Travel (,..,~:' .. .. ~1 453,000 I,..!; ~I:' .. ~;~l 2,659,000 

Winter Sports 66,000 291,000 

Hiking. Backpacking. Bicycling. etc. ,-_ ',':- ~ 'l 863,000 , __ ,' ,':' ~ ~ ' l 2,567,000 

TOTAL NEVADA VISITS 4,245,000 

Participants Total VISitor Houn 20,947,000 

Estimated Ea>nomic Value to Newda of Selected 

Reaeation V11its to BLM-Managed Land: 

Wtldlife..Associated Reaeation 

Hunting Trips 

$95,658,000 

$114,761,000 

• 

MISSION 

Tlu .s.u-of LlllltJ ~ nulllins the huJzh, 

tliHnizy, IINl ~,;"J of the p..blie /4nJs for theIINl mjvymnrt of presmt IINl Jrur-gmertttimu. 
NEW 

-

0 

0 

Surface Acreage ofl.and 

Managed by the 

Bureau of land Management: 

12.89 million aaa. 

206 

MEXICO 

BI.M-Managed Lands 

BI.M State Office Locations 

BI.M District Office Locations 

Major Highways 

The New Mexico State Office 

also has jurisdiction over 

BLM-managcd land 

in Oklahoma and T cxas 

New Mexico State Office 

1474 Rodeo Road 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 
207 

N E w M E 

There are BLM-managed lands (12.89 million acres) 

throughout New Mexico, with the exception of the northeast 

comer where aaeage is minimal. The terrain is varied, 

including desert, mountains, brush <overed hillsides, wild 

rivers, and dry arroyos. 

Public lands in New Mexico are rich in cultural and mineral resoun:es. The largest reserve of potash in the U.S. is in 

southeast New Mexico, and the San Juan Basin in the northwest corner of the Stare has one of the nation's most significant reserves of natural gas. New Mexico is home to several 

19th-century military fons, as wdl as mon: than 250 limestOne caverns. Additionally, New Mexico's public lands offer 

numerous recreational oppommities, including the Rio 

Grande River, a portion of which is designated as a Wdd and 

Scenic River, the Valley of the Fues Recreation Area, and the 

Bisti Wdderness. 

BLM-New Mexico administers these lands in cooperation 

with a number of other groups. The Rio Puerco Resource 

An:a has entered into an agreement with the Jicarilla Apache 

Nation to manage oil and gas enraction on tribal land. In 

southwest New Mexico, 38 ranchers and landowners have 

formed the Malpais Borderland Group to work with BLM on 

fire management, conservation easementS, and grass banking. 

In the Roswell District, another collaborative dfon has 

brought together four oil and gas companies to compile a 

uniform. set of rules for oil and gas activity on public land. 

This type of cooperation and advance planning has hdped 

make Roswell the focus of enensive oil and gas exploration 

and development. 

In another cooperative project, the Taos Resource An:a 

installed their fim solar-powered dearie fence to protect 

riparian areas along the Rio Grande corridor. The project 

brought together BLM-New Mexico, local environmental 

groups, and the grazing perminee on whose allotment the 

fencing was placed. BLM used raft. to ferty equipment 

across the Rio Grande and the local perminee hdped erect 

the fence. 

By comparison, there are approrimatdy 8. 75 million 

acres of land owned and managed by the State of New 

X I c 0 

Mexico.' The State is required to optimize revenues from , ,.._.,,_......,_,.. ............ ......, 

these lands for long-term benefit, and uses the income to sup- -~·...........," '""""'•-
208 

pon the school system. The State leases easements from private intereStS for rcaeational access to angling and boating 

areas on these lands, and for hunting during open seasons. 

In addition, the New Mexico State Game Commission 

and the New Mexico Department of Game and FISh own 

direa!y about 165,000 acres scattered throughout the State. 

About 122.000 acres suppon habitat for big game, and the 

balance is &nned os waterfowl management areas to provide 

feed for migratory birds. R=-eation is encouraged on agency 

propenies under reasonable regulations to proteCt wildlik 

resources. 

Federal CollectioJU from BLM-Managed Lands 

andMinaab: 

Grazing Fees 

R=-eation & Use Fees 

Miscdlaneous Ra:eipts 

Sale of Land and Materi21s 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

National Gr.asslands 

Miner.al. Roy2lties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

3,099,000 

185,000 

756,000 

660,000 

m.ooo 

57,0002 

297,999,000 

$303,533,000 

Direct BLM FiDanc:ial Transfen to New Mctico: 

Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (PILn 

Grazing Fees 

Proceeds of Sales 

National Gr.asslands 

Miner.al. Roy21ties, Rents, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

BLM hn>atmena in New Mexico: 

Management of Lands and Resources 

Land Acquisition 

Range Improvement Fund 

Consauction & Ac=ss 

Fire Management/Fuefighting 

Presaibc:d Fire!Presupp~ion 

Fuefighting and Rehabilitation 

Service Charges, Deposits, & Forfcinues 

TOTAL 

10,632,000 

553,000 

36,000 

13,000 

143,174,000 

$154,408,000 

36,315,000 

1,181,000 

1,604,000 

2,052,000 

1,015,000 

1,703,000 

635.000 

U-4,505,000 

1994 

.... z t.:W. _16.000 ......... .,....... -. ... 
209 

Other ln-ents in New Maico Derived in Part from BLM-Managed Lands and Minerals: 

Reclamation Fund $15,925,000 

Allocation of New Maioo Share ofFederal Mineral Receipt Revenues: 

IOOo/o to general revenue. 

FY94 Reaeational Activity on BLM-Managed Lane!:' 

Activity Participants Hours 

Camping ~-.. <\: .... ;- I 1 209,000 1-- ,',':' ~ 'J 3,762,000 

Fishing 135,000 ~ 817,000 

Hunting ~ 517,000 6,613,000 

Photography, Picnicking. etc. 1,134,000 4,315,000 

Swimming & Water Skiing 11.000 (docs not appear OD clwu) 29,000 

Boating 43,000 221,000 

Motorized Travel 1.-.!!; 11 ~· "'~~l 388,000 1:!!; ~ :· "' ~~ l 1,884,000 

Hiking. Backpacking. Bicycling. ete. 557.000 3,079,000 

TOTAL NEW MEXICO VISITS 

Participants 

Estimated Economic Value to New Maioo of Selected 

Recreation Vuits to BLM-Managed Land: 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation 

Hunting Trips 

$21,655,000 

$84,197,000 

2,741,000 

Tocal Yuitor Hours 20,720,000 

~aald&a.ancl.che .... ueo tdcoedr«:n~Uioa vilia 10 BIM-manap:I.Udl ~~w ldminisaaGvc--. ~re.bochm..c:atepricsiDd"*datafor 

2..<600 ~ ofBLM-maotpd lazxL; ill Oldaboma and 

Tau. • weB • forBLM~ bad i# New Memo. 

• 

MISSION 

The Buruu ofLtmJ Miuulgemmt nutllins the heAlth, 

Jiversizy, tUUi pTDiiuctivity of the publk 14nJs for the use 

tUUi mjoymmt of present tUUi foture gmeriUions. 
210 

OREGON 

- BLM-Mauapl Lands + BLM State Office Locations 

(!,) BLM Dimict Office Locations 

Major Highways 

Surface Aae2ge of Land 

Mamgcd by the 

Bureau of Land Management: 

15.72 million acra. 

The On:gon Stan: Office 

also has jurisdiction ovaBu.f-manaplland 

in the Stu£ ofWashington. 

Oregon Scau: Office 

1515 South West 5th Avenue 

P.O. Boz 2965 

Portland, OR 97208-2965 
211 

0 R E G 0 N 

BI.M-managed lands are located in eastern and western Oregon (15.72 million acres). UnJik, other States, these lands r.Jl into three categories: 

(i) Public Do~ Lands-There are approximately 13.4 million acres of 

public domain land in Oregon, which are located primarily in the eastern 

portion of the state. 

(ii) Oregon and California (O&C) Lmds--In 1866, Congress deeded these 

lands to the Oregon & California Railroad Company as an incentive to 

promote completion of the Portland to San Francisco railroad. The land 

grant was conditional on selling land to settlers, which the company 

failed to do. This, coupled with the company's bankruptcy, prompted 

Congress to take back tide to more than 2 million acres. These lands lie 

in a checkerboard pattern through 18 western Oregon counties. 

(iii) Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) Lands-These are also grant lands that 

revetted to the federal government. They total over 74,000 acres and, Jila, 

the O&C lands, are located in the western part of the state. 

Oregon's western public lands are heavily fOrested, and include such species as 

Douglas-fir, western ted cedar, western hemlock, and white fir. In the eastern portion of the State, public lands are characterized by a basin and range topography, 

and shrub-grass steppe plant communities. 

The O&C lands suppon a variety of nanual resources, including young fOrest 

and old growth fOrest, and a multimillion-dollar floral and mushroom gathering 

indusay. These lands provide critical habitat for numerous plant and animal 

species, including anadromous fish. There are over I 00 developed recreation sites 

attracting more than I million visit01s annually. Six Wdd and Scenic Rivers and 

Wdderness A=s offi:r additional recreational opponunities. . 

BI.M-Oregon is participating in f number of collaborative initiative; to promote the health of the land. Three years ago, the Governor of Oregon challenged 

County Commissioners to improve water quality and fisheries in the State. The 

Douglas County Resow= Department brought together groups interested in the 

Umpqua River. Bl.M-Oregon is an active participant in this infOrmal working 

group, taking part in monthly meetings. The group coordinates stream survey 

and restotation, identifies problem areas, and funds restotation projects. 

R<:stotation work has included planting trees on both public and private land, and 

placing ins=un stiUCtUies. Over the three years that the group has been meeting, 

over 1,000 miles of stream have been surveyed. Similar watershed restoration 

d!Orts occur throughout Oregon. 

Additionally, BI.M-Oregon is using =system-based strategies to manage the 

land and its resources on a sustainable resouro: basis. For example, the President's 

Forest Plan not only ended a 3-ycar injunction on timber sales in the Pacific 

Northwest, but also allowed BI.M to adopt more flc:xible land management practices. & part of the President's Forest Plan,,Bl.M has initiated the Jobs in the 

Woods Program, which has enabled BI.M to hire and train displaced timber 

workers, and provide assistance to wmmunities. In FY95, BI.M will award 163 

contracts under this program. 
212 

By oompuison, appmximardy 3 miDioo acres ofland in 

<mgon att owned by tbe Sc= md managed 10 ,......_ ~ 

lOr tbe school sys=n. The Orcpt Division of 5I= Lands mm-

:ages these lands lOr muhiple use, but is requilai 10 ~ 

profits in o!d.r 10 fidfill ia aust raponsibility 10 tbe Swe. 

The r=ipls aud payments identified bdow rqx=nt the 

IDI2ls lOr all Bl.M-~ lands in o..p., including O&C 

lands, CBWR lands, md public domain lands. Sp«ial payments 

10 CBWRmd O&C OOIIDiies att ftlljuinxl by law lOr fisc:al >'=" 

1994 through 2003. During that time, tbe special payments10 be limdtd liom tbe geoml fimd ~ ram.. than liom 

disttibution ofBI.M ftaip1s. The special payment amounts 10 

O&C CXlUDtics fOr fiscal F 1994 =-1 Bl.M O&C receipts 

by $18.5 million. 

FecleraJ ColleaioDI from Bl.M-Muapd l.ands 

and MiDerala: 

Grazing Fees 

R.ecreation&UseFees 

Miscellaneous ~pts 

Sale of Land aDd Materials 

O&C Land Grant Fund 

CBWR Grant Fund 

Mining Oaim Holding Fees 

Mineral Royalties, Rena, & Bonuses 

TOTAL 

DUect Bl.M FiDmcial Tnuofen 1D Orepl: 

Payment in Ua1 ofTues (PIIT) 

Grazing Fees 

O&C Grant Lands' 

Proaeds of Sales 

Mineral Royalties, Rena, & Bonwes 

TOTAL 

Bl.M Imaaucou in Oqoa: 

Management of Lands and Resouras 

Land Acquisition 

Construction & Al=ss 

CBWR Grant Lands 

Management of O&C Lands2 

Fire ManagcmentfFu:dighting 

1,52•4,000 

119,000 

291,000 

3.969,000 

60,075,000 

4,062,000 

943,000 

113,000 

$71,096,000 

2,872,000 

225,000 

97,642,000 

187,000 

56,000 

$100,982,000 

26,152,000 

3,023,000 

1,071,000 

625,000 

85,263,000 

Prescribed Fue!Presuppression 8,236,000 

Fudigbting and Rd!abilitation 13,126,000 

Service Charges, Deposits, & ForfeitureS 1,730,000 

TOTAL $139,226,000 

1994 

1 ~-..-llaeCIIIIIIflll-ll'.OSS 797'-1bellm --a(F'B3,. wllidl Wll .... ia ""· ,... 171J16,.461 bdlc ll ..... o/PYM. 

2 08£C---~r--.......-­ w.d61d.ill----... Fn ........ d ............. 
213 

Other Invatmenu in O~egon Den-! in Put &om BLM-Managed Lands and Minerals: 

Reclamation Fund $7,946,000 

Allocation of Oregon Share of Fedenl Mineral Receipt Revenues: 

All mineral ~eceipts go the school fund. 

FY94 Reaeational Activity on BLM-Managed Land:' 

Activity Participanu Hours 

Camping 

Hunting 

Fishing ~ 

Photography, Picnicking. etc. 

Swimming and Water Skiing 

Boating 

Motoriud Travd [-$~:~,.~~I 

Wmter Sports 

Hiking. Backpacking. Bicycling. etc. ~-, ·'' 1\ , " , ~ '; I 1 

TOTAL OREGON VISITS 

Participant~ 

EotiDwecl Economic: Value to Ole(!On of Selec:ted 

Reaeation Vuiu to BLM-Mauged Land: 

3.o44,000 

2,124,000 

1,826,000 

6;864,000 

1,241,000 

2,779,000 

2,798,000 

314,000 

2,632,000 

~~~~ 38,748,000 

10,840,000 

12,843,000 

I, 4 !I : ,. ~ffftJ 12,604,000 

2,099,000 

(-

~ 

, .'.':'I": I 1 17,561,000 

10,086,000 

755,000 

10,990,000 

9,098,000 

Total Vw10< Houn 116,526,000 

WJ!dlife-A.sociated Recreation 

Hunting Trips 

$69.947.000 

$247,103,000 

3 ~daa.add.ev~Mof~~ riliaeiJ.l,(--..f_.b:~•lliaWiaa-­

tM-. ~bods m-CMCpriu iDdudcduab 

tb&35l,OOOaaaD(Il.M ........ J.adaiD W..tw.a-. 

.wdl .. - 11JA,..III&Dipllluad iA OtcpD. 

• 

MISSION 

TIN lhltu. oflANJ ~ srutllins the hulth, 

. ~ 111111 prvt/wtivity of the publk l.rNh for the tall 

IIIUi mjoymmtofpremt IIIUifoturr~~ 
214 

UTAH 

- BLM-Managed Lands + BLM State Office Locations 

® BLM District Office Locations 

Major Highways 

Swba: Acreage of Land 

Managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management: 

22.15 million acres. 

Utah State Office 

324 South State Street. Suite 301 

P.O. Bcn45155 

·Salt Lake Gty, lTf 84145-0155 
215 

u T A H 

Public lands make up 42 percent of Utah (22.15 million 

acres), and are distributed across the length and breadth of the 

State. However, the greateSt concentration of BLM-managed 

lands is in watem and southeastern Utah. The temin is Vllried, ranging from rolling uplands in the trmtah Basin to 

sprawling lowlands in the Mojave Desert. Th= are remote 

mountain ranges in the Great Basin and speaacu1ar ted rock 

canyon country on the Colorado PlateaiL 

Coal, oil, and gas produced on BLM-managed lands are 

major contributors to Utah's energy indusay. BLM-managed 

lands also ofler a variety of world class archaeological and historical sites, including the AnasaU complex at Grand Gulcb, 

rock art at N'me Mile Canyon, and a 165-mile segment of the 

Pony Express Trail. 

Utah's public lands provide sanctuary to an unusually large 

number of threatened and endangered plant species-20 listed 

species and over I 00 candidate plants. BLM-managed lands 

ofler unparallded recreational opportunities, including mountain biking at the Slickrock Bike Trail, speed trials ar the 

Bonnc:ville Salt Flats, desert backpacking in the Canyons of the 

Escalante, and whitewater rafting on the Gn=, San Juan, and 

Colorado Rivers. 

BLM-Utah has completed Memoranda of Undemanding 

with State or County governments to provide seven] services, 

including land-use planning. law enforcement, wildfire conani, and road maintenanCe. BLM has enteted also into a 

number of cooperarive parmerships to improve the health of 

Utah's public lands. The Canyon Country Partnership was 

created to coordinare the planning and management action in 

the Canyon Country of southeastern Utah. The coalition, 

consisting of Federal and State land management agencies, 

County governments, and private citizens, serves as a model on 

how to put landscape-based management into practice. 

In another collaborative agreement, BLM-Utah hdpcd 

o.ganiu the Southern Utah Planning Authorities Council to 

promote undemanding and cooperation among Federal, State, 

and local governments in southwestern Utah. The dfon was 

prompted by rapid population growth in Washington County, 

where a pocket of private land is surrounded largdy by public 

lands with higb profile, sensitive mowce values. 

Ar the Slickrock Bila: Trial, BLM and Grand County officials have crafted an innovative agreement to permit joint management of the trail and the swrounding Sand Flats R=eation 

Area. Under the agr=nent, the use fee is returned directly to 

the site. Young people enrolled in the Arnericorp Program provide on-site management. 

Following Statehood. the Federal government tran.sfemd 

approximatdy 7.1 million acres of school trust land and other 
216 

lands ro the Scue of Ucah. Since then, about half of these 

lands have been solei: Today, the Stau: of Utah's School and 

lnstimtional Trust Lands Administration oversees about 3.5 

million acres of UUSt lands' under a mandau: ID nwcimizc revenues for Utah schools. Currently, the public is permitted free 

a= ID these lands for hunting. but the Trust 

Administration's genea1 policy is to allow for compensated 

uses only. 

Other State lands are administered by tbe Scue's 

Department ofNanual Resow=. The Division ofWddlife 

Resources manages 400,000 aacs of waterfowl, upland, and 

big game habitat, which are open ro tbe public for hunting and 

fishing. The Scue also operates a 45-unit State park sysu:m 

=ing about 100,000 acr<:s of land. Additionally, the 

Division of Sovereign Lands and Forestry manages several 

thousand acres of multipl<>-use lands in tbe southeastern part of 

tbe Sette. 

Federal Collecliom fiom BI.M-Man.aged Lands 

and Minerals 

Graz.ing Fees 

R=eation & Use Fees 

Miscellaneous ttecipts 

Sale of Land and Marerials 

Minitig Oaim Holding Fees 

Mineral Royalties, Rents llc Bonuses 

TOTAL 

Direct BLM FiDaDcial Transfa:. 1D Utah: 

Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (Pll.T) 

Graz.ing Fees 

Proa:cds of Sales 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, llc Bonuses 

TOTAL 

Bl.M Ia-ts in Utah.: 

Management of Lands and Resources 

Consauaion llc Acass 

Range lmpmvmlents 

Fire Management/Fudighting 

Prescribed Fue/Prcsuppression 

Fircfighting and Rd!ahilitation 

Service Charges, Deposits, llc Forfeitures 

TOTAL 

1,589,000 

546,000 

490,000 

688,000 

1,381,000 

66,457,000 

$71,151,000 

8,829,000 

199,000 

25,000 

31,074,000 

$40,127,000 

37,083,000 

1,624,000 

802,000 

1,760,000 

4,146,000 

635,000 

$46,050,000 

Other lmaauenu in Utah Dcrivr:d in Part fiom 

BI.M-Managed Lands and Minerals: 

Reclamation Fund $18,985,000 

1994 

1 The-.._... .. .wilioul11Dilliaa .:za J .w,.. 

IWflcc.-iacnlripa., ..... ---tbciCilool ........ 
217 

Allocation of~ Share oiFcdcral Minaal Ra:eipt Re.enna: 

Permanent Impact Board 32.5% Utah Geologic Survey 2.25% 

Higher Education 33.5% Water Research 2.25% 

State Transportation 25% PLT 2.25% 

Boud of Education 2.25% 

FY94 Reaational Aaivity on BLM-Managed land: 

Activity 

Camping 

Fishing 

Huntiog 

Photogr2phy, Picnicking. eu:. 

Swimming & Wattt Skiing 

Boatiog 

Motoriud Travel 

Wuucr Spons 

Hiking, Backpacking, Bicycling. ca:. 

557,000 

130,000 

1UTAL UTAH VISITS 7,747,000 

Hours 

8,450,000 

488,000 

1,937.000 

~ 

5,844,000 

802,000 

3.474,000 

11.493,000 

r-'-----. 330,000 

4,973,000 

Participuau Toal Vuitor Houn 37,791,000 

Estimated Economic Value to Utola afSdeaed 

Recreation VW.. to BLM-Manapl 1.-d: 

Wddlife-Associar.cd Recrearion $54,207,000 

Hunting Trips $294,001,000 

• 

MISSION 

Tile a..-.I!{LMrJM6....--.,ilcs the J.u/dJ, 

~ _,/ p8 6 I "ri!1 of the p,J,/ie laJs for the fUe 

-.l~l!fpnsn~~-'J-re~ 
218 

WASHINGTON 

• 

. ' 

. 

-. . .. ..;. . : 1 · , , 

.. 

I(· 

"·~ . . 

- BLM-Managed Lands + BLM State Office Locations 

C) BLM Distric:t Office Locations 

Major Highways 

Swface Acreage of Land 

Managed by the 

Bureau of land Management: 

351 ,750 million acres. 

The Oregon State Office 

also has jurisdiction over 

BLM-managed land 

in the State ofWashington. 

Oregon State Office 

1515 South West 5th Avenue 

P.O. Box 2965 

Portland, OR 97208-2965 
219 

w A s H I N 

BLM-managed lands (over 350,000 aaes) ...., concentr.U:-

ed east of the Cascade Crest in the oemnl Columbia Basin 

and in the highlands of northe3stan Washington along the 

Canadian border. In addition. public lands ...., fOund in the 

northern Puget Sound, nonh ofStmlc in San Juan County. 

A full range of habiws is fOund nn Wuhingmn's public land. 

including maritime lowlands. s:11; --brush, riparian zones, 

coniferous forms, and subalpine uas. BLM-JDalla!Pllands 

in Washington ...., under the jwisdiaion of the BLM Swr 

Office in Oregon. 

Washington's public lands indwlc one WJ!dcmess A=, 

one Wddemess Srudy Area, 15 Alas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, and numerous areas JDa11a1P1 principally for their reaeazion. riparian. and wildlik Yalues. · 

These include the mnmon siaa in Yakima Rmr Canyon. 

the Juniper Dunes Wddanas and DCalby off-hipway wbicle area outside the Tri-Qtits, and the <laaonded Scablands 

riparian areas jusr w= of Spobne. 

Mining and grazing also occur nn BLM-JDalla!Plland in 

Washington; then:...., appmziuwdy 350 grazing leases and 

more than 2,700 mining d.aims.. BLM administas mining 

and reclamation activities nn more than 1m Indian raen:ations, which provide some $200,000 annuaDy in toyalties to 

the tribes. Current BLM .iniDatifts include the rmew and 

approYal of major mining oper.uions, ndamation of uanium 

mines, a land achange in the Hanford R&:senation, and 

habitat restoration projects in oemnl Wuhingmn. 

BLM-WashingiDn has a long hiAory of oollaborarive 

working relationships with Scm: and loal govmunents. as 

well as with private o!pllizations. "The "fP1C1 manages more 

than 30,000 a=s of public lands coopaarivcly with the 

Washington Department ofWildlifi,. Apanena with the 

State Department ofNarunl Raowas and Em1ogy provide 

for joint oversight of mining and ndamation aaivitics. 

Many private groupo comribua: laiS of thousands of dollars 

for habitat restoration, consauaion. imaumy monitoring 

initiatives, and ovaall wlun~ a.iswla. 

By contrast, the Swr ofWashingmn's Dcpuunent of 

Narural Resowces manages about 2.9 millioo aa.s of Scm: 

lands, primarily to generate JeValW: lOr the schools. The 

Department also manages tbeae lands for mna0on and 

G T 0 N 
220 

wildlife protection, but only when o:hese goals are compatible 

wio:h o:he fiduciary responsibility to o:he State. State parks and 

wildlife agencies manage an additional 800,000 acres for <heir 

recreational and habitat values. 

Federal Collections &om BLM-Managcd land. and 

Minerals: 

Grazing Fees 

Miscellaneous Receipts 

Sale of Land and Materials 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bon= 

TOTAL 

54,000 

409,000 

879,000 

714,000 

$2,056,000 

Direct BLM Financial Transfers to Wuhington: 

Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (PILT) 

Grazing Fees 

Proceeds of Sales 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bon= 

TOTAL 

BLM Investments in Washington: 

Management of Lands and Resources 

Land Acquisition 

Consttuccion & At=ss 

Fire Management!Firefighcing 

Prescribed Fire!Presuppression 

Firefighcing and Rehabilitation 

TOTAL 

1,383,000 

27,000 

32,000 

123,000 

$1,565,000 

2,401,000 

1,283,000 

24,000 

182,000 

23,000 

$3,913,000 

Other lmatmenu in Wuhington Derived in Pan &om 

BLM-Managcd l.aDds and Minerala: 

Reclamation Fund $48,000 

1994 
• 

221 

Alloadaa oEWuhiagton Share of Federal Mineral 

lteceiJK a--

Min<al ra:eipts are invested, and the interest used to 

fund the school system. 

F\'94 Ra:aalioaol Aaivity on BLM-Managed Land: 

~ d= fur BLM-managed lands in Washington 

is indndcd in tbe data fur Otegon, as is the estimated 

economic ....We to Washington of sdeaed visits to BLM-

~ land. This infOrmation is collected according to 

administratM sate (Otegon!Washington) rather than by 

gmgraphic staR. 

MISSION 

1M ..... 1{1.-J~ lfllllliN the beJth, 

~-.I~ ufthe pabli& lmuls for the rue 

..J~.j"prtsmtiiiUifotare gmertttUms. 
222 

WYOMING 

- BLM-Managed Lands 

0 

0 

Surface Acreage of Land 

Managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management: 

18.4 million acres. 

BLM State Office Locations 

BLM District Office Locations 

Major Highways 

The Wyoming State Office 

also has jurisdiction over 

BLM-managed land 

in Kansas and Nebraska. 

Wyoming State Office 

2515 Warren Avenue 

P.O. Box 1828 

Cheyenne, WY 82003 
223 

w y 0 M I N 

BLM-managed lands (18.4 million~)= concenuated in the western twO-th.itds of Wyoming. but theJe are small, 

scattered parcels throughout the Sate. 'They atend primarily 

across high desert plains, but also include other tertain, such 

as sand dunes, badlands, and rugged mountains. 

A number of significant resources =fOund on 

Wyoming's public lands. The southwest portion of the State 

has atuacted considerable oil and gas de¥dopment where 

industry predicts then: will be between 6,000 and 11,000 

new wells in this region by the year 2015. Wyoming is the 

leading COo2l producer in the oounay, and Fedcr:al COo2l from 

the Powder River Basin is used to gmerue dectrici9' in 

approximately 35 states. Some 90 pen:att of the aona in the 

U.S. is =racted from chechrboard seaions of Federal and 

private minerals in the Green River Basin. 

The grazing permit ena>mpasang the most acreage in the 

country is located in Wyoming near Rock Springs. It is held 

by the Rock Sprin&' GrazingAssoc:iarion for 103,000 anim2l 

unit months. The overall allotment includes more than 2 

million acres of public, railrood, Swe, and private land. 

Public lands offer blue ribbon aour 6shing and world 

class hunting. as well as other reaeabonal activities, such as 

camping. caving. and hiking. Some of the nation's mOSt significant paleontological finds have ocxurn:d on Wyoming's 

public lands, including the 6m fully artiaJWed allosaurus, 

now in the Museum of the RociDcs in Bouman, MT. 

Vuitors can also enjoy BIM-IIWioapl hisu!ric sites, including Native American peaogl.ypbs, anigrant ctehinp, as well 

as portions of uails wed by sealers moving wcstWatd. 

Original wagon ruts along National Historic Trails, such as 

the Oregon Trail, can still be seen. 

BLM-Wyoming has en!aal into a number of oollaborative agreements to improve land managanent in the Atate. 

For example, the half-million-acre Sun Rand!. Coordinated 

Resource Management Strategy em:ods aaoa State, Federal 

and private land in cenaal Wyoming. BLM has cooperated 

with several government agencies, inmac groups. and land 

managers to improve range oonditions, heal acck banks, and 

enhance water quality in the a-. 'They have also worked 

together successfully to restore the s wetland vegetation and waterfowl nesting habitaL 

Another important coopera!M ini1Wive has been the 

Memorandum of Understanding reached with the Wyoming 

Game and Fuh DepartmenL By agreeing to review Jointly 

lands identified for oil and gas leasing. BLM has been able to 

G 
reduce the number of disputes, including litigation, surrounding leasing. 

By contrast, the State of wyoming owns 3.6 million acres 

ofland, not including parks or wildlife areas, which it manages to generate revenue for the school system. The State is 

required to maximize income from these lands. Somewhat 

like BLM-managed lands, the State makes most of its land 

accessible to the public for hunting and other recreational 

wes. 

Federal Collections from BLM-Managed Lands 

and Minerals: 

Grazing Fees 

Recreation & Use Fees 

Miscdlaneous Receipts 

Sale of Land and Materials 

Mining Claim Holding Fees 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonwes 

TOTAL 

2,805,000 

50,000 

1,122,000 

1,201,000 

1,342,000 

501,638,000 

$508,158,000 

Direct BLM Fmancial Transfers to wyoming: 

Payment in Lieu ofTaxes (PILn 

Grazing Fees 

Proceeds of Sales 

Mineral Royalties, Rents, & Bonwes 

TOTAL 

BLM Investments in wyoming: 

Management of Lands and Resources 

Land Acquisition 

Range Improvements 

Construction & Access 

Fire Management/Firdighting 

Prescribed Fire/Presuppression 

Firefighting and Rehabilitation 

Service Charges, Deposits, & Forfeitures 

TOTAL 

5,442,000 

695,000 

41,000 

242,Q66,000 

$248,244,000 

39,908,000 

96,000 

2,305,000 

469,000 

1,254,000 

1,551,000 

476,000 

$46,059,000 

Other Investments in Wyoming Derived in Part from 

BLM-Managed Lands and Minerals: 

Reclamation Fund $13,990,000 

1994 
225 

Allocation ofWyomiog Shan: ofFcdaal Mineral Receipt Revalues: 

Wyoming Public Schools 45% University.ofWyoming 9.4% 

General Highway Fund 26.25% Highway Fund 2.25% 

·· Public School Construction I 0% 

FY94 R=cuioaal Aairity on BLM-Maoaged Land:' 

Activity Participants 

Camping 115,000 

Fishing 

Hunting 

Boating 

Motorized Travel 

WmrcrSporu 

Hiking, Bodcpockiog. Bic:ydiog. cte. 

~ 147,000 

547,000 

121,000 

I.'!:"'~_, 549.ooo 

32.000 

r-_.,,:-. ~ · 1 17s.ooo 

~ 

I,""P>,~~ 1 

~- -',':, ·) 

TOTAL wYOMING VISITS 1,795,000 

Hours 

3,095,000 

810,000 

8,035,000 

1,238,000 

3,000 

167,000 

2,551,000 

112,000 

1,125,000 

Tota!Vuitor Houn 17,136,000 

Eotimated Eamomic Valne to Wyoming of Selec:ted 

Recreation Vuia to BLM-Maoapl Land: 

Wlldlife-Aaociattd R=-cation 

Hunting Trips 

$50,643,000 

$111,182,000 

I ~--dw'lllurof.docad naadoo .... BU( ............ ~.~ 

tM-. 1'DcreM&.bachm..-..;.bacWcMfor 

,SOO~aaolBLM ........ Iadaia~..t 

Ntballla.•wd•foriUofi ....... .a..d iA ~ 

• 

MISSION 

T7N ~ .JLINI~ JfiSt4iN the hubh, 

~ -'~.Jthe }'flblklmu/sfor the rue 

-' ~ .Jpresm~-'fotare gmn-fllitms. 
FFE SYIUNGn»> OOYiiM>O 

July 28, 1995 

Dear Mr. Chainnan: 

J'rizona 

,tub ~unb ;!ilepurtment 

We appreciate the opportunity 10 give you our views on H.R. 2032 which would transfer lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the state in which the lands are 

located. 

We express our regret that the short notice on these important bearings precluded our ability 10 

appear before the committee in penon. We hope these written comments will assist you in some 

small way 10 complete the important task you have undertaken. · 

As you lcnow, Governor Symington is a strong supporter of streamlining land and resource 

management processes 10 make them more efficient and effective to the benefit of the citizens, 

now and in the long run. Governor Symington has made proposals 10 the Departments of 

Agriculture and Interior to accomplish some of the objectives embodied in H.R. 2032. · 

As we understand the draft of the bill, it would transfer aU rights, title, and interest on BI.M 

lands 10 the states subject to valid existing rights and interest, including fee simple interest, 

where both the surface and mineral estates are owned by the United States, and would include 

federally owed mineral rights under lauds owned by others. It would also include any federally 

owned water rights related to these lands. Mineral interesta underlying Indian Reservation lands 

would be excluded. In each state where BLM lands are owned, the federal government would 

have two years to offer the federal owned BI.M lands 10 the state Governor. 

As we understand it, the state could not pick and choose which lands 10 accept or reject; it 

would be an all or none proposition. Also, as we understand it, the governor of the state would 

have an indefinite period of time to accept the offer which would become effective ten years 

after the govemor's acceptance. 

Section 2 , dealing with leases, permits, rights-of-way, and uopatented mining claims, would 

require that all federal existing leases and permits on transferred lands would remain in effect 

and would be managed under the existing terms and conditions. After the expiration of the lease 

or permit, they would be held according to the laws and rules of each state. Mining claims 

would be entitled 10 a patent if prior 10 transfer to the state, an application had been filed with 

the Secretary of Interior. Otherwise, mining claims would be managed under the laws of the 

state. Right-of-way agreements granted by the United States would be accepted and respected 

by the state. · 
Chainnan H. R. 2032 

July 28, 1995 

Page 2 

Section 3, dealing with wiJdemess areas, military uses, and OCher administrative obligations 

requires the state to maoage wilderness and military use areas as they were managed under 

federal conlrol. Military withdrawal lands would be respected by the state until the withdrawal 

term is expired, at which time the Governor could negotiate for continued use by the military. 

Arizona, including the federal land within the state, does not have high value timber or energy 

minerals, unfortunately. This means that assumption of the federal lands and the management 

obligations would fall on Arizona without sufficient opportunity to offset costs. This is 

particularly true with the exceptions and reservations that would condition the transfer of land 

to the state. For this reason, Governor Symington's proposals in the past have been more along 

the lines of the state assuming the on the ground management responsibilities in accordance with 

federal laws and management requirement. 

Governor Symington has proposed that state government assume more responsibility in the 

management of Federal lands in Arizona. By placing the management structure closer to the 

local residents that live bere, we could manage land and resources at a higher standard at less 

cost than is now being experieoccd by the federal government and our taxpayers. 

H.R. 2032 leaves some fundamental questions unanswered that are of concern to us. Who 

would be responsible for mitigation of sites that were made hazardous under federal control (i.e. 

abandoned mines, hazardous waste sites on non-military lands)? Who will be liable for suits 

resulting from past actions of the federal government (i.e. title disputes, contract disputes)? 

Would the Endangered Species Act apply to these transferred lands in the same manner they now 

apply to federal lands. 

Would it be possible to insert in some part of the proposed legislation the option of state 

management of these low monetary return lands and, at the same time, have some level of 

federal financial support? This may be appropriate since many of the conditions and reservations 

of the land transfer would dictate that the lands be managed for the benefit of all United States' 

citizens, and not just the state's citizens. Wilderness areas and military reservations are two 

examples where lands are serving a national purpose. 

The concerns we have do not diminish our desire to manage these lands locally. It is difficult 

though to sec where mooetaiy returns from these economically low value lands could offset 

management costs in our state if all costs of management and liability become the responsibility 

of the state. It is clear to us that the timbered lands of the northwest and the oil, gas and energy 

mineral resources of some states would make this legislation possible and perhaps highly 

desirable. 
Chairman H. R. 2032 

July 28, 1995 

Page 3 

228 

We request that the Committee consider making H.R. 2032 more flexible to allow tbe land 

transfers to be tailored to the individual states. Arizona, witb its vast tracts of military 

reservations, wilderness areas, and low productivity desert would have a difficult time assuming 

tbe entire management cost of tbe BLM lands and tbe encumbrances upon tbem. 

Thank you for tbe opportunity to comment on this bold and timely legislative proposal. 

Governor Symington and the Arizona State Land Department look forward to working witb your 

staff in any way possible to make this effort work to tbe benefit of all states. 

Sincerely, 

J· a~ ~JLkL L- M. Jean Hassell 

\ ~ Arizona State Land Commissioner 

MJH/mb 
229 

National Congress of American Indians 3010 ....._., • ..tta AYe•••• W.W., 2ad noor. WubiDatDD, D.C. 20036(202) 466-7767 Fax t203J 466-TTtT 

--·------· ---

--L-- ......... 

--- ---0'-

AM.&VJCSP--

----- --

~J.-... 

--

__ 

...... _ 

-·- --.................. 

--

----...... 

----........ _ 

......... 

--- .. M-

--- .... _ o...p ... 

--- ... c.o..lio ........ 

-

--· 

--

--------... _.._ 

........ 

--

~ILa....oi.A 

....... ..._ 

I August 1995 

Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks Forests, and Lands 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re· Transfer ofBLM-Admjnistered Lands to the States 

Dear Chainnan Hansen: 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the oldest, 

largest, and most representative Tribal organization in the nation, I am writing 

regarding R. 2032. Our initial analysis of this legislation suggests that the 

transfer of lands currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management to the 

States in which the lands are located could pose real problems for Indian Tribes. 

As you know, our Constitution makes Indian affairs a Federal prerogative, largely 

devoid of State interference, but H.R. 2032 intersperses State authority into the 

Tribal-Federal relationship. Specifically, the bill ignores the possible transfer of 

Tribal aboriginal lands back to their original; Tribal owners. In addition, H.R. 

2032 may severely impact Tribal interests by transferring land management 

authority to the States, and in the process create serious Tribal-State conflicts. 

Under the provisions of this bill, States would be granted the opportunity to reap 

profits from the management of Federal land. and perhaps more disturbing, would 

be given the authority to enforce Federal laws on these lands. Such grants of 

authority are in conflict with the Tribal interest. Under this bill, States are 

mandaled to dispose of the lands, or to manage them to maximize profit. In either 

event it is undcar how this process serves Indian Tribes. We look forward to your 

response. If you have questions please do not hesitate to call me or Paul 

Moorehead of our staff at 466-7767. 

;q~. JoAnn K. Chase r· 

Executive Director 
230 

0 State of Utah 

DEPARTMENT OF NATllltAL RBSOURCES 

-o.~.oow~ .. .,.._ 

'l'ool-

-- ••--T-.1-Sit 

-~Qr llrM,W.D • ,.-..nao .. .-,,._ 

··-7<1111(1DOJ 

Congressman James v. Hansen 

2466 Rayburn Bouse Office Building washington, o.c. 20515 

Dear Congressman Hansen: 

July 31, 1995 

Governor Leavitt apoloqizes that he is not able to attend 

your hearing to consider legislation to transfer Bureau of Land 

Management Landa to the western states. Governor Leavitt is 

supportive of the concept of the transfer of BLM lands to states 

with a major caveat, that the transfer take place without strings attached. :If these lands were transferred to the states subject 

to All existing law, in which case the states simply become 

surrogates tor ths federal government in administration of all of 

the current proqrams and sUbject to all of the current 

regulations, the state of Utah would gain nothing by such 

transfer. The transfer should taka place with the minimal amount 

of strings attached. 

As one of the leaders nationally to reestablish the balance 

between the states and the federal government, Governor Leavitt 

understands that a balance can never be achieved in the western 

states as lonq as the federal government continues to have 

jurisdiction over 70 percent of the land base within those 

states. 

Utahns love the public lands. We are dependent upon them 

for grazing, water, oil and gas and mineral extraction, tourism, 

recreation, and solitude. Not only do we loYe these lands, but we are good stewards of the lands. DUring Governor Leavitt's 

administration, he has demonatrated his willingness to exert 

stewardship over the land, water, and wildlife in an aggressive fashion. Some examples include the creation of an 82 mila, instream tlow in the san Rafael river for wildlife purposes. The 

state of utah has been a supportive partner in the development of 

the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan in Washington 

County and in the recovery plan tor the endangered fish in the 

Colorado River. In addition, the state of Utah runs one of the 

finest state park systems in the nation and is actively pursuing the development of recreational opportunities tor its whole host 

of citizens. 
Conqressman jaaes V. Hansen 

July 31, 1995 

Page 2 

231 

The state of Utah has been a primacy state in the area of 

regulation of oil, gas and mining for almost two decades and runs one of the finest proqrams in the United States. In particular, the state has been very aqqressive in requiring the reclamation 

of oil and qas drill sites and mines as they are retired, and has 

also pursued the reclamation of long abandoned mines throughout the state of utah. The state of Utah has tremendous success stories in the management of its wildlife and fisheries. In 

recant years the state has initiated etforts to see to the wise usa of our liaited water resources and has become a pioneer in 

encouraging conservation of our water supplies. Other states 

have similar exaaples. In summary, it would be erroneous to 

believe that BLH •anagement is a better steward of the lands than 

would be the various states, including the state of utah. 

It must be noted that the citizens of the state of Utah are the primary force in requiring a balanced approach to the 

stewardShip of our land, water and wildlife. As with other 

states, the .citizens of the state of Utah would insist that 

ownership of BLH lands by the state would result in a continuation of that balanced approach and not a diminution in 

the stewardship. 

It has been asserted that if the Bureau of Land Management lands were transferred to the state of Utah that there would be an immediate privatization of such lands. That fear is 

unjustified. Not only would the citizens of the state of Utah 

protest such a step, because of its impact on their access to 

recreation opportunities, oil and gas and mining activities and 

such, but the tact is we have not found an interest on the part 

of ranchers, •inars, oil and gas co~nies or developers to 

purchase the Bureau of :t.and Managqent lands for their own private purposes. 

Governor Laavitt appreciates this opportunity to express 

support for your legislation. 

slw 

0 

p]C,:l 

Ted stewart 

EXecutive Director 

20-051 (236)