STATE VS. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT 

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 

MANAGEMENT TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS FROM THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT TO THE STATES 

93-419 cc 

JUNE 20, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-23 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

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

ISBN 0-16-047669-0 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY,Califurrua 

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, Califorrua 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, Califorrua 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washingum 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, Califorrua 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virgirua 

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, Masaachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Vl.l'girua 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califorru~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, Califorrua 

DANIEL VAL .K!SH, Chief of Staff 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Minority Staff Director 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE 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 Virgirua 

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

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Califorrua PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

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

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 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, Califorrua MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Staff Director/ Counsel 

STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held June 20, 1995 .... ...... ......... .................................... ............................. 1 

Statements of Members: Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho ........ ................. 18 

Cooley, Hon. Wes, a U.S. Representative from Oregon .................... ............. 16 

Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., a U.S. Representative from Tennessee ............. 34 

Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah and Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands .......... ..................... 1 

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a U.S. Representative from California, and 

Chairman, Task Force on Endangered Species .......................................... 14 

Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico .................. 2 

Shadegg, Hon. John B., a U.S. Representative from Arizona ....................... 12 

Stump, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Representative from Arizona ...... .................. ........ 3 

Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota ........ ............. 23 

Williams, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Representative from Montana ...... .... ................. 25 

Statements of witnesses: Symington, Fife, Governor of Arizona ............................................................ 3 

Prepared statement ........................................... ........................................ 44 

Nelson, Robert H., Professor of Public Affairs, University of Maryland ...... 28 

Prepared statement ................................................... ... ................. ............ 50 

Leal, Don, Political Economy Research Center .................. ............................ 30 

Prepared statement .................................................... ............................... 69 

(Ill) 

STATE VS. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT 

TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1995 

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 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen 

[chainnan of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. HANSEN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTA· 

TIVE FROM UTAH AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands commences today to take testimony on the economies and efficiencies 

of State management of Federal lands. There is an ever-increasing 

interest in the West, in rural America and in Congress to find ways 

to substantially increase the involvement of the State and local 

governments. 

The overwhelming discontent in the West stems from the enormous Federal presence through ownership of lands and resources. 

Although in past decades the Federal Government has been a good 

neighbor, the trend over the last 20 years has been toward a top- down, command-and-control approach to management of Federal 

lands. As the economies of the rural West come under extreme 

pressures, there is an increased need for further involvement of 

local interests in policies and management on Federal lands. 

I, along with the help of Congressmen Bob Stump, Joe Skeen, 

Barbara Vucanovich and several members on this committee, organized the Western Caucus during the 103d Congress. The principal 

reason for the creation of this group was to explore the possibilities 

of finding ways for the States to manage some or all of the Federal 

lands within their borders. We introduced legislation last Congress 

that would allow the States to accept title to BLM lands and manage them according to State and local policies. 

The 104th Congress brings better opportunities to explore this 

notion, and I along with many other Members will introduce legislation this summer that will allow the States to take title to all 

BLM lands. 

This idea may be scoffed at or dismissed as impossible. However, 

I can tell you that this issue is not taken lightly in the State legislatures, county commissions or city councils of the rural West. They 

are dead serious about this proposition, and so are many Members 

(1) 
2 

of the House and Senate. There are real lessons to be learned from 

governments that are closer to the land and the people, and this 

Congress should start paying attention. 

We are privileged to have with us today Governor Fife Symington from Arizona. Governor Symington is a leader in promoting the 

role of the States to increase their involvement in Federal lands. 

The Governor's Arizona Land Plan 2000 is an innovative and productive approach to the future of his State and as a model to other 

western States. 

I will turn to my colleague from the State of New Mexico, the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Richardson, for any comments he may have. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

As you mentioned, this morning's hearing will focus on a proposal to transfer the management of public lands from the Federal 

Government to States. Governor Fife Symington in my neighboring 

State of Arizona is here to testify on this matter, and I welcome 

the governor, along with our esteemed colleague, Bob Stump. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting idea. I do think that before 

any proposal to transfer public lands or the management of public 

lands, we have to make sure we are doing the right thing, and it 

should be thoroughly studied. I am a firm believer in the value of 

Federal land management of some of our natural resources. In 

many instances, there is an appropriate Federal role for management of wilderness which is enjoyed by all Americans. Public lands 

are exactly that, public, and should be maintained as such. 

At the same time, I am willing to consider other proposals. I believe these alternatives must be looked at from the perspective of 

the taxpayer, the State and any likely land user in order to determine the most effective and fair policy response. 

Currently, the cost of managing public lands, including such expenses as firefighting and lease enforcement, is paid for by all 

American taxpayers. As public lands, they do, after all, belong to 

all of us. If public lands are turned over to a · State, then the tax 

base from which management funds are derived shrinks considerably. States will have to gear up with needed infrastructure in 

order to be able to handle potentially millions of acres transferred 

to them. 

We must find out how a State would plan to get the extra revenue to pay the increased costs that managing additional acres 

would require. States may need · to raise revenues to achieve this 

or sell off the land to meet budget demands. Privatization or asset 

sales of our heritage strikes me as something that could be a problem. Such action could result in future problems for generations; 

but, again, as I mentioned, I am willing to consider some new alternatives. Mr. Chairman, I understand you will be introducing legislation 

on this topic. I look forward to a healthy discussion on these significant proposals. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate your comments and especially the part 

about having an open mind about it and looking at it with some 

freedom. 
3 

Introducing Governor Symington is my long-time friend and colleague, Bob Stump. Bob is really a true champion of his constituents, and he is a leader in promoting the role of the States on Federal lands. I welcome our witnesses and appreciate their efforts to 

join us and share their expertise. And, Bob, we will turn the time 

to you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB STUMP, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA 

Mr. STUMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first thank you for having this hearing. You have been 

a leader all along on this issue, and it was under your leadership 

to introduce the bill last year to return the control of the BLM 

lands over to the States, and I am glad to see you pursuing that 

this year. 

Ai3 you know, Arizona is only 17 percent controlled by the private 

sector, about 13 percent by the State, and that leaves the balance 

of the 70 percent, over 51 million acres, under some sort of Federal 

control. 

I am happy to be here to introduce Governor Symington to you 

today. The governor is recognized as a leader nationally in the area 

of western land and water management. About a year ago, he put 

together a very diverse group in Arizona to study the possibility of 

turning the control of BLM lands over to the State by consolidating 

some of the issues, and I think you will find his testimony today 

very interesting, and I am happy to be here to introduce him to 

you. Governor Symington. 

Mr. HANSEN. Before you start, let me just say that it is an honor 

to have you here. We consider this a real privilege to have you before us at this time, and I join with Bob in his comments. Thank 

you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR FIFE SYMINGTON, ARIZONA 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your 

courtesies in allowing me to say a few words today. I wish to openly express iny admiration to you and also, of course, to my colleague and friend, Chairman Stump, who is revered in Arizona and 

is a great leader in our State and in this country. 

This is a unique opportunity for me, Mr. Chairman, and I really 

wish to thank you for this chance. I will attempt to summarize my 

prepared remarks; and, with your permission, I would ask that the 

full text be entered into the record along with a couple of handouts 

that we have included. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here to discuss State concerns with regard to Federal land management in the western United States. 

I have been Governor for just over four years. I have been an 

outdoorsman for much longer than that. It is with the perspective 

of both that I come before you to discuss ideas for the future of the 

Federal land in the West generally and, specifically, in Arizona. 

Ai3 this committee is well aware, approximately 70 percent of the 

State of Arizona is owned by the Federal Government. These lands 

are an important natural asset to the State and the Nation. 
4 

It is my belief that the decisions made in Washington, DC, are 

having an unjustifiable and indefensible impact on the management of these lands. Deterioration of the resource is occurring 

today. Far greater destruction is imminent. The situation calls for 

creativity and boldness in the administration of these lands. Those 

qualities are not in evidence from the current leadership of the 

Clinton Administration. 

The President and the Secretary of the Interior, a former Governor of my great State, have failed to present a comprehensive solution to our Federal lands mess. The Administration has offered 

simple or wrong suggestions to complex problems. Once again, by 

refusing to lead, the White House has abandoned its responsibilities and shifted an administrative nightmare off to the Congress. 

During the next few minutes, I will detail an offer to the Federal 

Government to help work out this problem. I fully expect my offer 

to be rejected by the President. I have made offers of assistance before, only to have them languish in the bureaucratic netherlands. 

I will most humbly suggest for this committee that if Arizona's 

budget were in as bad a shape as yours, I would be welcoming 

partners, not chasing them off with a stick. 

Last spring, my office conducted research into land management 

organizations of the Federal Government. This analysis resulted in 

a number of findings which could help reform management and to 

address current problems in our forests and our deserts. 

Within this plan is a simple visual demonstration which identifies precisely one of the key problems facing our Federal land management system. I brought some charts with me today which are 

here on the easel. 

The other way to look at this problem is to look at the map of 

Surface Management Responsibility in Arizona, and you will see 

that private land is represented by the color white, but most of you 

probably can't tell where there is any white on this map. That is 

the one on the easel. All the rest are competing Federal and State 

jurisdictions. It is almost as if somebody threw a bottle of ink at 

the map, and it is a very irrational design. 

Better yet, that shows you all of the different jurisdictional lines 

of Federal agencies and their offices in the State of Arizona, and 

it is basically a patchwork quilt that makes management extremely 

difficult. And that is one of the reasons why we have such gridlock 

in our State. 

If you think this looks confusing on the map, you can imagine 

how confusing this is to the hiker, the rancher, the hunter and 

even the land managers themselves. All of these jurisdictions are 

swirled together along congressionally or administratively . drawn 

lines that do not reflect ecosystems, habitats or any other scientifically justified distinction. The only constant among all of these 

lines is the outline, the State boundary, and that is a constant that 

needs to be clearly recognized as we seek solutions to land management problems. · The Land Plan 2000 analysis made some important observations: 

Important decisions on Arizona research management policy for 

over 70 percent of our land are made by individuals located in regional or national offices outside of Arizona. 
5 

The division of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management between two separate Cabinet agencies creates overlap, 

duplication and increased administrative overhead. 

As a result of the separate missions and objectives of the different agencies, it is very difficult to achieve and develop unified 

public support for a balance among all interests. There is no unity 

of purpose among agencies and no forum to work through competing positions. 

There are multiple layers of management that exist within the 

organizational structures of these agencies. This results in an accidental bureaucracy which impairs information flow and decisionmaking and increases costs. 

Overlapping jurisdictional limits in functional areas like fire control, wildlife management and watershed management makes such 

functions nearly impossible to exercise. 

Within that framework, difficulties are predictable. As President 

Clinton's National Performance Review pointed out in 1993, different agencies with jurisdictions over the same ecosystem do not 

work well together. Even within the same agency, bureaus fight 

one another. Two years later, the same is true. 

By contrast, State management decisions are made by State residents. Elected officials at the State and local level can be held directly accountable for the effect of their decisions or management 

on the resource. 

No such direct accountability exists for Federal land managers. 

Even Secretary Babbitt is an appointee. 

Also, some States have their natural resource functions combined 

into a single agency where a forum exists for resolving competing 

views. Other States like Arizona have their natural resource functions divided among agencies. However, these jurisdictions rarely 

overlap and, when necessary, coordination is easily attained. 

The current regime of distant Federal management is harmful to 

the resource. The condition of our national parks is deteriorating 

as infrastructure and maintenance improvements are postponed. 

Our forests are in imminent danger of catastrophic wildfire, insect 

infestation or disease that will destroy habitats. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service is designating critical habitat for endangered spe- cies but doing nothing to implement recovery plans that could benefit the species. 

And now this Congress and the Clinton Administration are working to eliminate the Federal budget deficit within seven to ten. 

years. This means that even fewer dollars will be available to exercise stewardship on our Federal lands. 

Given all of this, the Federal Government can no longer afford 

to maintain a management system which is expensive, inefficient 

and ineffective. In order to prevent these budget constraints from 

harming the resource, we should identify alternative systems of 

management . . The Clinton Administration's approach today is to threaten the 

closure of national parks, close science agencies and curtail 

partnering activities. This is not a solution. Congress is considering 

legislation that would require review of existing park facilities to 

create a strategic plan for the management of these parks. That 

approach is more thoughtful. 
6 

But even if Congress does pass legislation to address long-tenn 

park and public land management questions, it is not clear today 

whether you have a responsible executive branch that is interested 

or willing to pursue difficult but creative solutions. 

For example, the Clinton Administration has also circulated a 

plan that calls itself reinvention of the Forest Service. Our reading 

of this plan indicates that this plan only further centralizes authority in Washington, DC. In fact, it appears to be directly contradictory to President Clinton's executive order to enhance intergovernmental partnerships. 

So I would like to talk about solutions. I want to offer several 

ideas that could help us solve many of these seemingly intractable 

public land decisions. 

Solution number one: Pursuant to the recommendations of the 

National Perfonnance Review to develop ecosystem management 

demonstration project, identify areas in the western U.S. that 

would be suitable for such an experiment. I would propose three 

types of demonstrations to begin with: a demonstration of State 

management of a national park, a demonstration of State management of a wildlife refuge and a demonstration of State management of rangeland. 

It has been my contention that local management of these resources could result in improved management at reduced cost. I 

have examples to back me up. 

In 1988, the Arizona legislature gave our State park system the 

authority to keep the revenues they collect from the park system. 

The result is a park system that is largely self-sustaining, that 

knows how to manage its resource and collect revenues. Our State 

parks have a business orientation that provides the funding to protect the conservation values. 

And don't take what I say on faith. Give us the chance to operate 

Montezuma Castle or the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge or 

the San Pedro National Conservation Area. Give us 90 percent of 

the current Federal budget to do so. Give us five years. Let us 

show you what we can do. 

Solution number two: Review the language of the Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act as a source of authority for turning management of these lands to State entities without actually relinquishing 

title. The current Administration is hostile to this approach, so congressional oversight is in order. 

Solution number three: Redesign the accountability model that 

currently exists on our Federal lands. Today's model has Federal 

employees attempting to make decisions and being accountable 

only to appointed officials in Washington or appointed judges in the 

circuits. A better model is to make land managers accountable to 

local communities and States. If the community does not believe 

that the managers are doing their job, then it will be the local or 

the State elected officials who will have to answer for it-in some 

cases with their jobs. 

Public opinion surveys show that most people want to conserve 

our natural resources. Who do they blame today when the managers fail to meet their stewardship responsibilities? Where do they 

go for redress? 
7 

In Arizona just last week I launched an initiative to preserve 

State trust lands from the blade of development. I can't just pass 

a law or a regulation to do so. I need to recruit partners in the local 

governments and with interested citizens to make this plan a reality. My plan depends on resources, both financial and human, to 

succeed. It will not be easy-and it shouldn't be. The response, 

though, has been overwhelmingly positive from across the rolitical 

spectrum. You will be pleased to kn<?W that the notion o citizen 

participation hi government decisions is still very popular. 

Finally, I would suggest you resist the temptation to manage the 

public lands from these committee rooms. In days past, this has 

sometimes been the case. You can set the tone and create the environment for public land management, but the stewardship of the 

land itself must be conducted by the people who live there. 

Given the combination of public interest, budget constraints and 

a renewed public ethic of local decisionmaking and control, now is 

the ideal time to "think outside of the box" and to be bold in how 

we address land management controversies. The State of Arizona 

is ready to work cooperatively with you in pursuit of the public interest. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak 

my mind. And I would also like to acknowledge the presence of several more Congressmen from Arizona, J.D. Hayworth and John 

Shadegg, who are admired colleagues and deeply respected in our 

State for their leadership on so many important issues. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Governor Symington. We appreciate 

your excellent testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Symington can be found at 

the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Our colleague from Arizona, Bob Stump. Bob, do 

you have any comments you would like to make? 

Mr. STUMP. No. Just thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

having this hearing. 

Mr. HANSEN. Governor, we would appreciate it if you could submit to some questions from the committee. Would that be agree- able? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, that is fine. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think your testimony was excellent. It had some 

very creative solutions in it. I have just been reviewing them as 

you have been speaking. 

Years ago, in my prior life, I was Speaker of the House in the 

State of Utah. The Governor was a fellow by the name of Matheson. He was a Democrat, a very fine gentleman. He came up with 

an innovative idea, and he called it Project Bold. 

Like your State, our State has some of the similar things. It is 

like a patchwork quilt in holdings-private, State, Federal. He 

wanted to block these out which would be advantageous to all of 

the people involved. I think he was a little ahead of his time, and 

it didn't sell back here, even though the idea has been kicked 

around ever since. 

I know that at· the time we did a rather exhaustive study on the 

costs that we were putting out to manage State lands. And compared to the costs of Federal lands we found that we were manag-
8 

ing State lands that were contiguous to Federal lands for a third 

of the cost. We then expanded the study to see if we were doing 

as good a job as the Federal Government. 

Our conclusions-and maybe it was biased, but I don't think sowere that we were doing a better job on managing the land than 

the Federal Government for a third of the cost. Now, that has been 

16, 17 years ago, so maybe that doesn't hold. 

Using that as a premise, do you feel that that would be correct 

in your State? That the State government is actually doing a better 

job in managing the public land than the Federal Government? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I believe we are, and I believe there are tremendous savings available as the Federal Government shifts responsibility to the States. 

Right now, the Forest Service manages about 12 and a half million acres in Arizona. The BLM manages about 11 and a half million acres. And, as best as we can determine, the Forest Service operating budget is somewhere around $70.5 million and the BLM 

budget for Arizona is around $29 million to $30 million. 

The State of Arizona manages 9.5 million acres, and our operating budget is about $12.5 million, and we do a darn good job. In 

fact, we are positive that if we are given the chance to show what 

we can do, as I mentioned in my offer, that we will actually save 

the Federal Government money. We will make money for the Federal Government. 

And I would point out and highlight the fact that it is the bureaucratic structure that has been unchanged for generations that 

basically is a problem. 

There is a better way to manage. It is time for the introduction 

of total quality of management and a redesigning of process here 

between the State and the Federal Government. And we could save 

the American taxpayers a lot of money and do a better job managing the natural resource. 

Mr. HANSEN. So in fact you would agree with the results we had 

in Utah years ago that you are probably doing a better job in managing the ground. 

In my opening comments, I talked about the bill that will be presented to this committee in the not-too-distant future. And there 

are a lot of ways we are trying to skin this cat. It becomes very 

difficult. We want it to be a win/win for both the States and the 

Federal Government. 

On the one hand, we want it to be a win to the Federal Government that they do not have the excessive costs. On the other hand, 

we want to have it closer to the people. We want the States to have 

the advantage of having a win for them regarding some of the 

things on the Federal grounds such as mines, timber, cattle, whatever it may be. 

This may be somewhat of a difficult task, and so we do appreciate what you have given us today, and we will look at this in 

great detail, and we will be giving you some information. 

And when we throw this bill out, we realize it is just throwing 

it out on the table, and it will probably be taken apart from every 

angle. But it is a creative idea that we are looking at, and I have 

copies of it here for anyone who would like to see it. 
9 

With that, I don't want to take any more of the time. We are 

going to ask members if they would like to ask the Governor a 

question. We will start with our friend from New Mexico, the 

Ranking Member of the committee, Mr. Richardson. We will give everybody five minutes to question the Governor. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Governor, in terms of your State of Arizona, 

the concern I have, if we turned over from the Federal side the 

management of public lands, the title of public lands to you, how 

would you pay for that? How do you envision the payment scheme 

changing? Or is it something from your own budget? Or would you 

expect the Federal funds that normally would manage those two 

monuments to go directly to you? Give us maybe a specific situation with respect to Arizona. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Richardson, first of all, there is a distinction to be made here. My emphasis 

in Land Plan 2000 was not a transfer of title but an integration 

of management responsibility. Because when you look at this polyglot of management jurisdictions, anybody who knows anything 

about management will tell you that this is an invitation for 

gridlock; and, indeed, that is what we have. 

So our emphasis has been first on redesigning jurisdictional 

lines, bringing some rationality to the ecosystem management and 

pulling together both the State and the Federal functions because 

much of our land is checker-boarded with the Federal Government. 

So if it affects the Federal lands, it affects our State trust lands. 

So it is not a transfer of title. It is a new concept of management 

responsibility to integrate and make more efficient; and, therefore, 

that means downsizing of a lot of the Federal bureaucratic structure, and we will end up basically turning money back to the Federal Government. 

Then the next step would be to allow us to show you how well 

we could run through three pilot projects certain Federal assets. 

We could prove to you that we can do, if you give us a chance, a 

better job of managin~ these assets more efficiently and save you 

money so you wouldn t have to be giving us more. You would be 

giving actually less to this purpose. That is the second step. 

And then the third step, of course, is the ongoing aspiration of 

westerners to have these lands returned to the States. And the title 

to these lands, that has been a long-standing dream. Because we 

feel, as you know from New Mexico-! am sure you feel the same 

way-that some of the Western States were definitely discriminated against when they came into the Union through the course 

of history as compared to States east of the Mississippi. 

Having this large a Federal presence in a State really runs 

counter, I think, to the original vision of the Founding Fathers 

when they built this country. I don't think it is healthy to have 

that strong a Federal presence and ownership of Federal land in 

a State, other than national parks and Indian reservations. But 

that is an entirely different issue. 

The bottom line, we would like you to give us the lands back. 

That would be the optimum. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, Governor, I am glad you clarified the title 

issue. The joint management aspect, what happens to the revenuesharing, let's say from the development of resources? I know you 
10 

have a lot in Arizona, as we do in New Mexico. Namely, let's say 

energy resources that emanate from some of these Federal lands. 

Would you envision that as joint revenue-sharing between the Feds 

and the State or would you envision it staying the same? How 

would that work? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Richardson, you could block grant back those resources to the States. 

That would be one approach to handling the revenue. That is an 

issue that is on the table. But, clearly, something would have to be 

rearranged if we were to dramatically change both the management and the ownership of those lands. 

There is also another middle ground with regard to the title 

issue, and that would be for the States to patent the land for recreation and public purposes, and that would be shy of just conveying 

title but still result in a real transfer of responsibility. 

We are really keen on the word responsibility. We feel that the 

whole problem here sort of goes to the heart of federalism, that decisions that are important to the people of our great State are 

being made far removed from our State and not in the best interests of the people of our State who are directly affected by those 

decisions. And so we want to see responsibility developed at the 

local level. That is what we are after. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Governor, finally-! see my light is changingyou said you have three national monument areas that right now 

are at risk, and this is why you want to proceed with your new vision with those monuments? Did you say it was three? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Yes. We were proposing three pilot 

projects-developing a national monument, a wildlife refuge and 

one other area dealing with rangelands-and we wanted the opportunity to say, OK, if you don't want to take the whole risk with us, 

then give us the opportunity to focus on three pilot projects. Give 

us a period of time, and we will show you how we can do it and 

report back to you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Governor, let me conclude by saluting your 

family for the great public service they have rendered this country-on both sides of the aisle, I might add. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Richardson, I salute the other side of my family, too. And, believe it or 

not, we all support each other politically. We even raise money for 

each other as Democrats and Republicans. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Particularly Symington Jr. at the State Department. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Yes. He is a very, very fine man. 

Mr. HANSEN. It was the custom of the then Chairman of this 

committee that if we had a Governor here that we would first recognize the members from his State on the committee and then we 

would go in the order of their arrival, and I will do that today. Mr. 

Hayworth. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Governor Symington, it is great to have you here, along with the 

dean of our delegation, Congressman Stump. I listened with great 

interest to your testimony and wanted to thank you personally for 

not only pointing out the problem but again offering solutions that 
11 

I truly believe are innovative and certainly frames the discussion 

in an interesting way. 

It is not my intent to dwell on the problems as they exist today; 

but, in listening to your testimony, I was drawn to the description 

of the accidental bureaucracy that you discussed. And perhaps it 

would be useful for members of this committee to hear where you 

believe the most egregious examples of the accidental bureaucracy 

exist in the State of Arizona with reference to the jurisdiction and 

to land issues. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hayworth, 

the conflict between the Forest Service and the BLM and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the gridlock that is occurring within our forests and adjacent lands, the internecine warfare that is going on 

within these Federal agencies-forget the State. Just put Arizona's 

State offices aside. We have this struggle going on within Federal 

agencies, and it creates gridlock. That is one area. 

And then the other area is the area of all of the multiple offices 

in these small communities. You go to one of these small communities in our State, and there are all of these Federal offices covering basically the same area. And it is just truly a nightmare, finding out where the decision is going to be made, who is accountable. 

And you step back and you wonder, is this really the best way 

for our government to be managing such a precious resource? And, 

clearly, the answer is no. I mean, this is a system that offers a 

huge opportunity for Congress and this Administration to radically 

restructure and do a better job and save the American taxpayers 

a lot of money. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Governor. 

One other question. As you point out, one of the solutions-when 

you talk about allowing the State to operate certain Federal entities, whether a national park, a monument or a conservation area, 

wildlife refuge, the examples you list here, are they illustrative or 

would these three be the examples of what you would really like 

to see the State of Arizona take over in a demonstration-type 

project? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hayworth, 

we picked those as just good examples, but we are ready-we 

would be ready for more. I mean, we think boldly. This is the time 

for innovation. The Federal budget is going to be in need of a lot 

of help. The States are ready and waiting. So we are prepared to 

be as bold and as imaginative as you. 

But these would be a good first start for us. Give us a chance. 

Go ahead, for those three entities, reduce the budget by 10 percent, 

give that funding to us, and we will take over those assets, and we 

will manage them. And I can guarantee you, we will turn additional moneys back to the Federal Government, and we will do a 

good job managing those resources. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. And, Governor, that is what I find very exciting, 

the notion that it can be done in a very cost-effective manner, with 

no loss of revenues for land, no loss of revenues for the Constitution. And, really, the notion of federalism and the way I believe the 

Founders designed it for us is ~hat I find very exciting. 
12 

And, again, I would just close by thanking you for testifying 

today and for offering these innovative solutions. Thanks very 

much, Governor. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. John Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. SHADEGG, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA 

Governor, thank you for coming. Once again, as I think in many 

other areas, you deserve great credit for coming forward with innovative ideas. I particularly like your proposal to give you a chance 

to manage in three different areas and do it as a pilot and allow 

the State to demonstrate that it can do better than the Federal 

Government is doing. 

I want to ask you if you are familiar with a report prepared for 

this committee dated January, 1995, a GAO report, Federal Lands: 

Information on Land Owned in Anchorage with Conservation Restrictions. Have you seen this report? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shadegg, I 

have not. 

Mr. SHADEGG. You have not seen it, perhaps, but in many ways 

you know what is in it, because you have just testified about it. 

Let me talk to you about a little personal story. I think this map 

is an absolutely fascinating map because it demonstrates the massive amount of Federal and/or State land in the State of Arizona, 

and your testimony referring to how little white, which is actually 

private land, illustrates the point for anybody on the subcommittee 

who hasn't looked at it. You can see that this is a serious problem 

for the State of Arizona. 

The personal anecdote I want to tell you is that, in 1962, my father ran for the U.S. Senate, produced a map like this which just 

showed Federal land and showed the Federal land in red and made 

an appeal that Arizona could not continue to sustain its growth if 

that much land remained in Federal lands. That was 1962. 

Interestingly, this report prepared by this committee at the request of Mr. Hansen, Mr. Young and Mr. Pombo and others, has 

a chart that talks about the increase in Federal land in the State 

of Arizona between 1964 and 1993. And while some people might 

believe that when we already started out with virtually 70 percent 

of the State owned by the Federal Government back in 1963, it in 

fact has grown. 

I will give you a copy of this report, Governor, but it shows that 

between 1964 and 1993 the Federal estate in the State of Arizona 

has grown by 2.9 million acres, Rather than the State getting some 

of this land back into its tax base or even back into its own hands 

for people with local knowledge to manage, we are going in the opposite direction at a pell-mell pace. . There is another chart in here, which I won't dwell on, but which 

shows the amount of land which is under a conservation restriction, and that acreage has grown across the West from roughly 51 

million acres in 1964 to 271 million acres in 1993. Again, we are 

locking up land at a shocking pace. 
13 

Let me turn the question to a different one. I had a conversation 

with a Forest Service official last week who believes deeply in multiple use. I was raised on multiple use. He is greatly frustrated by 

the laws that we now pass which direct Federal managers to manage for a single purpose and thereby make multiple-use management impossible. 

And he is also frustrated by the fact that Federal law now allows 

any citizen who wants to second guess a Federal land manager; Do 

you think we would be well advised to push to continue our emphasis on single-use management of State and Federal lands or to return to multiple use? I have enjoyed your comments on that topic. 

And, second of all, what would you think if we put a provision 

in that simply said, no one could sue in Federal court to second 

guess a Federal or State land manager administrating one of these 

laws? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shadegg, 

first of all, I believe in multiple use of public_ lands; and that concept is definitely under assault in our State and across the West. 

And if it continues, I think that is a great tragedy; and the American people will end up being the big loser. These lands should not 

be shut off and become 'sort of a hard-to-get-at enclave for an elite 

few. Multiple use is a very important concept in public land management. · 

Secondly, you have addressed one of the major problems that we 

face in our State, . which is. that every time a decision is made by 

the Federal entities, one way or the other, those decisions .are challenged by some extreme environmental group. We end up in Federal court, and we have· .a Federal court tuling which then leads to 

gridlock. It is getting to be impossible to manage these lands, .and 

it is creating a real fire hazard in some of the finest national forests in the United States. 

Now, you know, I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I 

have spent a lot of time in the woods. I have paddled a canoe from 

southern Quebec all the way to Hudson Bay and lived off the land 

for siX weeks. I have been out there. I love nature. 

I also understand silviculture to a certain degree and the need 

to manage a forest. You cannot just leave it alone. 

And so the tragedy of what is about to occur in Arizona is that, 

because of the gridlock created between competing Federal entities 

and environmental groups legally challenging every decision that is 

made of any import, combined with the Endangered Species Act, 

which enhances the gridlock, is that everything is frozen in time. 

Nothing is being done. And the forest is going to die frOJll disease .or from wildfire because it is not being managed properly. Therefore, the habitat will be destroyed. Therefore, species that we. would 

like to preserve will no longer have the habitat; That is the meltdown scenario that we are looking at. 

So, clearly, we need to get the litigation out of the way. People 

need to be able to make decisions which are in the best interests 

of the resource. Today, they are not able to do that. That problem 

has to be dealt with. 

Mr. SHADEGG. With your permission, one brief follow-up. Governor, would you agree with me that if, in fact, the policy 

were that no individual or group could sue to second guess these 

93-419 - 95 - 2 
14 

forest management policies that we could then leave that policy direction to the electoral process which was consistent with people's 

views, and if people chose, that believed those policies weren't 

being properly followed, they could change the administration of 

the forest? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shadegg, I 

definitely believe in trusting of the people and I believe in democracy. And it comes down to just that issue, that that is where you 

should place your faith and trust. 

We need to get this stuff out of the courts. We need to let the 

professionals do their job. And we need an electorate to be in a position to respond if they are unhappy with the decision. 

But we need to get out of this litigation fever over public lands. 

It is not helpful to the resource. And in the end, as I said, we are 

going to lose some of the finest forestlands in the country because 

of the imprudent management caused by this gridlock. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you very much. I appreciate the time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

We printed in front of every member a copy of the bill that transfers BLM ground to the States. I would urge each one of you to 

look at it. I would urge each one of you to become a cosponsor, if 

I may say so. And, Governor, we have also given you a copy of it; 

and, of course, Bob Stump has worked on it. 

Let me say it would be unfair-this isn't a hearing on that bill. 

This is a hearing on how the States would do with Federal land. 

But we thought it would be good for you to have a copy of it, each 

one of you· have a chance to peruse it and digest it and comment 

on it. We will now go to the members in the order in which they arrived. Mr. Pombo from California is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF BON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCE ON 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Governor, the Federal lands issue is probably one of the most 

controversial issues throughout the entire West where the Federal 

Government owns a large percentage of all of the Western States 

and in some States they own the majority of the property. It has 

become a bureaucratic nightmare. We have the accusations of Federal subsidies of grazing permits of timberlands, of mining lands. 

We have multiple Federal agencies that overlay each other and 

contradict each other at every turn. Quite frankly, it has become 

a black hole for Federal dollars in pouring money in and seeing little or no return out of it. One of the criticisms or questions that I often hear when we talk 

about a bill like Mr. Hansen's that turns over responsibility for 

these properties to the States or some other ideas that involve 

privatizing large portions of that is the question of why would the 

States want it or do the States want it? Why would you appear before this committee and suggest that you want to even get involved 

in this mess? What is in it for the State of Arizona? 
15 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pombo--it is 

good to see you, by the way, and I thank you for your leadership 

on these important issues as well-it comes down to a matter of 

controlling our destiny, number one; and, number two, knowing 

that we can do a far better job. We really and truly believe that in the spirit of federalism and 

partnership that, as a State, we know how to handle these resources better than the Federal bureaucracy. And we know that we 

can do a better job, be more efficient, and protect these lands the 

way they should be protected and bring a lot of rationality to the 

system that is not there today. 

And the irony of this is that, as you can see from some of the 

maps that we have given you, a lot of these lands are 

checkerboarded with State lands, so we are already managing 

these lands, in effect. We have a piece here, they have a piece here, 

and it is a polyglot. It is a patchwork· quilt system, and it is not 

beneficial to anyone, and it is very, very costly. 

Our view is that, one way or the other, this issue will be resolved 

because there is going to be an economic imperative at the Federal 

level that the Federal Government is going to have to shed a lot 

of responsibilities because of the financial situation it is facing in 

time, and the States are there as a great entity to work with us 

as a partner. So when the restructuring happens, either through 

political will or economic necessity, the States will be ready to step 

in and take over these resources and do a very good job managing. 

Mr. POMBO. Congressman Shadegg brought up the GAO report 

that I requested last year, and one of the things that I noticed in 

it was that, out of the roughly 30 million acres that the four major 

landowning Federal agencies have in your State, about 8.5 million 

acres is set aside with a permanent conservation easement on it. 

Do you see a difference in your request for local control between 

the multiple-use lands versus the lands which are set aside with 

conservation easements? I mean, are you more interested in the 

multiple-use lands or are the wilderness areas, the national parks 

in the areas with conservation easements on them also something 

that you are interested in managing as a State? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pombo, 

we would be interested in all of them. We are interested in being 

helpful in any way possible, especially if there is a movement toward defunding some significant national parks or national monuments in our State. We are very keen on preserving those assets, 

and we feel that we could do that. So we are willing to consider 

anything as a possibility. 

Mr. POMBO. You and I have had this discussion before, but one 

of the things that we are very interested in is bringing the States 

into the Endangered Species Act implementation and being able to 

do a better job of managing the wildlife and biodiversity in your 

own State. How do you respond to that? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pombo, you 

and I have had discussions about the Endangered Species Act and 

the need to develop the concept of primacy in the States of those 

decisions. 

We have recently had an absolutely outrageous decision forced on 

us by a Federal judge driven by an extreme environmental group 
16 

regarding the Mexican spotted owl which I believe is also affecting 

Utah, 4.5 ·million acres being designated as critical habitat, areas 

in our State where no one has ever seen a spotted owl in the Prescott National Forest or the North Kaibab and yet they are being 

swept into this designation. The Federal judge made this designation, forced this issue, despite the moratorium passed by Congress 

against the will of Congress, and--

Mr. POMBO. Just so I understand this, Governor, this four and 

a half million acres has no spotted owl in it, historically they don't 

think that it ever had spotted owl in it, but it is being managed 

as spotted owl habitat? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pombo, part 

of the critical habitat designation, a significant part of it, is for all 

intents and purposes devoid of the spotted owl. And we have created a wonderful opportunity for the spotted owl to arrive as a visitor and enjoy this new designated area, but there are those in our 

State who understand fish and wildlife in our State who will say 

that these areas should not have been included in the plan. Even 

Fish and Wildlife was against moving forward with this designation, but a Federal court judge has moved it anyway, flying in the 

face of the will of Congress. . So it is just ~other example of the problems that we face in 

riianagin:g natural resources where decisions are being made, basically, . by people who shouldn't be making them and that sound 

science is not prevailing. And we all are very upset about it, and 

that is why we are trying to get more and more local control by 

the States that are interested in managing these resources and 

having primacy when it comes to the decisionmaking process. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. POMBO. Just one second, Mr. Chainilan. So you are telling 

me that it was against the advice of the Fish and Wildlife, that 

there was not sound science that was employed in this instance. So 

this was based totally on a political decision, not on what good 

science· or Fish and Wildlife land managers said would be the best 

thing for wildlife? . Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pombo, I 

think essentially you are right. We will give you the details on this. 

But I think it is one of the latest egregious examples of the Endangered Species Act, what I call legal death dance, and the pattern has been repeated throughout the West many times. But it is 

a decision that should not have been made, but it was made, and 

now we are going to have to live with it. 

Mr. POMBO. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for being 

here today. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. 

Governor, your comment will always be remembered when you 

answered that question:: "One, we control our own destiny; and, 

two, we can do a better job." That is an excellent response. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Cooley, is recognized for five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WES COOLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OREGON 

Mr. COOLEY. Glad to see you, Governor. 
17 

You know and I know that you have 47 percent of your total 

State controlled by the Federal Government. Here in Oregon we 

have 52 percent. It is a little bit discouraging to us. Listeningsince I am a freshman in Congress and have attended many, many 

meetings and listening to the problems that we have in the West 

primarily, I have a very difficult time understanding why we have 

not been able to prevail on Congress to do certain things to alleviate some of these problems. 

I would like to have your opinion as Governor of a State that is 

highly impacted by not only Federal agencies, a great amount of 

control by the Federal agencies, but why we have not been successful in turning around some of the problems we have. 

We all know that the Bureau of Land Management was created 

because . of the discontinuing of the Homestead Act, with the idea 

that the· States would benefit economically from taking these lands 

off the tax rolls instead of into private ownership. This has not occurred, and yet we continue year after year, Congress after Congress, facing the same problems and not doing anything to change 

it. Every State is going through the same frustrations and the 

same problems you are having in Arizona, and yet we continue to 

do this without any resolve, without any resolution. 

Could you give me some insight into why we have been unsuccessful in turning this around, in turning it back over to States to 

control? I find it, even in your testimony, sort of a hesitance about 

why don't you demand-! mean, you should demand that the Federal Government return the Bureau of Land Management back 

over to the States. That was what the original concept was of the 

Homestead Act, and yet we find ourselves in a position to where 

we are sort of, can I say, dancing around the issue of States' rights 

and when it comes to the land within our States. 

We all know from experience that the Federal agencies have not 

done a good job in managing our lands. You should come over to 

eastern Oregon and see the dead and dying and the deterioration 

of our forests, and no concern whatsoever about a healthy forest, 

no concern about the degradation of the environment and how it 

effects the species. We are just continuing to do this over and over. 

Can you give me a little insight since you have been at this process a little while why we are not able to do something? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cooley, I 

have learned that it is very hard to demand things from Congress. 

It. is the concept of working together in the spirit of partnership 

that will accomplish things. And, often; if you are a Governor, if 

you start demanding things, people sort of say, oh, well, that individual is out there on the fringe, and you are seen as very strident. 

Mr. COOLEY. Don't you have any consensus from your other governors with the same problems? 

Governor SYMINGTON. The governors I think would like to have 

control of those lands back, and there isn't any question about it. 

The reason it hasn't happened is that the political will in Washington hasn't been there. There hasn't been a majority of the people 

in Congress in the House and Senate and an executive in the 

White House who have been willing to come together and agree 

that that is the consensus position. 
18 

In addition, we have an intractable bureaucracy. We have a 

deeply embedded bureaucracy that has a stake in these resources, 

which is an out-of-date bureaucracy that is in dire need of dramatic 

overhaul in terms of a total quality management undertaking. 

I am not talking about tinkering, I am talking about a dramatic 

restructuring of Federal bureaucracies to streamline, which means 

a lot of jobs would have to go, a lot of jurisdictional lines would 

have to change. There would be an earthshaking realignment inside the Interior Department and the Department of Agriculture. 

I mean, you are talking about what we call a real revolution in 

terms of these Federal entities. 

I am not sure that anybody really has the stomach to contemplate what would be involved to really transform these entities 

into a modern management organization that would really reflect 

what the American people want. It is going to take a lot of tough, 

strong political will to get that done, and I think it is building. But 

I don't think we are quite there yet. 

Mr. CooLEY. Well, we have created the Bureau of Land Management. We should be able to get rid of the Bureau of Land Management as easily as we created it. I think we have created a monster 

here that is out of control, and I don't understand the reluctance 

by Congress to realize what they have done and say, let's give it 

back to the States and let the States manage it. 

Anyway, I appreciate you coming here and bringing forth your 

testimony. I think it is a good discussion possibility. And I think 

the more we bring this out, the more the American public is aware 

of what is going on and how inefficient it is and how really it is 

degrading our environment-it is not benefiting our environment. 

It is not benefiting our natural resources. It is actually deteriorating our natural resources. So I want to thank you very much, Governor, for coming. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mrs. Chenoweth from Idaho is recognized for five minutes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWEm, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO 

Governor, I, too, want to welcome you to our committee, and I 

so appreciate your testimony. 

I want to say, in echo of what Mr. Cooley has said, that many 

of us do feel that the relationship between the States and the Federal Government in the management of these Federal unappropriated lands is one of trustee/trustor relationship. What I want us to 

all encourage each other to watch and guard for is that we buy the 

lands from the Federal Government, that it is imposed on us, the 

States, to buy the lands from the Federal Government that they 

don't hold title to, that perhaps actually some day soon the courts 

will address the fact who actually owns the land when all of what 

was in the States were admitted to the Union. 

And I know it is difficult, Governor, for us to talk about these 

things, because we could possibly be sounding a little frenzied. But 

I have to remember that there were only 13 men who gathered in 

Samuel Adam's attic to plan the first revolution, and there are 

even some women in this second revolution. So I am happy and 
19 

honored to join the ranks with the West in trying to bring some 

sense back, but not taxing the taxpayer across the Nation twice. 

AB you know, my State, along with Nevada and various other 

States, was involved in the rebellion; and the proper question was 

not asked about if the States actually owned the land. But in the 

equal footing doctrine in which our States were admitted, we were 

admitted on equal footing owning the land and the water, and the 

question of water ownership has been addressed numerous times 

favorably to us in the United States Supreme Court. So I am really 

hopeful, and I thank you for leading out, as you have, Governor, 

and for your fine comments today. 

But I am interested in what your county commissioners are considering and taking into consideration with regards to the management of the lands within their county borders. What reactions have 

you gotten from your county commissioners? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, uniformly, from the State level right down to the local level with our 

county elected officials, local officials, we watch this issue daily and 

weekly. 

There is a very angry mood all over rural Arizona because ·they 

are the ones who meet the gridlock face-to-face on a daily basis. I 

could give you countless examples. 

Recently, the Solomon Bridge in Safford, Arizona, was washed 

out in a flood event. Many families that normally would drive three 

miles to take their kids to school had to go around 28 miles. For 

months and months and months we were trying to rebuild the 

bridge. 

But Fish and Wildlife came in and said, there is a little minnow 

mass endangered in the upper Gila River. Even though the bridge 

has been there for years, we are sorry, you can't go in and disturb 

the water crossing. This standoff just continued to the point where I finally just said, 

look, go, bring the bulldozers in. Finish the thing. Get it done. And 

if Fish and Wildlife comes after you, I will be there with the Department of Public Safety, and we will have our police there, and 

we will just face them down. Let them try it. 

Because, you know, I am the Governor of the State. I am there 

to protect the best interests of my citizens. And it is just insane to 

have some Federal bureaucrats making a decision like this, demanding an environmental impact statement for something which 

is the normal, natural course of business that has always been 

there. It is just inherently a stupid bureaucratic decision. 

So the local folks are really excited about that. And so, in our 

State, we basically decided that when it comes to this kind of pettiness, we are going to stand up to it. And if we g~t in trouble, well, 

I guess we will be back here testifying in front of Congress. 

But that is how we all feel. We are ready to stand up to it. And 

we need your support because it is getting out of hand in our State, 

and the rural folks are on fire about this issue. I mean, if you want 

a real awakening, come to rural Arizona and hold some meetings 

and talk to the rural folks and see how they feel about what is taking place on public lands. They are furious about it. 
20 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Governor, I share your concerns, and I thank 

you for your fine testimony. Thank you very much. And I thank 

you for your leadership. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Cubin, the gentlewoman from Wyoming. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome 

the Governor, but I have no questions at this time. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Smith, the gentlewoman from Washington. 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Governor. You wouldn't like to move, would you? You 

know, I sit here and a listen to a Governor willing to stand up for 

his State, and it just sounds so good that I think a lot of us would 

like to share you. 

But I have a more precise question. We are in the throes of the 

spotted owl discussion or attack or whatever you want to call it, 

and I have watched the division between the Forest Service bill 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they are fighting over habitat management. They can't get along. 

I think a lot of times the very management is mismanagement, 

and some of the jokes at home are, you know, give it to the Federal 

Government if you want it to burn or rot .. That erosion of discussion sometimes follows all the way down to the local. Do you think 

it will get better if it is just the States still having to then deal 

with the counties, still having to deal with the other entities, the 

environmental laws? Do you think that the division will be any 

less? And I guess you are asking for it in your State, so how would 

you handle that? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Smith, 

there have to be clear lines of authority, and that is basically what 

we are asking for. When you look at this map over here of all of 

the different jurisdictional lines of the Federal and the State entities, that speaks to the problem of clear lines of responsibility. 

There aren't any. 

And our effort, realizing political reality at the time when we 

launched this plan was to say let's forget the issue of title of the 

land, OK? Let's just come together organizationally, Federal and 

State, and integrate our efforts with clear lines of authority. Get 

rid of the overlapping so that individual is really responsible for 

making that decision in that area. 

And that is what we have been trying to do, is to make some 

management sense out of this mess. Because while the mess keeps 

going, the resource keeps deteriorating because of the gridlock. 

Mrs. SMITH. So do you believe with the management of the owl 

habitat this could be made easier under your proposal? It appears 

to me we still have some other laws out there that are problematic; 

but, even with that, you believe thatGovernor SYMINGTON. No. I would think anything would be an 

improvement over the current situation. 

Of course, when you talk about the spotted owl in the Northwest, 

I hear the spotted owl all over the place, so I am wondering if it 

really is an endangered species. We seem to have a lot of spotted 

owls all over, achieving wonderful habitats for itself in large areas 

of the American landmass. 
21 

But the Endangered Species Act is another problem which we 

are dealing with, and we have to deal with the Endangered Species 

Act because it tends to create gridlock as a result of the litigation 

that is driven by far left environmental groups finding friendly Federal judges who make decisions even in the face of the recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife Service. So, yes, we have to 

deal with the Endangered Species Act. 

Mrs. SMITH. So no matter what this change would be, we still 

would have the same problems. That is what I was trying to figure 

out, if there was any way that we could have some more local clear 

management that would make it easier to manage overall collective 

habitat. I mean, if I have got half of my State, which I don't have 

quite, but in public lands, it does seem that we could manage that 

better. 

So that isn't really a question of you, it is just a comment more. 

Thank you. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Let's see, Mr. Radanovich is no longer here. 

Mr. Allard from Colorado is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

How do the other governors feel about this proposal that our 

Chairman is proposing where the States take over voluntarily BLM 

lands? Have you had any discussion with the governors on this 

issue? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Allard, we 

will be having a Western Governors Association meeting this weekend, our annual meeting in Park City, Utah, and I intend to discuss it. 

But I can tell you that I think we would all be very, very much 

in favor of doing this. We would really like to get control of these 

lands and feel that the time is right for us to do that and to show 

the Federal Government what We can do in terms of management and saving money. Mr. ALLARD. Do you feel that you can manage these lands in a 

more cost-effective manner than the Federal Government? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Absolutely. 

Mr. ALLARD. And how could you do that? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, just let us show you. We will do it. 

I guess the comparable, Mr. Chairman, is that we have 9.6 million acres of State trust land which, in many instances, are 

checkerboarded with BLM land. We do leases, and they do leases. 

We charge less for our leases, and as a State we make money. The 

Federal Government charges more money for their leases, and they 

lose money. So it is right there today in black and white, and we 

can show you the numbers, and we do a good job. You can walk 

the ground and see that we do a good job managing these· resources. · Mr. ALLARD. This sounds like a similar situation that we have 

with the low-cost timber sales. If you look at a State operation, a 

State forest, they can harvest the forest, show a profit, but yet you 

go just across the fence and the Federal Government is managing 

the same property and of little cost to them. And when we look at 

it, it is the cost of the Federal workers. You have to pay Federal 
22 

workers. And the other thing, there are so many more of them than 

the States. Is this a similar situation with the management of BLM 

lands? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Allard, it sounds to me 

like you have definitely put your finger on the problem. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I have another question. Looking at the costs of 

BLM land, these are Federal figures. And then the receipts-and 

I notice in Arizona that there is a pretty good increase in receipts. 

Along with that, there is a cost of management from $40 million 

up to $57 million. Your receipts go up remarkably, but that is not 

true in a lot of States. I notice in Colorado our receipts have gone 

down remarkably, and the costs have gone up remarkably. And I 

am curious as to why your receipts are going up and other States 

in the West are going down. Is it mining? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Allard, I 

would have to go back and study those figures, because I haven't 

looked at what you are looking at. But one would have to assume 

that it is the natural resource benefit and also the national parks 

like the Grand Canyon are probably one of the great attractions in 

the world. I mean, we have well over four million visitors a year 

going to the Grand Canyon National Park, for instance. So we have 

some great attractions. Mr. ALLARD. Generally, though, when you have your State parks 

or your State lands, when you manage them, can you share with 

this committee how much the cost of operating those have gone up 

in the last three years, for example? Or the last three current 

budget years? Do you have those figures? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, for the last 

three current budget years-and I am speaking off the top of my 

head now-the State parks budget has really held fairly constant. 

What we have done, though, is they have undergone a total quality management reengineering process, and we have given them 

the incentive to charge fees and to keep the money within their 

own budget and tum them into a profitable business entity. And 

so they are actually making money now and doing a better job than 

ever managing the resource, and the public demand for the resource is just as high as it has always been. 

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is running out. 

I just have to make a concluding remark and say that I think 

that the Federal Government can learn a lot from the States. I 

think the States, obviously, are much better managers of their land 

resources. 

I like the direction of your bill, and I appreciate the testimony 

of you, Governor, and thank you for being here. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Thank you. 

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

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento, is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
23 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA 

Governor, I read your testimony, and I am interested in your observations regarding proposals to provide State management, basically, of these Federal assets. It is a pretty profound question in 

my mind's eye. We conveyed about 8,000 acres to my State of BLM land that 

were remnants and pieces and what has generally been under the 

Recreation and Public Resources Act. You pointed out that this Administration has not been forthcoming with regards to that particular law. Is it your view that the past Administrations, at least since 

the 1970's, have conveyed a lot of land under the Public Resources 

Act? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Vento, I 

served my first term as Governor in the last four years and just 

got reelected, so my frame of reference in trying to deal with this 

law, I am talking about in a current political context. That particular law is basically one that has been used to get BLM land for 

landfills by cities, and we have been working on trying to broaden 

the vision here and to use that as an opportunity. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think the point is that there has been, I 

think, no great transfer of land in the last 20 years under that, although I think the landfill issue that you raise has special problems because of the possibility of toxic or hazardous waste, where 

the Federal Government ought to exercise some diligence, I would 

think. 

I think proposals have come before us here that' we have given 

due consideration to and, in fact, passed legislation or policy that 

facilitated that. I don't remember if it was this Administration or 

the past one. 

But I also notice your solution on parks is to let the parks keep 

the revenue. Currently, we have a $1.5 billion park budget, about 

that. The revenues that come in right now are $50 million from entrance fees and a little bit more, a like amount from user fees. Is 

it your contention by raising those fees that somehow that would 

pay for the parks or would make it somehow easier? Could you 

keep a park running on that basis, Governor? 

Governor SYMINGTON. First of all, I want to go back to the prior 

question and say that we submitted to the Interior Department 

and to the President and the Vice President a very comprehensive 

land management plan to overhaul the Federal bureaucracy and 

our State bureaucracy to integrate land management of public 

lands in Arizona, and we never got a response, and we felt that 

that was really bad form. 

With regard to your second question, the mistake that one 

makes, I believe, is· to first look at the revenue side. The first thing 

you should do in government is look at the expense side. You should look at the $1.5 billion budget and not assume that 

just because you are spending $1.5 billion that you are spending 

it properly, that there isn't a dramatic opportunity to restructure 

the way that this whole thing is organized and save the American 

taxpayers operating money. I think the odds are probably distinctly 

in favor of the argument that $1.5 billion is probably not being well 

spent. So I would look at the cost side first. 
24 

Then, after I had tried to reengineer the entity and save money and do a better job running the parks more efficiently, then I 

would certainly look at the concept that the user should pay. And 

that would be our point. 

Mr. VENTO. I was reading your testimony, but I would just suggest to you that entrance fees and user fees are not going to deal 

with a tenfold increase. 

One of the other issues is that you portray, Governor, sort of a 

confrontation between the Federal agencies and the departments, 

as compared to something I always thought was more of a collaboration, at least that is the way it works in most States. In fact, I 

would submit to you that most residents of Arizona don't know 

where the Federal Government ends and the State begins in terms 

of some things. 

Don't you have agreements on joint jurisdiction, for instance, 

over law enforcement activities? Don't your Fish and Wildlife Service people actually carry out many of the functions of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service from the Federal Government perspective? 

You comment on one or two instances where there were confrontations over the Endangered Species Act and suggest that 

somehow the science was inadequate with regards to the bridge 

that was tom out by a storm. As far as I know, I don't know that 

there was any fault for the science. Obviously, you were concerned 

about getting the bridge across. But as far as I know, I don't know 

where the science problem was with that. 

I mean, you present a confrontation where, in fact, there is great compatibility b@tween these agencies and the Federal Government. 

I think you can argue over the politics and the policy, but I don't 

know that we should be arguing over the science. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Vento, 

the science definitely came into this. Because the reason for not allowing the bridge to be rebuilt was because of an endangered spe- cies in the river which nobody really has ever seen. And so we have 

an innocuous minnow basically inconveniencing many of our citizens trying to take their children to school. 

I get to the bottom of the problem with the Endangered Species Act, and it goes-in a small way but in a very important way, it 

shows you where the Endangered Species Act has led, at a local 

level, to very important decisionmaking. 

Mr. VENTO. We are running out of time. 

I just got a detailed answer, and I just think that the whole issue 

of confrontation is not accurate. In fact, there have been thousands 

of resolutions or consultations in the State of Arizona which 

haven't resulted in that, so it does work. 

The other issue I would like to know, is it your intention in taking over these lands to apply all of the Federal laws and to carry 

them out, all of those that deal with restoring contours of mining 

areas, all of the other responsibilities of Federal law that have been 

written? 

You know, you compare yourself to what a State does and what 

the Federal Government does, but the question is, are you ready 

to carry out the edicts? 

We can sit here and argue over the Endangered Species Act and 

how it works, but we know that these ecosystems cross State lines. 
25 

We know that these species cross State lines. You can criticize the 

spotted owl or some of the other species, but we know that there 

haven't been that many compacts that have come up here that I 

have seen between States other than on water. And there are very 

few-you can count on your one hand-that deal with natural resources and these issues. There are not that many. 

So there are no demonstrations that States can do this. Are you 

going to carry out all of these Federal laws or are we going to have 

12 different States with 12 different species laws? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Vento, we do 

carry out very important land management responsibilities as a 

State working in conjunction with the Federal Government, and we 

are a good steward of resources--

Excuse me. I would like to finish my comment. 

But to your point, the Land Plan 2000 proposal integrates both 

State and Federal management of lands, and the principle involved 

here was to adhere to all Federal environmental laws. Nobody was 

trying to run away from that. 

Now, I would certainly question, though, as a separate matter, 

a lot of the command-control Federal laws that have come from 

Washington where people here think they know better what is 

right for Arizona than Arizonans. And I would dispute that. Because that goes to the very heart of the federalism argument that 

is burning in the he_arts of Americans across this country, that 

Washington knows best what is right for Minnesota or what is 

right for Arizona. · I happen to ·disagree with that premise. I think we in Arizona 

can do a better job being stewards of our natural resources than 

bureaucrats in Washington. I don't think you have a better idea. 

I think we are closer to the problem, and I think we know how to 

run our State and our natural resources, and we are asking for the 

chance to do that, to prove to you that we can do it more efficiently, 

save the taxpayers money and be a better steward of the resource. 

Try a pilot project, take a little bit of a risk, and we will show you 

that we can do a good job, and I think we will dispel the argument. 

Mr. VENTO. But we obviously in the end are interested in laws 

that work, and many of these problems don't limit themselves to 

boundaries, so that is a concern, Governor. 

In terms of pilot projects-we are talking about pilot projectsit would be a different matter. But I don't think that is the tenor 

of what is going down here. 

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Montana is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Welcome, gentlemen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT WILLIAMS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MONTANA 

Governor, as Bob knows, I represent Montana here in the House. 

I represent all of it. We can't afford-seriously, we have looked at 

it. We can't afford to take the Federal lands. We can't afford the 

management costs of them, and our cattleman don't want to pay 

the State grazing fees versus what the Federal Government now 

charges them, so they say they can't afford it either. 
26 

Now I know some Western States are different. Wyoming, I understand, makes a profit if they get it all back-not back, they 

never had it. But if demolition takes place and so much of these 

Federal lands are turning over to Wyoming, I guess because of coal, 

they do pretty well, but we don't. How does Arizona do? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, we think we 

will do fine. I mean, we are not concerned about that. We are convinced that between reengineering the process and managing these 

resources more efficiently than the Federal Government that we 

should be OK, and we really want that opportunity. I am not familiar with the exact issue in Montana, but it is not to say that the 

States aren't different in their approaches. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, you know, that is perhaps at the heart of 

this. 

I do think that what you suggest with regard to some model 

projects is probably worthwhile. I don't believe for a minute that 

the Federal Government can manage every particular acre better 

than the State might do it. But neither do I think that this issue 

ought to be divided or defined, rather, in the way you do it, Governor, and that is can't the State do it better from there than the 

Federal Government can do it from here. 

Federal lands in Montana are not managed from here. They are 

managed by Montana citizens working out in Montana. Most of 

them are Montana citizens. I mean, we don't call the shots from 

here. 

One might say that all of the State lands in Montana are managed from the capital city of Helena, but in fact they are not. They 

are managed in the counties where they exist. And the same thing 

is true with regard to the Federal land. It is not managed from the 

Federal Capitol, Washington, DC. That Federal land is managed in 

the counties in Montana where it lies. 

Now, having said that, I am not necessarily married to Federal 

Government only managing these lands with no consideration that 

perhaps it could be done better, less expensively and, importantly, 

with additional concerns about local new answers. And out West 

we recognize the political importance of that. 

But I must say I find more politics and policy in this notion that 

all Federal lands are managed from Washington, DC. I don't know 

about in Arizona, but Federal lands in Montana are managed in 

Montana by Montanans. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I understand your bent on that point, but if you will take the time and 

look at the jurisdictional maps and the organizational structure we 

have in our State, to say that something is managing is an 

oxymoron in the State of Arizona when we have the kind of overlapping jurisdictions, competing jurisdictions in gridlock in competition between Federal agencies regarding public lands in our 

State. 

So whether the actual people are on the ground in Arizona or 

whether they are out of a regional office in New Mexico or whether 

somebody high in the Interior Department is calling the shots in 

Washington, you know, we can argue that. But the point is that 

what we have in our State, the way it has been designed, is a man-
27 

agement nightmare. It leads to very poor decisionmaking and 

gridlock, and that has really been our issue. 

Now, the Interior Department has vast power over my State. 

Whether they have people on the ground in Arizona or not, there 

are a lot of important decisions that are made by the Secretary of 

the Interior and the heads of his various departments that have a 

huge impact on the citizens of my State. 

Most recently, we are in a tussle with the Secretary of the Interior because he has walked away from signing the C&P agreement, 

which is something which we need to pay the Federal Government 

back on. And that has, you know, a tremendous impact on our 

State. 

So I would say that Washington does have enormous power over 

Arizona, a huge Federal presence, tremendous potential control, potential for harm and potential for good. And we are just trying to 

harness that and better organize it so that the future of our State 

is bright, and that is basically why I am here today. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate that, Governor, and I understand and 

certainly am willing to follow your expertise on it with regard to 

Arizona. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I think it has been clear for a long 

time that the American public insists that Federal law and Federal 

land management have jurisdiction over and manage Federal land. 

That is accountability. The President of the United States or the 

Congress of the United States could no more allow local authorities 

to manage Federal land than the Governor of Arizona could allow 

county commissioners to manage State land. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Let me just make some closing comments, and we will thank the 

Governor for being with us and your patience, and we appreciate 

the comments that you have made here. 

Actually, there are two issues. As you know, we have thrown out 

a copy of a bill that we intend to introduce, realizing that it is a 

copy of a bill and it can be taken apart by a lot of folks. We would 

hope that it goes with the Governors to Park City, Utah. I would 

hope that you and Governor Leavitt would have the opportunity to 

speak to it while you are there, Governor, if you would. 

Of course, keep in mind that this bill does it a little differently 

than some talked about. It in effect transfers the land fee title to 

the States. So Federal laws would not pertain, they would be State 

laws that would pertain. Existing wilderness stays as wilderness 

and has to be managed by that. 

So it would not be States managing Federal land. It would be 

States managing State land. And all we are asking is that you tum 

the clock back like many of the folks in the East had years ago 

when they were in the same situation we are now. 

Also, on page 2, it talks about the offer to the Governor. And it 

is optional so that the Governor of Montana would not have to take 

it. If he felt it was not right, it would stay in the Federal Government. If the Governor of Arizona or Utah felt they wanted it, then 

they have this two years in which to make the offer. So it would 

be a little different than maybe it was portrayed here. 

Actually, this bill is not before us, but it can't help but come up, 

and we surely understand that. 
28 

Governor, I would like to just say one more thing, if I may, very 

respectfully, to my friend from Montana. 

The people in Utah at the BLM are not Utahns managing the 

Federal ground or the Forest Service. Not one of them was born in 

Utah and not one of them got an identification in Utah, and they 

get their directions from Denver and from Washington. So we don't 

feel too comfortable with those people, even though some of them 

are very fine individuals. I have great respect for them, and they 

are very dear friends, but they are hardly Utahns, if I may say so. 

Governor, thank you so much for your time. 

Congressman Stump, thank you. We appreciate you being with 

us. Bob is one of our leaders here and the dean of the Arizona delegation, a man we all look to for direction, and we all have great 

respect for him. So we thank you for being here. 

We will now tum to our next panel. 

Our next panel is Robert H. Nelson, Professor of Public Affairs, 

University of Maryland; and Don Leal, Political Economy Research 

Center. 

If you gentlemen would come up and meet with us, we would appreciate it. 

Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate you being with us. We appreciate your patience. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Nelson, we will start with you. 

And, Mr. Leal, I am going to tum the Chair over to Mr. Pombo 

from California, and I will be back as soon as I can. I have some 

folks here that are here to see me. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. 

We appreciate you being with us. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. NELSON, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC 

AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. I will summarize my statement. I have submitted a 

full statement and would request that it be placed in the record 

along with supplementary materials. 

Mr. POMBO. [Presiding.] Without objection. 

Mr. NELSON. States manage 41 million acres of State trust lands 

in the 11 westernmost lower 48 States. This is equal to 5 percent 

of their total land area. In 1995, these State lands yielded $657 

million in revenue for the use of schools, colleges and universities 

and other beneficiaries in the States. States are legally obligated 

to manage State trust lands efficiently in the interests of their 

beneficiaries. 

In contrast to the State lands that contribute to the financial 

support of the State, Federal lands represent a financial drain on 

national taxpayers. They have high costs of management and generate much less in revenue than they could. The Federal decisionmaking process based on comprehensive land use planning has broken down for the public lands, yielding management gridlock. 

I find today wide discontent on all sides of the political spectrum, 

ranging from environmental groups to the wise use movement, 

with the quality of Federal land management. 

Large areas of public land were disposed to States and private 

owners in the 19th century, but the disposal philosophy was abandoned in the progressive era early in this century. The progressives 
29 

sought to remove management from politics and to turn it over to 

professional experts acting according to the dictates of science. 

Their ultimate goal was, in essence, the scientific management of 

society. They believed that this objective could best be accomplished at the Federal level where the scientific resources and sophistication would be the greatest. 

In retrospect, however, the justifications offered in the progressive era for Federal management have not been realized. Politics 

has overridden science to the detriment of both economic efficiency 

and environmental protection. The professional experts have often 

been unable to develop an adequate scientific understanding of the 

systems they manage, ending up debating among themselves the 

actual state of the lands and resources and the best management 

course. 

Moreover, the experts have often acted not as neutral technicians 

but according to their own value systems. With the fading of the 

progressive vision of scientific management of the lands, the system of Federal public lands today faces a crisis of purpose and legitimacy. 

Reflecting the failures of the Federal system, turning BLM lands 

over to the States has been proposed at various times in the past. 

But it has never occurred. The West has never fully endorsed such 

proposals, partly out of concern for fiscal impacts. 

I have developed some estimates of fiscal impacts that are approximate but should be in the right ballpark. A typical Western 

State would have to absorb a fiscal burden in the range of $10 million to $20 million per year if it took over BLM lands and then 

managed them in the same manner as the Federal Government. 

Now, of course, they might not and, in fact, almost certainly would 

not manage them this way. But if they literally stepped into the 

shoes of the BLM, most States would be facing a deficit. 

Under State ownership, the States would gain the full land and 

mineral revenues, instead of the partial share that they receive at 

present. For example, the large mineral leasing revenues are divided now 50-50 with the States but would go 100 percent to the 

States under full State ownership. However, for most States, these 

additional revenues would not be adequate to compensate for the 

additional management costs they would incur. 

However, although most States would lose a certain amount, two 

States, New Mexico and Wyoming, would be large, immediate fiscal 

gainers from a transfer of BLM lands to the States. Both these 

States would gain by an amount in the range of $100 million per 

year. 

Based on the experience of State trust land management, I believe that States could be expected to capture greater revenues 

from the lands if they took them over and to have lower costs. Most 

States, for example, now charge higher grazing fees on their own 

State lands than the Federal fee. , Some States have hard rock mining royalties. Wyoming in 1990 

collected $7.6 million from hard rock mining royalties, and Arizona 

collected $3.1 million. 

States today sell and lease their land which is suitable for these 

purposes for single family housing, offices, parks, motel resorts and 

cabin sites, steps the Federal Government seems too rigid to under93-419 - 95 - 3 
30 

take, even when these are appropriate uses for the land. If they 

took over Federal lands, in contrast to the Federal drain on the 

taxpayer, States would very probably be able to earn positive net 

revenues from the lands. 

Most land management decisions on existing public lands in the 

West do not involve matters of true national significance. They are 

essentially State and local in character. Typically, the land use decisions being made for Federal lands in the West would fall elsewhere in the United States under the scope of responsibility of the 

local county planning and zoning board. 

In light of all this, I would encourage the Congress to apply the 

following four common sense and traditional American federalism 

principles in reviewing the status of the Federal lands: 

One, activities that can reasonably be carried out in the private 

sector should be done privately. 

Two, government activities that mostly involve State and local 

concerns should be administered by State and local governments. 

Three, the Federal Government should limit its role to activities 

and concerns that involve true national interests and responsibilities such as the major national parks. 

And, four, administrative organization at the Federal level 

should place similar functions in the same agency. 

Now, I believe that these principles, which I believe most Americans would readily accept if they were, in fact, rigorously applied 

to the public lands, would result in the conclusion that most of the 

land management responsibilities of the Federal Government at 

present in the West should be transferred to State and local governments. It would exclude-and I should emphasize that-national parks and certain other areas of special national interest and 

true national concern. 

If the States took over the lands, then they would make many 

of the further management decisions and would also be able to review issues such as to what degree lands are legitimately needed 

in public systems or where lands are more appropriately used for 

private purposes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Leal. 

STATEMENT OF DON LEAL, POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH 

CENTER 

Mr. LEAL. Yes. I want to thank the committee for this invitation 

to speak on what I think is a very critical issue in our Federal land 

management area. 

Today, I want to discuss what I think is a real opportunity to improve the bottom line of management of our Federal lands without 

sacrificing environmental quality. I base this observation on studies I carried out comparing the economic and environmental performances of Federal, State and county timber sales in several regions of the country. 

One of my studies, which appears in a book that was recently 

published at the Political Economy Research Center, involves a 
31 

comparison of State and national forest timber sales in Montana. 

Over the 1988 to 1992 period national forests in the State of Montana had combined losses of $42 million from Federal timber sales, 

according to the Forest Service's own data. During that same period, the State of Montana generated $14 million in income for the 

funding of public schools from its own timber sales on State forests 

located right next to these national forests. Remarkably, the State 

harvested only one-twelfth the volume of timber harvested by the 

Forest Service in Montana. 

Forest Service surveys rate State and national forest plans as 

having similar timber growing potentials. In Montana, State foresters and the Forest Service carry out similar duties. Both prepare 

timber sales, prepare environmental assessments, administer harvests and prepare sites for reforest stations .. Importantly, both 

must integrate timber harvests with other outputs such as public 

recreation, livestock grazing and wildlife habitat protection. But 

the State carries out its duties at a substantially lower cost, spending only half of what the Forest Service spends to produce a given 

volume of timber. 

Another study is a comparison of county and national forest timber sales in northeast Minnesota. From 1990 through 1993, the 

Forest Service lost over $5 million on superior national forests selling timber. At the same time, the St. Louis County Land Department generated over $2 million in income from forestlands it manages for the people of St. Louis County. Forest Service surveys 

again rate these lands similar in timber-growing potential. 

In addition to selling timber, the county's Land Department 

manages for public recreation and adheres to regulation designed 

to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat. The Department manages 

to do all of these things while spending only a third of what the 

Forest Service spends to harvest a given volume of timber. 

Now, given the Forest Service's higher costs, one would expect that environmental quality would be higher. After all, one may attribute the higher costs to greater environmental protection on our 

national forests. But 1992 and 1993 independent performance audits of recent harvests ranked the State and the county highest in 

protecting watersheds among all landowners in Montana and for 

eastern Minnesota. 

These performance audits are conducted periodically by experts 

in hydrology, forestry, soil and biology and include several representatives of environmental groups. These audits are now carried 

out in many States on forest practices. 

Similar lands, similar duties. How can these agencies achieve 

such drastically different results? I believe the answer to this question lies in the fact that both the State and county foresters are 

required to generate income from their forests while the Forest 

Service has no such requirement. Losing money on timber sales is 

merely offset with congressional appropriations. Hence, there is 

very little incentive for the Forest Service to keep costs down. 

In addition, State and county foresters are not burdened with the 

same rigid procedures that lead the Forest Service to produce 

mounds of paperwork and carry out protracted studies in planning. 

Based on these results, I think we can achieve some real costsavings and, in fact, even make money by doing the following: 
32 

Identify suitable timber areas on our national forests, i.e., those 

areas of the multiple-use timber base that are highly productive, 

and turn them over to the State and county agencies for the production of income from uses such as timber, recreation and other 

outputs. National forestlands located right next to these incomeproducing State and county lands are a logical place to start. 

Lands that are turned over should have the stipulation that a 

royalty from income generated be paid into a fund for social or environmental good-for example, the social security fund or a fund 

that protects endangered species. 

That concludes my testimony, and I want to thank the Chairman 

and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to speak 

here today. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leal can be found at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. POMBO. If we were to turn over the property to the States, 

how would we avoid some of the inefficiencies that you have pointed out in your testimony that occur under the Federal Government 

to prevent those from being just carried over into the State government? 

Mr. LEAL. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most important and 

critical differences between the Forest Service's mandate to manage its multiple uses of lands and the State of Montana's mandate 

is the fact that the State of Montana, the State foresters, are mandated to make or generate income for the funding of public schools. 

These are trust lands. 

I think you have to have a bottom line benchmark, and the Forest Service currently does not, of having to make money from these 

lands, especially the ones that are rated, you know, equally productive in terms of timber or any other use. I think that you have to 

have some kind of economic, realistic benchmark to manage lands. 

Mr. POMBO. The incentive is different? 

Mr. LEAL. That is right. I mean, if you give a person a blank 

check, he is not going to be very careful how he spends the money. It is obvious after you go in and examine how they conduct timber 

sales by the Forest Service and how they do it by the State. The 

same thing with the county in Minnesota, and I am finding more 

data in North Carolina. The same thing goes on. Every State that 

has State lands with a mandate to make money in comparison to 

nearby national forestlands does a better job. It is not real rocket 

science. It just comes out to follow your intuition. 

Mr. PoMBo. So you have done a lot of work on below-cost timber 

sales and looked into that. In your mind, would it ever be possible 

to not have a below-cost timber sale? 

Mr. LEAL. I am not going to say with a blanket statement that 

certain areas should not be logged because of economic liability. 

Certain areas may have too steep a slope, the terrain may be too 

rugged, et cetera. 

But I believe that if you have the same efficiencies exhibited by 

the State of Montana or the counties, St. Louis County in Minnesota, for example, the nine national forests in Montana, the lost 

money, if they operated with the same efficiencies that the State 

did, they wouldn't have below-cost timber sales. 
33 

And Montana is notorious for below-cost timber sales in the 

central region of the State and in the Southwest region. The Northwest is not as bad. And I would say in eastern Oregon, I chose 

these forests, national forests, for comparison because they had a 

history of having below-cost timber sales. As far as the Tongus, I 

don't know. 

Mr. PoMBO. I guess my point is, that if you add up all of the 

costs of the Forest Service and then take away the receipts that 

they get from timber sales, you are never going to be able to keep 

up, because the Federal Government could always spend more 

money, the Forest Service could always spend more money than 

whatever the timber is worth. 

Mr. LEAL. That is right. 

Mr. POMBO. And they don't have to make money, so they don't. 

Mr. LEAL. Yes. I mean, to elaborate on that, the State of Montana gets a fixed budget of $1.2 million, and they give it to the forestry division. And they say here, take this $1.2 million and get me 

a higher rate of return than I would get if I put it into T bills or 

Treasury bonds. And if you can't, then we shouldn't be cutting the 

timber. 

So every two years, the State of Montana, the State foresters 

have to come back and they are reviewed by a performance audit 

that says, are you making us money? And I think it acts as a very 

good motivator. 

Mr. PoMBO. You also mentioned the environmental qualities of 

these different areas. Are the State-managed lands or the countymanaged lands that you talk about managed to a lower environmental standard than the federally-managed lands? 

Mr. LEAL. The benchmarks that I looked at, for example, the performance audits that are done on State, national forestlands, private forests, they go and select at-random sites that have been harvested by all of these different landowners; and they look at sites 

that are so-called high-risk sites, areas that may be susceptible to 

erosion or things like this; and they find out what practices that 

mitigate the impacts of logging are carried out. 

And they found that the State of Montana and the County of St. 

Louis was doing a better job. They perform more of the things that 

were required to keep the impact of logging at a minimum-more 

so than the Forest Service. 

I mean, despite all of the environmental planning, the environmental processes and the paperwork that has to come out of these 

Forest Service areas, when it comes to on-the-ground truth, you 

know, you are not getting the evidence that this is really making 

a big difference on the ground. 

I think the environmental laws are important. You need to have 

standards. The question is, are we using the right processes to 

achieve those standards? We still should have NEPA as a general 

requirement, but maybe we shouldn't be doing it the way we are 

doing it. I think it is too costly. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Did you want to add to that? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, I would note that many of the aspects of the 

Federal procedure are extremely cumbersome, the way environmental impact statements are done and the litigation that sur-
34 

rounds them. The land use planning systems that the Federal Government requires are extremely personnel-intensive. So the agencies are required to operate under these systems. In a sense, it 

forces them to incur these very high expenses and large numbers 

of personnel. 

On a West-wide basis, I estimate that the Federal Government 

has 10 times the land as the trust lands of the Western States but 

30 times the personnel. Some of that may be due to bad management, but a lot of it is also due to the environmental planning requirements that have been accumulated over many years and 

which have been part of the statutory framework. 

I think one of the reasons why State management would be a lot 

more efficient is that some of the State statutory frameworks have 

a more commonsense flavor. They don't require these cumbersome 

systems that seem to, in the end, break down and to produce 

gridlock, as Don was indicating. We spend a lot of money, and then 

we don't even get very much result for it. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

If you don't mind, Mr. Duncan needs to leave. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have constituents waiting on me. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE 

But, first of all, I would like to thank the witnesses for testifying. 

And I would like to just comment that I certainly agree with all 

of the testimony that has been presented here today, and that it 

would be much better to turn these lands over to the State governments. 

But I might make the comment, you know, 11 years ago, in 1984, 

the Grace Commission recommended that many of these public 

lands be sold to the private sector. And I think there are many, 

many people across this country, and I think it would be a majority 

of people, who feel that at least some of these public lands could 

and should be in private hands and shouldn't be owned by the Federal Government or the State government. 

It is disturbing to me, anyway, that when you add up what the 

Federal Government owns and then the State governments and 

then the county governments and the city governments and the 

quasi-governmental agencies, I am told that that adds up to almost 

half of the land in this country. 

Mr. Leal, I might just say that, you know, the Forest Service 

should be horrified by your testimony. But I am sure they won't be, 

because we have this thing in this country called the civil service 

system that has ended up protecting government workers so much 

that I don't think they really care. 

But it is shocking to me for you to testify to particularly one example. You say in Montana that the State has produced $14 million in income while the Federal Government has lost-was it $42 

million? 

Mr. LEAL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And with one-twelfth of the land managed that the 

Federal Government has; is that correct? 

Mr. LEAL. That is right. One-twelfth the volume of output and 

one-tenth the land base. 
35 

Mr. DUNCAN. And I think that what Mr. Nelson has said about 

the cumbersome rules and the fact that the State regulations just 

have more common sense and so forth-! think what both of you 

are really saying-and the previous witnesses-is that big government, extremely big government, simply doesn't work. 

I remember Edward Rendell, the liberal Democrat Mayor of 

Philadelphia, said at a hearing a couple of years ago, he said, government does not work because it was not designed to. There is no 

incentive for people to work hard, so many do not. There is no incentive to save money, so much of it is squandered. 

I was interested in your testimony about the incentives, Mr. 

Leal. 

I simply wanted to place those comments on the record before I 

have to go. Thank you very much for coming here today and for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me go out of order. 

Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield? 

I would just point out that BLM has a lot of land for sale if anyone wanted to buy it. There is no shortage of land for sale. I don't 

know, was there any testimony on the civil service system being 

the cause of the problem? I think in Minnesota I can say they are 

pretty strong civil servants. In fact, that is a highly unionized 

county, St. Louis County, so there is no shortage of what they are 

getting there. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Cooley. 

Mr. COOLEY. I want to thank the gentlemen for coming today 

and your testimony. I think that it reinforces the thing that many of us in the West feel, what is happening at the Federal level with 

land within State boundaries. 

As I said before to the Governor, I don't understand why we continue to go along the same road that we have for year after year when we know from statistics and from gentlemen like yourself analyzing that this system just doesn't work. It is not efficient. In 

fact, it is actually counterproductive, not only economically but to 

the environment. 

And you have a great group of people on the other side, and they refer to themselves as environmentalists, but they are really obstructionists that are pushing very hard rules and regulations with 

the bureaucracy and with Congress about trying to protect our environment, trying to preserve something for the future. 

And, in reality, it is just the opposite. We have government agencies that we have proven time and time again are really not protecting our environment nor are they changing the quality of the 

earth in which they are supposed to be protecting. And we continue 

along this line. I just hope that further hearings will, hopefully, bring this point out, and maybe we can do something to resolve 

this problem. 

But it is obvious in these testimonies that the Federal Government, the Federal agencies that are managing these lands, are certainly not doing a good job, either economically or environmentally, 

and that we need to do something to change it. And I think the 

only way to change it, as previously stated by the gentleman on the 

other side, is that they are well-organized, they are well-unionized, 
36 

et cetera. If we just take it out of their hands and they have no 

way to go, we are going to either have to bring them back here and 

let them go, one thing or another. And I think we need to address 

those problems. 

I want to thank both of you again for coming and for providing 

us with this information and enlightening us on some of the problems we have, and maybe we can do something in the future to 

turn this around. Thank you both. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, this is great testimony on deficit timber sales. I commend 

you both for it. We have been trying to get that point across. But 

the disposition of this Congress, of course, and its salvage so-called 

forest health bill-there is nothing very healthy about it for the forests-but they put in provisions that suggest that sales have to go 

forward, even if they are deficit timber sales. That gives you a little 

bit of the idea of some of the problems we face in trying to bring 

some real-world economics in what is going on in the Forest Service. 

Mr. Leal and Mr. Nelson, one of the things that is obvious in 

terms of the State lands that are selected are the individual lands 

that are privatized and become State lands by virtue of forfeiture 

of tax lands. 

That is how St. Louis County got all of their lands, Mr. Leal, was 

that these are lands that were selected, they generally picked the 

best lands for timber. So when we are looking at this, like the Superior National Forest-and I don't know the portions in Montana 

that you studied, but there is a million-acre wilderness in therethere are a lot of different costs that are overlaid. 

One of the other issues is maybe we are not bidding these things 

correctly. Maybe we are not getting the amount of money we 

should. Maybe we are charging ourselves for the roads and so 

forth. So the picture is even worse in terms of deficit timber sales, 

because road costs are not even considered as part of the costs of 

what that timber sale is, much less the closure of the roads or the 

reconstruction or remediation of the road; that isn't considered. So 

there are real problems here that we are having troubles facing up 

to. 

Of course, this whole thing on the Forest Service, I. think both 

of your testimonies are principally on that, whereas I thought the 

tenor of what was happening here was going to be on the BLM. 

Now, if we were to, for instance, convey these lands back, would 

you think we should do so without recourse, Mr. Leal, to a county 

or to a State? Do you think we should do so without recourse in 

terms that they could turn around and sell the asset? 

Mr. LEAL. No, few want to keep them in the public domain, 

whether it is State or Federal Government. My view is, you are 

turning over valuable capital to another agent who has been shown 

to operate this kind of asset more efficiently. It is what they do in 

the private sector. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think this sort of adaptive ecosystem type 

management in terms of how we can do it, whether we can improve 

the Federal model-I mean, do you fmd something absolutely defi-
37 

cient about the Federal Government in terms of the role it has 

here? 

I am sure both of you were here when I questioned the Governor 

and talked about collaboration rather than confrontation. Of 

course, he seemed to be agreeing with me and at the same time 

disagreeing. 

Obviously, you pick the issues where there is a flash point you 

know, like a fish and a bridge in Arizona. We often pick out those 

endangered species problems, but there are a lot more where there 

is compatibility. I mean, in Minnesota there is an awful lot of collaboration that goes on with the Superior and with the Chippewa. 

Mr. LEAL. I guess I am not clear on your question. Is it can we 

reshape the Forest Service to operate----

Mr. VENTO. I mean, sure, I admit, Dr. Nelson, that there are 

value judgments that tend to enter into it. I admit to the fact that 

I have certain values and attitudes with regards to this. Just on 

the economics or on the science, I think what is important to know 

is where one ends and the other begins, which may not be evident 

in all of our decisions, but I think we understand that. 

But if we are going to convey these lands, is it reasonable; Dr. 

Nelson, that we would then convey it with the same sort of Federal 

laws and requirements? I mean, how are you going to deal with 

law enforcement? How are you going to deal with firefighting? How 

are you going to deal with all of the Federal laws that apply to 

these? 

Would the States then be able to administer this somehow different? Do we have nonprofessional types of Forest Service people 

or nonprofessional types of people in Montana? . I don't think so. I think it is all sort of civil service and all 

degreed and with greater education background that is necessary 

in order to do land management. Mr. Nelson, I will give you a chance. 

Mr. NELSON. Let me first say that my comments were addressed 

to the Interior, and I should also say that I worked in the Interior 

Department for 18 years. And I would also say that I have a very high regard for the quality of the civil service in the Interior Department. 

I think that in many ways the management system at Interior 

is failing, and it is failing in the Forest Service, but I don't person- ally think it is due to the quality of the people. I think it is due 

to the system in which they are operating. And I found when I was 

there enormous frustration with that system and its constraints. 

Mr. VENTO. Is it both your testimonies that the States, the county is the right format and that solves all of the problems? Even on 

a professional basis, I think there are economic and other questions; but, given the fact, we have certain goals we want to attain. 

Mr. NELSON. I think that what would happen is, first, the States 

have established a record of better land management in admittedly 

a different situation with a lot less land than what the Federal 

Government has-or would be transferring to them under some of 

the proposals. 

But I think that the Federal Government has worked itself into 

a box in terms of its management that it doesn't seem to be able 

to get out of. I have been watching the attempts to revise the land 
38 

use planning system for 20 years, participated rather closely in it, 

and it doesn't seem to me that after 20 years it is any closer to 

working. 

I have been to so many conferences over the years where I have 

heard about the latest innovation, the latest panacea that was 

going to make the decisionmaking process work, which was going 

to make it rational and scientific. And they have all led into another set of conferences two or three years later where there is still 

tremendous frustration expressed. And these are by agency people, 

by the users of the lands and others. 

For whatever the full reasons-and you need to be a political scientist and understand the workings of American politics and the 

Congress to give a complete analysis-we haven't been able to figure out how to make the Federal system work. 

Mr. VENTO. I think that the timber sale gives you one idea of 

what the problem is. 

Mr. NELSON. And I think that if you transferred it down to the 

State level, you would basically be creating new opportunities to 

devise new methods. I would not mandate, other than for certain 

very .limited things, possibly relating to endangered species, possibly relating to existing wilderness areas or other kinds of areas 

where there are particular national interests-but, for the most 

part, I would not mandate that the States have to follow all of 

these rules and regulations. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the problem gets to be that you find out that 

these laws like the Endangered Species Act or others that you 

mentioned end up being an ecosystem-! mean, we are finding that 

there is more interrelated nature like watersheds and so forth that 

have to be dealt with, and that impact these Federal landscapes. 

That is one of the problems I think we have had in trying to integrate that information into land management. I would . agree with 

you. I have high regard for people working in these areas, but to 

say we are going to give the States those responsibilities, sort of 

begs the question. But I think you are right, since I see a lot of 

resistance in terms of some of the changes, in terms of some of the 

applications of knowledge. 

But if we are going to have different standards for States, I think 

that is a problem. Law enforcement, firefighting, all of these costs 

are being picked up now disproportionately by the Federal Government. I know we have a big responsibility, but how we translate 

that, I don't know. We are not doing it right today, I agree with 

that. 

Mr. POMBO. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr; Chairman, Mr. Nelson, you were in the 

interior in the 1980's? 

Mr. NELSON. Right. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you were in the Office of Policy Analysis? 

Mr. NELSON. Right, which was in the Office of the Secretary of 

the Interior. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. Well, I didn't often agree with Cecil 

Andrus' decisions, being from his home State in Idaho, when he 

was Secretary of the Interior, but I think you are a good analyst, 
39 

and I appreciate your testimony, and I think it was wise of him to 

keep you there. 

Mr. NELSON. Well, thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You speak and seem to have a real grasp and 

understanding that I deeply respect of the concept of State trust 

lands. Could you explain for the record what State trust lands are 

and the difference between title and interest? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, the State trustlands are basically lands that 

were given to the States, mostly in the 19th century, to be used to 

generate revenue for certain State beneficiaries, most commonly 

schools, also colleges and universities. There can also be other institutions in the States benefiting. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So primarily State endowment lands. 

Mr. NELSON. And these are State-owned lands, and they are 

managed by State administrative agencies. The agencies are given 

legal mandates which have been upheld by the courts to manage 

themselves in a trust fashion for the benefit of the schools or universities and so forth. 

And, in fact, this trust status has been interpreted by the courts 

in some situations as prohibiting the granting of subsidies to particular user groups and requiring the State agencies to charge true 

market value-in contrast to some of the instances where the Federal Government has charged prices that were below market value. 

Basically, the lands operate under a legal mandate as a trust 

mandate to serve their State beneficiary, and it is not a general 

public interest mandate to serve the entire State in a normal political sense. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Does the Federal Government hold title to the 

vacant unappropriated lands? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes, I would assume that-! believe it does, yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would be interested in working with you on 

that. I can't see that they do, except for those lands where their 

buildings are or where they actually have a recorded title. And I 

think that may be important to the debate. I don't want to 

nitpick--

Mr. NELSON. I think that this issue is of tremendous significance, 

but my personal view is that it is not ultimately a legal question but is a political question and that is up to the Members of Congress who are the ones who have the final judgment and decisionmaking authority as to who will manage and own the lands. And 

the Congress has it within its full power to transfer the lands to 

the States, which I think would be the proper way to go about it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That would resolve it with them having to get 

into all of the other questions. You are right. 

Mr. NELSON. It could also be done much more quickly. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is right. 

Mr. NELSON. If the decision were made. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In your written testimony you talk about the 

fact that there has been a crisis of confidence. I don't think you testified to this specifically but that the Federal system is, by wide 

agreement, failing in many counts. You talk about the management 

problems that we have, and you indicate further on down in your 

written testimony, this has partly reflected the fact that separating 

fact and value, science and religion, politics and administration and 
40 

other dichotomies assumed by the progressives have turned out to 

be impossible. 

Mr. NELSON. Right. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is very, very well-stated, because I think 

that is one of the reasons why we are seeing the change in administration. 

Mr. NELSON. That is one of the reasons why I would put a greater emphasis on local management. 

It was assumed that many of these decisions were amenable to 

one scientific and technically sophisticated answer and that the 

Federal Government would be the one to provide that and that it 

would be the same answer everywhere. But now that we have recognized that there is so much of an element of value judgment in 

management decisions that you can't just separate them and say, 

well, this is a scientific question, it is not a question of values. Actually, values enter in everywhere yet values differ from one part 

of the United States to another. 

I think it is appropriate that management should differ to reflect 

those differences in values, and one of the ways to do that is to give 

the States and local governments a lot more authority. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, I thank you for your fine testimony. 

And I wanted to ask Mr. Leal for the record-would you explain 

for the record why some timber sales are deficit timber sales and 

the appraisal process and so forth? 

Mr. LEAL. Well, basically, to clarify, when they say that the cost 

of extracting or designing, preparing a timber sale-which includes 

laying out the boundaries, cruising the area, marking the trees, determining the environmental impacts and all of that goes into the 

process of preparing a timber sale-the next step is to actually award the contract and then to administer the contract. Those elements involve the timber sale, road building included. 

When you take all of those elements and a cost with each, aggregate them, if the total sale of the timber is less than these aggregate costs, you have a deficit timber sale. That is different than a 

deficit timber sale program, OK? What happens is, you can have 

a few timber sales that lose money, yet the overall program for 

that national forest is still profitable or makes more than it costs 

with its timber program. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank you. 

I do want to say that, in my other life, part of what my personal 

business used to do was to develop hydroelectric projects when the 

PURPA concept was alive and well. And for each project to acquire 

a license, my firm had to do a full environmental impact statement. 

And we could turn out an environmental impact statement that 

was very large and very comprehensive in a month. And that included on-the-ground screenings of plants and doing all kinds of 

analysis and inventory. 

And it can be done. It is just we have to provide the motivation 

to make them do it quicker and to get unmarried from the process 

and realize what the end point goal must be. 

Thank you, Mr. Leal, also, for your excellent testimony. Very 

helpful. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Williams. 
41 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Welcome, both of you, but particularly 

my Montana colleague. It is always good to see a Montanan back 

here. Thanks for accepting our invitation, Mr. Leal. 

We have all heard that old saying in politics, politics makes 

strange bedfellows. The longer I am around it, though, the more in 

my view I find that that statement is not true. 

One's colleagues and bedfellows, as it were, are usually very predictable in politics and in government. We know where folks on 

your side of the aisle are going to be on an issue, and you know 

where you are going to be. And neither the politics nor the bedfellows are very strange but, rather, very predictable. 

Not true on this issue. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, as we begin 

to get into the bill which Mr. Hansen and perhaps others will introduce with regard to the disposition of Federal land or jurisdiction 

over Federal land, ·we will have all of our colleagues at these hearings and discussions and debates. Because, on this one, people will 

be changing sides, and the bedfellows are becoming very strange 

indeed. 

Environmentalists from Montana and around this country-and 

I mean environmentalists on the far left-have sat where Mr. Leal 

is sitting and given his precise testimony to this committee. They 

have said, stop these deficit sales. Timber CEOs have sat next to 

him and said, don't you dare. It has been good for this Nation. The 

American public in the end has benefited because of these deficit 

sales on Federal timber. 

Now we are beginning to hear conservatives sound like those environmental liberals sounded. I am. not condemning that. I may be 

on that side myself. But I am just saying the bedfellows are getting 

pretty strange. 

Mr. Leal is essentially correct on his data and his assumptions 

from that data. What I want the record to show and my colleagues 

that are here to understand is that that situation stems from Montana State law, which conservatives and the timber industry have 

fought for half a century. 

Montana State law, because the money is held for schools, has 

until this session of the Montana legislature, which ended a couple 

of months ago, held that the timber absolutely had to be sold at 

the highest cost; and if timber prices were plummeting, you 

couldn't sell the Montana timber. 

The Federal Government has no such law. The Federal Government sells out timber in good economic times and bad economic 

times, and so the Federal Government has deficit sales. The State 

of Montana wouldn't allow it, until now. 

You know, Mr. Leal, that has changed in Montana. Montana 

newspapers were delighted with the large ads that the Montana 

timber industry ran saying, in effect, Montana's laws should be 

more like the Federal law. We should be selling out this timber 

cheaper. 

So if we do provide all of this jurisdiction and all of this land to 

the States, are we going to end up with a situation like we now 

have in Montana in which the States are going to rush to sell this 

timber cheap? Axe the States going to rush to drop their grazing 

fees in Montana if they get all of this BLM land? I mean, are we 
42 

going to see a reversal of roles and the bedfellows getting stranger 

and stranger? 

Do you see what I am getting at? Does the Federal Government 

lose money? Yes, absolutely, on these timber sales. Now, is it because, as a couple of my colleagues said, well, Federal employees 

don't care and they have tenure and they are unionized and all of 

that? No. No, that is not it. It is the law. It is the law. We will 

sell it in a fire sale. We will sell the timber at fire sale prices. 

Now, let me just make one more point. I apologize to the two 

gentlemen sitting there for not asking them a question, but I want 

to make this point. And it is one that conservatives and liberals, 

Democrats, Republicans and independents, all have to ask themselves and, most important, to ask their constituents. Is the Federal Government in business to make money? The Forest Service 

should make money? The Pentagon, the State Department, the Department of Education, we should make money? We should show 

a profit? 

Well, it is an interesting question, isn't it? I hear the Forest 

Service being condemned because they don't make money. Now, 

that is a generic gut question for this country. Should we be making a profit from the people? We are going to return the profit to 

them, of course. States don't do it. Counties don't do it. Should the 

Federal Government have to do that? 

I think this discussion and debate is long overdue. I think these 

proposals are long overdue. They could not have been offered, by 

the way, if my party had held a majority in .this Congress. And I 

think the discussion is overdue, and you are going to see a lot of 

environmentally-attuned Democrats wanting to accept the propos- als of Mr. Leal and his colleague, Mr. Nelson, and you are going 

to see a lot of conservative, industry-oriented Republicans opposing 

them. Bedfellows are going to get stranger and stranger around 

here. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. I would like to thank the panel very much for their 

testimony and for being here. 

And, in closing, I would like to say that the direction in which 

we go with Federal land use and Federal land use planning and 

the debate that my colleague, Mr. Williams, talks about that we 

have entered into-1 think the major difference that occurs is what 

the underlying goal is, as to whether or not we continue to use 

these public resources and public lands as a multiple-use benefit 

for the entire country or whether or not the underlying goal is to 

keep people out in the multiple use of those lands. I think that that 

is one of the major debates that is ongoing. 

And I will agree with him that this debate is long overdue and 

that it is something that we do have to, as a Federal Government, 

face up to, is that the Federal Government has spent way too much 

money in managing its lands and, in many instances, because of 

actions of Congress, have inefficiently managed its lands. And I 

think that is why we see some of the examples that Mr. Leal brings 

up of States or counties being able to manage lands cheaper than 

the way the Federal Government has managed lands. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would the Chairman yield'? ~\lr. POMBO. Absolutely. 
43 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to associate myself with that and also with 

Mr. Nelson-what he has arrived at as a conclusion after working 

those years as an analyst and planner. 

I agree with you, sir, that much of what has now grown up has 

become so unintentionally complex that it has ended up hindering 

its own objectives. I am not sure that we ought to-but I think we 

need a great reordering of planning and analysis and Federal oversight. 

I don't know whether we achieve that by just saying here, States, 

you manage it. That seems to me to just be a massive, simplified, 

revenue-sharing argument. But it does seem to me that we have 

come to a time in American history, under both Republicans and 

Democrats-! mean, we have had mostly Republicans running the 

executive in the past quarter of a century-so in both parties we 

have now come to a time where the chaos in the paperwork, to say 

it the easiest way, is such that it simply has to stop. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. 

As we go into this debate further, I think that the major issue 

that we need to look at is where those incentives are, what the underlying goal is, which is a policy decision that we have to make, 

but also in establishing those policies where we put the incentives 

so that we can have a better result. 

And having said that, again, I would like to thank you very much 

for your testimony. It will be very helpful and useful as we go 

through this debate. Thank you. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
44 

Governor Fife Symington 

Arizona 

Testimony before the 

House Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Parks and Public Lands 

June 16, 1995 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear to discuss state concerns 

with regard to federal land management in the western United States. 

I have been Governor for just over four years. I have been an outdoorsman for 

much longer than that. It is with the perspective of both that I come before you to 

discuss ideas for the future of the federal land in the West generally, and specifically 

in Arizona. 

As this Committee is well aware, approximately 70 percent of the state of Arizona is 

owned by the federal government. These lands are an important natural asset to the 

state and the nati,on. 

It is my belief that decisions made in Washington, D.C. are having an unjustifiable 

and indefensible impact on the management of these lands. Deterioration of the 

resource is occurring today. Far greater destruction is imminent. The situation 

calls for creativity and boldness in the administration of these lands. Those qualities 

are not in evidence from the current leadership of the Clinton Administration. 

Last spring, my office conducted research into the land management organizations 

of the federal government. This analysis resulted in a number of recommendations 

which could help reform management and to address current problems in our 

forests and deserts. 

These recommendations were contained in a draft proposal I distributed called 

Arizona Land Plan 2000. Within this plan is a simple visual demonstration which 

identifies precisely one of the key problems facing our federal land management 

system. 

The other way to look at this problem is to look at the map of Surface Management 

Responsibility in Arizona. Private land is represented by the color white. Most of 

you probably can't tell there is any white on this map. 

If you think this looks confusing on the map, you can imagine how confusing this is 

to the hiker, the rancher, the hunter and even the land managers themselves. All 

these jurisdictions are swirled together along congressionally or administratively 

drawn lines that do not reflect ecosystems, habitats, or any other scientifically 
45 

justified distinction. 

The only constant among all these lines is the outline - the state boundary. That is 

a constant that needs to be clearly recognized as we seek solutions to land 

management problems. 

The Land Plan 2000 analysis made some important observations. 

Important decisions on Arizona resource management policy for over 70 

percent of our land, are made by individuals located in regional or national 

offices outside of Arizona. 

The division of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management 

between two separate cabinet agencies creates overlap, duplication and 

increased administrative overhead. 

There is no opportunity to integrate resource management activities, and 

therefore, no way to insure proper stewardship of the resources. 

As a result of the separate missions and objectives of the different agencies, it 

is very difficult to achieve and develop unified public support for a balance 

among all interests. There is no unity of purpose among agencies and no 

forum to work through competing positions. 

There are multiple layers of management that exist within the organizational 

structures of these agencies. This results in an "accidental bureaucracy" 

which impairs information flow and decision making and increases costs. 

Overlapping jurisdictional limits in functional areas like fire control, wildlife 

management and watershed management make such functions nearly 

impossible to exercise. 

Within that framework, difficulties are predictable. As President Clinton's National 

Performance Review pointed out in 1993, "Different agencies, with jurisdictions 

over the same ecosystem, do not work well together. Even within the same agency, 

bureaus fight one another." Two years later, the same is true. 

This situation is harmful to the resource. The condition of our National Parks is 

deteriorating as infrastructure and maintenance improvements are postponed. Our 

forests are in imminent danger of catastrophic wild fire that will destroy habitats 

and sterilize the soil. The Fish and Wildlife Service is designating critical habitat for 

endangered species, but doing nothing to implement recovery plans that could 

actually benefit the species. 

And now, this Congress and the Clinton Administration are working to eliminate 

the federal budget deficit within ten years. This means that fewer dollars will be 
46 

available to exercise stewardship on our federal lands. Given that, the federal 

government can no longer afford to maintain a management system which is both 

expensive, inefficient and ineffective. In order to prevent these budget constraints 

from harming the resource, we should identify alternative systems of management. 

The Clinton Administration's approach today is to threaten the closure of state 

parks and curtail other partnering activities. This is not a solution. Congress is 

considering legislation that would require a review of existing park facilities to 

create a strategic plan for the management of these parks. That approach is more 

thoughtful. But even if Congress does pass legislation to address long term park and 

public land management questions, it is not clear today whether you have a 

responsible executive branch that's interested or willing to make difficult but 

creative solutions. 

For example, the Clinton Administration has also circulated a plan that calls itself 

reinvention. Our reading of this plan indicates that this plan only further 

centralizes authority in Washington, D.C. It ignores the need for partnership with 

state and local governments. And it ignores the need for local accountability for 

management decisions. In fact, it appears to be directly contradictory to Clinton's 

Executive Order to enhance intergovernmental partnerships. 

Solutions 

I want to offer several ideas that could help us solve many of these seemingly 

intractable public land decisions. 

Solution number one: Pursuant to the recommendations of the National 

Performance Review to develop "ecosystem management demonstration project", 

identify areas in the western states that would be suitable for such an experiment. I 

would propose three types of demonstrations to begin with; a demonstration of 

state management of a national park; a demonstration of state management of a 

wildlife refuge; and a demonstration of state management of rangeland. 

It has been my contention that local management of these resources could result in 

improved management, at reduced cost. I have examples to back me up. 

In 1988, the Arizona Legislature gave our State Parks system the authority to keep 

the revenues they collect from the Park system. The result if a Park system that is 

largely self-sustaining, that knows how to manage its resource and collect revenues. 

Our state Parks have a business orientation provides the funding to protect the 

conservation values. 

Don't take what I say on faith. Give us the chance to operate Montezuma Castle, or 

the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, or the San Pedro National 

Conservation Area. Give us 90% of the current federal budget to do so. Give us five 

years. Let us show what we can do. 
47 

You can not say that the States don't care for and contribute to our national parks 

and public lands. Today, the Arizona Conservation Corps is in Grand Canyon 

National Park . . They are repairing trails and doing other repair work from recent 

floods. And they are saving the federal government hundreds of thousands of 

dollars in the process. 

Solution number two: Review the language of the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act as a source of authority for turning management of these lands to state 

entities without actually relinquishing title. The current administration is hostile to 

this approach, so Congressional oversight is in order. 

Solution number three: Redesign the accountability model that currently exists on 

our federal lands. Today's model has federal employees attempting to make 

decisionS, and being accountable either to appointed officials in Washington, or 

appointed Judges in the circuits. A better model is to make land managers 

accountable to local communities and states. If the community does not believe that 

the managers are doing their job, then it will be the local or state elected officials 

who will have to answer for it - in some cases with their jobs. 

Public opinion surveys show that most people want to conserve our natural 

resources. Who do they blame when the managers fail to meet their stewardship 

responsibilities? Democracy is a powerful form of accountability, and we should 

bring it back to our western lands. 

In Arizona, just last week I launched an initiative to preserve state trust lands from 

the blade of development. I can't just pass a law or regulation to do so. I need to 

recruit partners in the local governments, and with interested citizens to make this 

plan a reality. My plan depends on resources - both finanacial and human -- to 

succeed. It will not be easy -- and it · shouldn't be. The response has been 

overwhelmingly positive from across the political spectrum. You will be pleased to 

know that the notion of citizen participation in government decisions is still 

popular. 

Finally, I would suggest you resist the temptation to manage the public lands from 

these committee rooms. In days past, this has sometimes been the case. You can set 

the tone and create the environment for public land management, but the 

stewardship of the land itself must be conducted by the people who live there. 

Given the combination of public interest, budget constraints, and a renewed public 

ethic of local decision making and control, now is the ideal time to "think out of the 

box", and to be bold in how we address land management controversies. The state 

of Arizona is ready to work cooperatively with you in pursuit of the public interest . ............ 
AI"Uoo. St•te Surt.o. 

~fMMR~ry 

o:.::::. .... _ ...

•:- • 

·--

48 
49 

----·--·------- ---------·-· - --·- -·------- - ---- '\ 

••• 

--- ......... ... . .......... .. --• ... .... 

~c-.~ 

--- • -fall~ 

0 ......... --a-. ........ 
50 

CBIF 

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Testimony of Robert H. Nelson, Ph.D. 

School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

House Resources Committee 

.June 20, 1995 

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW • Suite 1250 • Wuhington, D.C. 10036 • Telephone: (101) 331·1010 • Fax: {102) 331·0640 
51 

1. States manage 41 million acres of state trust lands in the 11 

westernmost lower 48 states, equal to 5 percent of their total 

land area. In 1990, these lands yielded $657 million in revenue for the use of schools, colleges and universities and other 

beneficiaries. states are legally obligated to manage state 

trust lands efficiently in the interest of these beneficiaries. 

2. Federal lands have been managed at high cost to national 

taxpayers and generate less revenue than they could. The federal 

decision making process, based on comprehensive land use planning, has broken down for the public lands, yielding 

management gridlock. 

3. Large areas of public land were disposed to states and private owners in the nineteenth century, but the disposal philosophy was abandoned in the progressive era early in this century. The 

progressives sought to remove management from politics and to 

turn it over to professional experts acting according to the 

dictates of science. They believed that this objective could 

best be accomplished at the federal level. 

4. In retrospect, the aims of the progressives have not been 

realized as politics have overriden science and the experts have 

often acted according to their own value systems. With the 

fading of the progressive vision of scientific management of the 

lands, the system of public lands faces a crisis of purpose and 

legitimacy. 

5. Turning BLM lands over to the states has been proposed in the 

past but the West has never fully endorsed such proposals, partly 

out of concern for fiscal impacts. A typical western state would 

have to absorb a fiscal burden in the range of $10 to $30. million 

per year, if it took over BLM lands and managed them in the same manner as the federal government. Two states, New Mexico and 

Wyoming, would be large fiscal gainers from a transfer cf BLM 

lands to the states. 

6. Based on the experience of state trust land management, states 

could be expected to capture greater revenues and to have lower 

costs, if they took over existing federal lands, and would 

probably be able to earn net positive revenues from the lands. 

7. Most land management decisions on existing federal lands do 

not involve matters of national significance. They are essentially state and local in character. · 

8. An application of traditional American federalism principles 

would result in the transfer of most federal land management 

responsibilities -- excluding national parks, wildernesses and 

other special areas -- to state and local governments. 
52 

My name is Robert H. Nelson and I am a professor of 

environmental policy at the School of Public Affairs at the 

University of Maryland. I am also a senior fellow at the 

Competitive Enterprise Institute here in Washington and at the 

Center for the New West in Denver. From 1975 to 1993, I was a 

policy analyst at the Department of the Interior, working in the 

Office of Policy Analysis, which serves the Office of the 

Secretary. 

I am pleased to be able to testify here today on the 

management of lands owned by the federal government and by state 

governments. As you know, the possibility of transferring portions 

of federal lands to the states is a subject of growing importance 

and public interest. 

Federal lands cover 649 million acres, which is 29 percent of 

the land area of the United States. Most of this land is in the 

West. In the 11 westernmost of the lower 48 states, the Department 

of the Interior manages 175 million acres, or 26 percent of the 

total land area.' The Forest Service manages an additional 19 

percent of these states. In the West, federal land thus represents 

almost half the land. Particularly high percentages of federal 

ownership are found in Nevada (83 percent), Utah (64 percent) and 

Idaho (62 percent). 

State lands represent about 150 million acres, or about 7 

percent of the total land area of the United States. Alaska has 

These 11 states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

1 
53 

the largest amount of state lands, equal to 85 million acres at 

present (the 1959 statehood transfers have not yet been fully 

completed) and including the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. There are 

about 11 million acres in state parks and recreation areas across 

the United States. The majority of s.tate owned lands 

approximately 135 million acres -- are trust lands for which the 

revenues are dedicated to elementary and secondary schools, 

colleges and universities, and other public purposes. The eleven 

westernmost lower 48 states contain a total of 41 million acres of 

state trust land, equal to 5 percent of their total land area. 

States with relatively high percentages of state trust lands are 

Arizona (13 percent of the total state land area), New Mexico (12 

percent) , and utah (7 percent) . 

In the western states, state trust lands are principally 

devoted to grazing (35 . 4 million acres), timber (4.4 million acres) 

and raising crops (2.6 million acres) . State timber lands are 

concentrated in Washington (2.1 million acres), Idaho (881 thousand 

acres), Oregon (754 thousand acres) and Montana (500 thousand 

acres). In 1990 these timber lands yielded substantial revenues: 

Washington -- $260 . 7 million; Idaho -- $19.5 million; Oregon --

$20.0 million; and Montana -- $6.6 million. 

state trust lands also include subsurface rights under lease 

for oil and gas (16.9 million acres), coal (11.5 million acres) and 

other minerals. The most valuable state oil and gas rights are 

located in New Mexico ($115 milli on in revenue in 1990 from 4.9 

million acres) and Wyoming ($24 million i n revenue in 1990 from 1.7 

2 
54 

million acres). 

In total, state trust lands in the 11 westernmost lower 48 

states yielded $657 million in revenue in 1990. This can be 

compared with total revenues of $1.2 billion in 1993 from BLM lands 

in these same states. Since BLM manages 170 million acres there, 

more than 4 times the state land area, on average state lands are 

yielding significantly higher revenues per acre than BLM land. 

These differences reflect differences in the inherent productivity 

of the land and in management policies. 

The total BLM revenues from t i mber for the 11 westernmost 

lower 48 states were $151 million in 1993, as compared with total 

timber revenues for state trust lands in these same states of $307 

million in 1990. Mineral revenues for BLM lands (principally oil 

and gas and coal) for 1993 were $984 million, as compared with $187 

million for state trust lands in 1990. Grazing yielded $17.4 

million from BLM lands in 1993, as compared with $18.5 million from 

state trust lands in 1990. Considering the much larger acreage of 

BLM lands, grazing revenues per acre for state trust lands were 

approximately 4 times the revenues per acre yielded by BLM lands. 

Origins of Federal and State Land Systems 

At first, as a legacy in the 18th century of the colonial 

policies of the British government, the undeveloped territories to 

the West were held by state governments. At the time of the War of 

Independence the State of Virginia owned a huge area, including the 

current States of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and West 

Virginia. Other States such as Maryland, however, held no western 
55 

lands. In order to establish an acceptable political balance among 

the new states of the American union, Virginia and other existing 

States between 1783 and 1802 agreed to cede their holdings to the 

national government in Washington. It was a major step along the 

way from a set of loosely tied states to the development of the 

United States as one nation commanding the allegiance of citizens 

from all its diverse sections. 

Throughout the 19th century, the federal government sought to 

dispose of its western land holdings. The recipients of lands 

included not only private individuals under laws such as the 

Homestead Act of 1862 and the railroad land grants, but also state 

governments. over the history of the United states the lands 

disposed to states have equalled 328 million acres, 14 percent of 

the current United States land area, exceeding any other category 

(and transfers are still continuing). By comparision, homesteaders 

eventually would receive title to a total of 288 million acres of 

land, and railroads a total of 94 million acres in federal grants. 

The largest amount of lands disposed to states were for the 

support of schools. Beginning with Ohio in 1803, on admission to 

the union, each state initially received one section (one square 

mile) per township (36 sections). Then, after 1848 two sections 

were granted, and after 1896 four sections. Total school grants 

over the history of the United States have equalled 78 million 

acres. Other purposes for which states received land were for the 

reclamation of swamplands (65 million acres), to support the 

construction of railroads (37 million acres) and to support the 

4 
56 

construction of wagon roads (J.4 million acres). 

Progressives Theories of Federal Land Management 

The 19th century policy of disposal of federal lands to states 

and to private owners gradually came to an end in the progressive 

era. As new progressive theories took hold throughout American 

government early in this century, the Bureau of Reclamation was 

created in 1902, the U.S. Forest Service in 1905, the National Park 

Service in 1916, and federal oil, gas and coal reserves were 

retained in permanent government ownership by the Mineral Leasing 

Act of 1920. Disposal of the public lands outside Alaska 

essentially ended with the Taylor Grazing Act of l9J4 . 

The shift from the goal of a land system based on state and 

private ownership to one of federal ownership was justified by the 

progressives in the name of the scientific management of society. 

The progressives argued that government programs and policies 

should be administered by "the experts." The economics, forestry, 

engineering, public administration and a host of other professions 

were created in the progressive era to provide the knowledge base 

to run American society "in the public interest." In an era that 

saw the politics of the late 19th century as disorderly and 

corrupting, progressives promised instead a future of rational and 

efficient management through the systematic application of 

technical methods to every area of American society. 

The progressives further believed that the federal government 

was the logical place to achieve scientific management. With 

comprehensive planning, federa.l administrators could provide the 

5 
57 

needed coordination among organizations located all across the 

nation. It would also be possible at the federal level to marshall 

the best scientific talent and resources of the nation. During the 

same period the private sector was being transformed from a world 

of small businesses to one of large national corporations. The 

U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service and other federal agencies were created in the 20th century 

to provide scientific management of lands and natural resources. 

However, at the end of the 20th century, the progressive 

grounds for federal management today face a crisis of confidence. 

The federal land system is by wide agreement failing on many 

counts: 

1. Federal land management has turned out frequently to be 

wasteful and inefficient. Spending is not targeted to the highest 

social returns. Despite the possession of resources of great 

value, it costs the taxpayers of the nation much more to manage the 

lands than is obtained in revenue. 

2. Federal land management has done a poor job of protecting 

the environment. Activities such as below-cost timber sales are 

subsidized to the detriment of environmental quality. 

3. Comprehensive land use planning has been a failure, 

yielding gridlock and controversy rather than the rational guide to 

management decisions that had been expected . 

4. In the end politics, not science, has dominated the process 

for making decisions for the federal land systems. This has partly 

reflected the fact that separating "fact" and "value," "science" 

6 
58 

and "religion," "politics" and "administration," and other 

dichotomies assumed by the progressives has turned out to be 

impossible. 

These failings are not unique to the federal lands or the 

United States. All around the world, privatization, deregulation 

and other actions are being taken to dismantle the legacy of 

theories of scientific management of society by government . To 

date, however, all this has had little practical effect on federal 

land management. 

Opposition to Federal Ownership 

The shift of land management responsibility from state and 

private owners to the federal government was never fully accepted 

in the West. Periodically, especially when conflicts between 

federal land managers and westerners have been most intense, 

demands that federal lands be transferred to western states have 

been made. In 1913, 1914, and 1919, partly reflecting western 

discontent with the large areas set aside in national forests 

during the previous decade, meetings of western governors passed 

resolutions asking Congress to transfer the remaining public land 

(outside the national forests) to the states. 

In 1930, in the wake of a bitter conflict in the 1920s between 

ranchers and the Forest Service over grazing fees, a commission 

appointed by President Hoover recommended transfer of the lands to 

the states, but limited the proposal to the surface rights. 

Without the valuable .mineral rights, the Western states saw little 

to gain and turned down the offer. 

7 
59 

In the late 1970s, the "Sagebrush Rebellion" sought the 

transfer of federal lands to the western states. In his 1980 

campaign, President Reagan endorsed these aims. However, at his 

confirmation hearing the incoming Secretary of the Interior, James 

watt, stated that his goal instead would be to "defuse" the 

Sagebrush Rebellion . The practical effect of the election of the 

Reagan administration was to successfully relieve western 

grievances while continuing the flow of federal funds to the West -

- effectively bringing to an end strong western demands for land 

transfers. 

While the federal lands represent a net drain on the Treasury, 

Western states benefit financially from the presence of the lands. 

The federal government not only pays the costs of land management 

but it also transfers a significant portion of the revenues to 

state and local governments in the West. The largest source of 

revenues, those derived from oil and gas, coal and other leasable 

minerals, are shared 50/50 with the states (with some small 

adjustments for federal costs of royalty collection). Fifty 

percent of the revenues from the valuable O&C timber lands in 

Oregon go to the local counties where the revenues originate. Most 

grazing fees go 12.5 percent to states and counties, 37.5 percent 

to the federal Treasury, and 50 percent to the Range Improvement 

Fund. 

Federal and State Fiscal Impacts 

In the early 1980s, as a result of questions raised by the 

Sagebrush Rebellion, and while I was in ·the Office of Policy 

8 
60 

Analysis at Interior, I undertook an investigation of the fiscal 

impacts of the potential transfer of BLM lands to state ownership. 

If they had received these lands, western states would have faced 

having to pay for the costs of managing the lands. They also would 

have received additional revenues, because states at present 

receive only a partial share of federal revenues from the public 

lands. Their share of mineral revenues, for example, would have 

risen from 50 percent to 100 percent. 

I assumed for the purposes of my analysis (and recognizing 

that this was a major simplification) that the states would incur 

the same costs and collect the same revenues as the federal 

government. The results showed that the immediate fiscal impact on 

most western states would be negative. A typical western state 

would have been required to absorb about $5 to $10 million more in 

new costs than it would have gained in new revenues. However, two 

states, New Mexico and Wyoming, would have been big fiscal winners. 

That is because the federal government earns particularly large 

revenues in both states from oil and gas leases and in Wyoming from 

coal leases. 

I recently updated these figures to 1992. I had to make some 

additional simplifying assumptions to generate the cost data, but 

I am confident that on the whole the basic picture shown is 

accurate. Table 1 shows my estimates of the additional revenues 

and the additional costs, if all the BLM lands were transferred to 

state governments and these lands were managed in the same way as 

at present. Typical of most western states without large mineral 

9 
61 

leasing revenues, Montana would have experienced a negative fiscal 

impact of $29 million per year. New Mexico and Wyoming still look 

like big winners financially by $75 million and $124 million per 

year, respectively. 

still, even for states showing a negative impact, the 

projected fiscal burdens are not so large, given the large areas of 

land that the states would acquire and freedom to control their own 

situation that would result. Utah, for example, according to my 

figures, would be looking at a net fiscal burden of $21.9 million 

per year but would be acquiring 22.1 million acres of land (the 

current BLM acreage in Utah). That amounts to about $1 per acre 

per year. You could finance a 30-year mortgage of about $200 

million with annual payments of $22 million per year. One way to 

think of the transfer option is that the cost to Utah would be the 

equivalent of buying the land for about $10 per acre. That seems 

to me a pretty good deal. 

Moreover, I would expect that, even though most states might 

initially experience a negative fiscal impact, they could gradually 

turn .this situation around. I would expect that states would move 

to raise addition revenues, if they received title to BLM or other 

federal land. In 1994 the minimum grazing fee on state lands in 

Montana was $4.09 per AUM, as compared with a federal fee under 

$2.00. The state fee was also significantly higher than the 

federal fee in New Mexico ($3.31), Idaho ($4.53), Colorado ($6.42) 

and most other western states. I would also expect state land 

managers to cut costs significantly, partly because they would not 

10 
62 

be bound by cumbersome federal rules and regulations. 

The ability of states to make money from land management has 

already been demonstrated on the state trust lands. Most western 

states have permanent funds that receive infusions each year from 

state trust lands. In New Mexico, th; principal in the permanent 

fund in 1990 had reached $2.9 billion, reflecting the build up of 

contributions from land revenues over many previous years. The 

return on this permanent fund yielded a contribution of $213 

million to the common schools of the State. In 1990, New Mexico 

also placed an additional $109 million from state trust land 

revenues into the permanent fund. Other states also made 

significant contributions to their permanent funds in 1990, 

including Arizona ($62 million), Idaho ($23 million), Montana ($15 

million) and Wyoming ($32 million). 

States have shown greater aggressiveness and imagination in 

devising ways to earn revenues from their lands, as compared with 

the federal government. Wyoming in 1990 received $7.6 .million in 

production royalties on hardrock minerals, and Arizona received 

$3.1 million. The federal government has yet to tap this potential 

source of revenues. States are also leasing and selling their 

lands that have high potential for commercial and residential 

purposes such as single family housing, office parks, shopping 

centers, motel resorts, and cabin sites. Arizona received $8 

million from leasing and $18 million from land sales in one year. 

Washington sold lands worth $58 million. The federal government 

has moved very slowly in this matter by comparison. 

11 
63 

The first comprehensive study of state trust land management 

is about to be published this year by the University of Kansas 

Press, authored by two leading students of government land 

management, Jon Souder of Northern Arizona University and Sally 

Fairfax of the University of California at Berkeley . I have been 

relying heavily on their studies for data .on state trust lands. 

Souder and Fairfax conclude that the responsibility to benefit a 

school or other state trustee (the presence of a "residual 

claimant" in economic jargon) imposes a healthy fis~al discipline 

on state land management that is missing in much of federal 

management. Because the trustee is legally required to look to the 

long run, this fiscal discipline also encourages policies that 

promote the sustainability of the land resource itself. If the 

quality of the state land resource declines, the levels of revenues 

going to schools and other state beneficiaries will eventually 

decline as well. 

Rediscovering Federalism 

The progressive era marked a sharp turn in the historic 

relationship between the federal government and the states. 

Initially, the federal government had been limited to certain 

clearly national functions such as the physical defense of the 

nation and the prevention of any barriers to free commerce within 

the boundaries of the United states. The states were regarded as 

the basic unit of government, the place where economic activity was 

regulated, poverty was dealt with, police and other essent:ial 

services were provided. 

1 2 
64 

For the progressive theorists of government, however, the 

states were too small and too limited in their capabilities. state 

boundaries often did not correspond to the problems at hand . They 

believed that only the fede ral government could provide the central 

coordination required by a nati onal economy, based on the knowledge 

and skills of the best professional experts from throughout the 

nation. Over the course of the twentieth century, operating under 

the intellectual constructs provided by the progressives, the 

states have been dispossessed of their earlier co-equal status and 

for most practical purposes have been reduced to operating 

divisions in one grand government system for all the United States, 

directed from the federal level. 

The major disadvantages of the resulting centralization of 

authority have been apparent for some time . These disadvantages 

have been seen not only in the government sector but in private 

industry where traditional pillars of American business such as 

General Motors and IBM have tottered in recent years. They have 

had to rethink their basic organization, moving to decentralize and 

to give substantial operating autonomy to local units. 

The federal government ha.s been slow to undertake a similar 

reassessment but it now seems finally to have acknowledged this 

necessity. One of the best candidates for a significant devolution 

of authority to states is the management of existing federal lands 

and natural resources. In fact, I can think of no more logical and 

promising area for such an approach. Management and control of 

land is by long tradition and general agreement one of the most 

13 
65 

local of government functions. 

Typical decisions on ordinary public lands are of the order of 

magnitude of whether a cattle herd should come on the land in May 

or June, and how many cows will be allowed. Federal land managers 

decide whether to build a hiking trail in one location or another. 

over much of the rural West, the federal government is today 

effectively filling the functions of a county planning and zoning 

board. Because of the presence of the federal lands, the 

Congressional representatives of the rural West are for many local 

land management purposes much more important than the state 

governor and state legislature . This strikes me as an unnatural 

arrangement that has well known historical explanations but no 

grounds to justify it in any political theory that I know of. 

In truth, federal ownership of 29 percent of the United States 

and almost half of the land in the West is a contradiction of the 

federalism principles on which the United States was originally 

based . If progressivism reversed the policy of the 19th. century to 

dispose of federal lands to states and private owners, it is time 

to look again at this issue. 

I would propose that the Congress apply four common sense 

principles in reexamining the existing system of federal land and 

resource management. 

1. Activities that can reasonably be carried out in the 

private sector should be done privately. 

2. Government activities that ~ostly involve state and local 

concerns should be administered by state and local governments. 

14 
66 

3. The federal government should limit its role to activities 

and concerns that involve major national interests and 

responsibilities. 

4. Administrative organization at the federal level should 

place similar functions in the same agency . 

The application of these principles would result in the 

divestiture of much of the existing federal land system. The 

"crown jewel" national parks, some other parks, wilderness areas, 

and certain other federal lands involve national interests and 

concerns and would remain federal. These lands, however, represent 

perhaps 10 percent of the current federal land system. 

As the hopes for the scientific management of society have 

faded, it is no longer progressive ideology that represents the 

greatest obstacle to a rediscovery of traditional federalism on the 

federal lands and elsewhere in American government. Rather, once 

any government program has been in existence for a while, a set of 

beneficiaries will be found with an interest in defending the 

status quo. Western states, as I indicated above, will be 

particularly interested in the potential for added fiscal burdens 

associated with any transfer of federal lands to the states. 

They should keep in mind, however, that current fiscal pressures on 

the federal government are likely to reduce the financial benefits 

to the West of continued federal ownership. If the West has 

benefitted from subsidies associated with public lands, these 

subsidies may be an endangered species. 

Environmentalists have also questioned transfer possibilities 

15 
67 

on the grounds that states will show less concern for environmental 

quality. The current state of gridlock on the federal lands, 

however, has reached the point that it is dift icul t to take 

positive steps to improve the environment, along with other 

objectives. The current system serves the cause of doing nothing 

well enough, but that is not always what is best for the 

environment. 

Environmentalists might also note the history of Adirondack 

Park in New York State, the largest park in the lower 48 states, 

equal in size to about 20 percent of New York. The state lands in 

Adirondack Park were set aside in the 1890s to be preserved from 

timber harvesting and other commodity development . one person who 

objected strongly to this "waste" of land was Gifford Pinchot, the 

founder in 1905 of the Forest service. If Adirondack Park had been 

put in the federal land system, as Pinchot advocated, the largest 

wild area in the eastern United States would no doubt have been 

subject to much more intensive management than under the ownership 

of the land by the State of New York. 

So, in conclusion, I would encourage the congress to reexamine 

the land management system from traditional federalism principles. 

If that is done, I am sure that major changes in management and 

ownership of the existing public lands would be forthcoming. A 

large part of the existing system reflects merely historical 

accident and is sustained only by the always strong inertia of the 

status quo. A consistent application of American federalism 

principles would result in the transfer of large areas of federal 

16 
68 

land to the states. The states could then decide for themselves 

further issues such as the precise land tenure systems and forms of 

land management for the future. 

17 
69 

TESTIMONY FOR THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS & LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

JUNE 20, 1995, 10:00 AM 

COMPARING FEDERAL, STATE, AND COUNTY TIMBER SALES 

BY 

DON LEAL 

PERC (POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH CENTER) 

My name is Don Leal and I'm a Senior Associate at PERC (the Political Economy 

Research Center) in Bozeman, Montana. For the last ten years, I have carried out research and 

wrinen on issues related to the management of natural resources on public and private lands. 

Today I want to discuss what I think is a real opportunity to improve the bottom line 

of our national forest lands--without sacrificing environmental quality! 

I base this observation on studies I carried out comparing the economic and 

environmental performances of federal, state, and county timber sale programs in several 

regions of the country. 

One of my studies is a comparison of state and national forest timber sales in 

Montana.·over the 1988-1992 period, national forests in the state had combined losses of$42 

million from federal timber sales, according to the Forest Service's own data. During the 

same period, the state of Montana generated $I 4 million in income selling timber from state 

forests. Remarkably, the state harvested only one-twelfth the timber harvested by the Forest 

Service in the state over this period. 

Within three distinct growing regions of western Montana, Forest Service surveys rate 
70 

state and national forest lands as having similar timber growing potentials. And Montana· s 

state foresters and the Forest Service carry out similar duties. Both prepare timber sale plans, 

administer harvests, prepare sites for reforestation, and conduct stand improvements. 

Importantly, both must integrate timber harvests with other outputs such as public recreation, 

livestock grazing, and wildlife habitat. But the state carries out its duties at a substantially 

lower cost, spending only half what the Forest Service spends to produce a given volume of 

timber. 

Some observations here: State foresters are not inundated with environmental and 

forest planning paperwork; state timber sales are smaller in size; staff sizes are smaller; and 

most timber roads are temporary and less cxpensi ve to build. 

Another study is a comparison of county and national forest timber sales in northeast 

Minnesota. From 1990 through 1993, the Forest Service lost S5,l78,362 on its timber sale 

program for Superior National Forest. During the same period, St. Louis County Land 

Department generated $2,340,512 in income from forest lands it manages. 

Forest Service surveys rate these lands similar in timber growing potential. In addition 

to selling timber, the Land Department manages public recreation and adheres to regulations 

designed to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat. The Land Department manages to do this 

while spending only a third of what the Forest Service spends to harvest a given volume of 

timber. Again. county foresters do less paperwork, build cheaper roads, usc smaller staffs, etc. 

Given the Forest Service's higher costs, one would expect that environmental quality 

would be higher. Afterall, one may attribute the higher costs to greater environmental 

protection on national forests. But 1992 and 1993 independent performance audits of recent 

2 
71 

harvestS ranked the state and county highest in protecting watersheds among landowners in 

Montana and northeastern Minnesota. These performance audits are conducted periodically by 

teams of experts in hydrology, forestry, soil, and biology and several representatives of 

environmental groups, and are now carried out in many states. 

Similar lands and similar duties: How could these agencies achieve such drastically 

different results? I believe the answer to this question lies in the fact that both state and 

county foresters are required to generate income from state and county forests while the 

Forest Service has no such requirement. Losing money on timber sales is merely offset with 

congressional appropriations. Hence, there is very little incentive for the Forest Service to 

keep costs down. In addition, state and county foresters are not burdened with the same rigid 

procedures that lead the Forest Service to produce mounds of paperwork and carry out 

protracted studies and planning. 

Based on these results, I think we can achieve some real cost savings in managing 

areas of our national forests. 

My recommendations are as follows: 

•Identify suitable timber areas of national forests and turn them over to state or county 

agencies for the production of income from timber, recreation. and other outputs. National 

forest lands located right next to income producing state and county lands are the logical 

place to start. 

• Lands that are turned over should have the stipulation that a royalty from the income 

generated be paid into a fund for social or environmental good-e.g., social security or a fund 

that rewards private landowners who provide habitat for endangered species. 

3 
72 

That concludes my testimony. I want to thank the Chainnan and members of the 

subcommittee for the opportunity to speak here today on this important issue. 

4 

0 

ISBN 0-16-047669-0 

90000