Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 27
Public Land, Private Land:
An Overview of Ownership
and Its Management Challenges
l
In an era when privatization and deregulation have widespread appeal,
proposals to extend public ownership of land must prove that such own-
ership is in the public interest. Land acquisition decisions must account
for conservation incentives and disincentives confronted by private and
public land managers, as well as other factors (e.g., population growth,
changing occupational structure, and new institutional conservation
mechanisms).
CONSERVATION: A TERM OF MANY MEANINGS
Although the history of conservation has been characterized by con-
flict over the meaning of the term, one element has been common to
nearly all sides. Ciriacy-Wantrup (1985) noted that Me theme underly-
ing various uses of conservation is a concern for Be future. He argued
that conservation is concerned with the "intertemporal distribution of
resource use." Thus, land conservation could be defined as the manage-
ment of land resources to sustain their productivity in the long term and
to avoid losses of valuable components. Dana and Fairfax (1980)
warned that conservation can be defined only in the context of particular
times and places. Its meaning might even vary wig the purposes of He
speaker. A brief examination of the history of the concept can help to
circumscribe the range of meanings as well as to identify prominent =d
common elements of conservation ~inking.
27
OCR for page 28
28 SEWING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
The Nineteenth Century:
Preservationists and Progressives
During the late nineteenth century, conservation was a contested term
used by those advocating preservation of vast tracts of land for natural
and intrinsic values, as well as by those who supported orderly develop-
ment of natural resources Ways, 1959; Fox, 1986~. Preservationism is
apparent in the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thor-
eau, and John Muir, who saw wilderness as a place of escape, re-crea-
tion, and closeness to nature. Many preservationists believed that as We
country became increasingly urban, experience with nature was neces-
sary to rebuild the American character (Gilligan, 1953~. But preserva-
tionists also saw wilderness being lost to private exploitation. They
argued Mat government should act to reserve portions of Me public
domain to ensure that present and future generations would have Me
opportunity to observe virgin forests, mountain meadows, and other
features of nature. Some, such as John Muir, argued Mat nature had a
right to exist that was independent of society's needs (Fox, 1986~.
Scientists also played a crucial role in the emergence of Me preserva-
tion movement (Fleming, 1972~. The linkage between aesthetic appreci-
ation of nature and observation and explanation of natural processes
provided a foundation for arguments to preserve some lands for scientif-
ic exploration, public visitation, and nature preservation.
Another preservationist argument was what historian Alfred Runte
(1990) has called monumentalism that preservation of visually spectacu-
lar landscapes would reflect the riches of America. The United States
of the nineteenth century lacked the cultural achievements of Europe, but
it had tremendous natural wonders. Preservation of these landscapes
provided a favorable basis for comparison wig Europe as well as an
additional base for economic development.
Preservationists used a variety of arguments to promote the reserva-
tion of vast tracts of land from disposition under Me public land laws.
Preservationists were influential in the establishment of forest reserves,
national monuments, and national parks through Me early years of the
twentieth century.
Those who advocated development of natural resources also exercised
considerable influence on federal land policy. The progressive conser-
vation movement, led by Theodore Roosevelt, Bernhard Fernow, Gif
OCR for page 29
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
29
ford P~nchot, and much of We federal scientific establishment, attempted
to bring about efficient use of natural resources Trough large-scare
management systems directed by professional resource specialists (Hays,
1959~. Progressive conservationists argued that professional managers
would be free from We corrupting forces of politics; ~us, resource
management would be based on scientific principles and the public wel-
fare. The broader goal of these conservationists was "foresight and
restraint in the exploitation of the physical resources of wealth as neces-
sary for the perpetuity of civilization and the welfare of present and
future generations" (Wells, 19701. This concept prevailed in federal
conservation agencies Trough Me first half of Me twenties century
QIays, 1959, 1987; Fleming, 1972; Worster, 19851.
The Early Twentieth Century:
Expansion of Resource Management
and the Movement for Wilderness Preservation
Conservation strategies and techniques were developed and extended
to a range of natural resources during He 1920s and 1930s (Hays,
1987~. In the Forest Service (USES), conservation meant management
of forests to yield crops of timber in perpetuity. Foresters would pro-
mote conservation by practicing sustained yield on the national forests
and by providing a knowledge base and technical and protection services
to make scientific forest management possible on private lands (Greeley,
1972; Steen, 1991~. Water conservation, as practiced by He Bureau of
Reclamation, meant construction of large dams to provide irrigation,
flood control, and electric power (Reisner, 19861. Water projects facili-
tated human use of rivers so that water would not be "wasted" by flow-
ing out to sea. Moreover, waterways were regulated to minimize the
damage Hat flooding rivers could cause. During He New Deal, the Soil
Conservation Service encouraged farmers to adopt practices that would
minimize soil erosion. Conservationists also developed wildlife policies
Hat emphasized limited hunting seasons, bag limits, predator control,
and establishment of refuges (Worster, 1985; Fox, 1986; DunIap, 1991).
Perhaps the most distinctive development in conservation policy dur-
ing He 1920s and 1930s was the designation of wilderness areas in He
national forests. Several USES officials, including AIdo Leopold and
OCR for page 30
30 SETTING PRIOR117ES FOR
~ CONSERVATION
Robert Marshall, argued that the agency should preserve areas where
natural resources would not be exploited (Gilligan, 19531. Leopold
argued that wilderness was a resource that could be used to preserve the
best parts of American culture. He believed that by bringing Americans
into regular contact with the frontier that shaped their culture, qualities
such as individualism mediated by cooperativeness, intellectual curiosity
combined wig pragmatism, and independence would survive Leopold,
1925~. Thus, for Leopold, an impor~t criterion for the designation of
wilderness was proximity to population centers.
Leopold also offered an argument for wilderness preservation based
on scientific and resource management needs (Leopold, 19331. His ob-
servations of wildlife and work in game management coupled with his
understanding of ecology lead him to suggest the need for preserving
areas to provide opportunities for scientific study of undisturbed nature
and thus to improve understanding of the consequences of manipulating
natural systems.
Like Leopold, Marshall (1930) emphasized the cultural benefits of
wilderness. He argued that confrontation wig the wilderness built
physical and mental stamina, provided intellectual stimulation, and of-
fered a distinctive beauty. Numerous other authors have extolled the
values of wilderness, and nearly all have emphas~zed~the enhancement of
human character or spirituality associated with confronting nature.
Despite such efforts, the progressive conservationists continued to
dominate federal policy. Resource-management schools trained cadres
of professional foresters and wildlife and range managers to staff federal
agencies. But during Me 19SOs, a small core of citizens' groups was
increasingly successful in gaining public support for wilderness preserva-
tion and protection of nature for nonutilitarian ends. They depicted
federal resource-management policies as destructive of nature and de-
fined conservation as preservation of land untouched by human develop-
ment. Their perspective gained support from a growing segment of the
public, and during He 1960s, Hat support was reflected in congressional
passage of wilderness, wild and scenic river, and endangered species
legislation.
Conservation in the Age of Environmentalism
The rise of He environmental movement during He 1960s gave impe
OCR for page 31
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
3
tus to even more widespread public acceptance of preservationist think-
ing and once again made conservation a contested term in public policy
debates (Dana and Fairfax, 1980; Hays, 1987). Advocates of resource
exploitation and of preservation both claimed the title of conservationist.
This contest over federal land, water, and wildlife policies continue to
be waged today. Competing interpretations of conservation were reflect-
ed in battles over clearcutt~ng, wilderness designation, old-growth and
ancient forest preservation, and endangered species protection.
One major commission provided a forum for conservation debates and
shaped subsequent institutional responses: In 195S, Congress created the
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC). The
1963 ORRRC report recommended the creation of federal grants-in-aid
to states to support recreation planning, land acquisition, and site devel-
opment. Other proposals included adoption of wilderness legislation, a
wild rivers program, and more efforts to support urban recreation (Dana
and Fairfax, 1980~.
The ORRRC report was well received by both major parties, and
Congress acted on many of its proposals. In 1964, Congress passed
wilderness legislation and created the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF). A primary purpose of EWCF was to support federal,
state, and local acquisition of lands for outdoor recreation resources. In
addition, EWCF wads used for state recreation planning and state and
local construction of recreation developments (Dana and Fairfax, 1980~.
The EWCF was largely noncontroversial, however, the Wilderness Act,
along with subsequent preservationist legislation, provided a stage for
numerous later conservation battles.
In subsequent years, scientific, institutional, and political develop-
ments reshaped many of the dimensions of the conservation scene.
Private land trusts or conservancies became increasingly important in
conserving land (13remer, 1984; Elfring, 1989; Morine, 1990~. These
organizations are private, nonprofit corporations that protect specific
parcels of land through direct transactions, including acquisition by
purchase or donation of land or Interests in land. Purposes range from
preserving wildlife habitat to establishing community gardens (Bremer,
1984~. Although the objectives of these organizations reflect various
understandings of conservation, the common theme among them is to
save land from development- particularly urban development- that
would be inconsistent wig the goals of He organization.
Another trend was the movement for deregulation, privatization, and
OCR for page 32
32 SElTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
generally less government, sometimes called the "Wise Use Agenda"
(Gottlieb, 1989~. "New resource economists" were at the front of this
movement, and they advocated alienation of natural resources from the
public to Me private sector (Anderson and Leal, 1991~. They argued
that private ownership and management would yield more efficient and
equitable outcomes Wan would public ownership and management (Sala-
zar and Lee, 1990~. Conservation goals could be achieved by defining
private property rights to natural resources and permitting their exchange
in competitive markets (Anderson, 1983~. Private owners would have
incentives to maintain the productivity of resource lands while ensuring
that they produced desired goods. The new resource economists, toge~-
er wig the "sagebrush rebels" (who advocated Tat public lands be ceded
to the states), mounted an attack not just on federal acquisition but on
continued federal ownership of conservation lands.
During the 1950s and 1960s, resource economists focused their efforts
on modeling socially efficient rates of resource exploitation (Ciriacy-
Wantrup, 1952; Gordon, 1954). They calculated rotation ages for tim-
ber stands, maximum sustainable yields for fisheries, and tile net bene-
fits of water developments and related Rem to vesting people with pri-
vate-property rights ~n-those commodities. During Me 1970s and 1980s,
many resource economists turned Weir attention to valuation of noncom-
modity resources, such as recreation and biological diversity (Randall,
1987; Montgomery and Brown, 1991~. Resource economics, which had
been the social science arm of progressive conservation, increasingly
addressed issues raised by conservation biology.
Conservation biology contributed to changing understandings of con-
servation during the 1970s and 19SOs. Conservation biology is a multi-
disciplinary field (Soule, 1985; Noss, 1991) that draws on research in
ecology, population biology, and biological geography to preserve bio-
logical diversity. Conservation biologists have developed management
strategies to conserve diversity at Me levels of gene pools, species, and
ecosystems.
Many conservationists and environmentalists have used conservation
biology as the scientific basis to advocate expansion of the wilderness
system and to support biological diversity. Advocates include radical
and mainstream elements of the conservation movement. They have
argued Mat conservation should not be pursued solely for human ends;
species and ecosystems should be preserved in Weir own right. More
OCR for page 33
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
33
over, an important criterion in Me creation of wilderness preserves
should be to maintain biological diversity.
Progress in the natural sciences often precipitates changes in popular
conceptions of conservation, but changes in public policy do not neces-
sarily follow immediately. For example, although the Endangered Spe-
cies Act offers a means to achieve biological diversity at the species
level, there is little statutory basis for a conservation strategy aimed at
protecting biological diversity at either the level of genetic material or
ecosystems.
Natural Sciences and Conservation Efforts
Developments in the physical and biological sciences influenced con-
servation ~inking. This section examines whether the criteria used to
acquire lands for conservation reflect current scientific knowledge about
the requirements for the conservation of natural resources.
The key concept of sustainability attracts considerable attention and
expanded application today. Each of the four agencies reviewed by the
committee has mandates involving sustained production or maintenance
of some element of the resource base. Language such as "in perpetu-
ity," "to leave unimpaired," "Ion", wise use," and "multiple-use sus-
tained yield" imply the maintenance of the land and resource base far
into the future.
Early discussions of conservation pitted preservationists against pro-
gressive conservationists. The progressive conservationists developed
the science of resource management and resource economics but often
ignored the ecological factors affecting resource use and management,
that is, a more comprehensive perspective on the environment, its eco-
systems, and interactions. Lands for conservation in America were ac-
quired in part to protect specific resources without regard to the broader
ecological issues that affect sustainability. The result was a fragmented
pattern of reserves for protecting specific resources.
The emergence of the field of wildlife biology and information about
species distribution, threats, and extinction contributed to development
of endangered species legislation. Focusing on the protection of single
species without emphasis on ecosystems has led to land acquisition crite-
ria that do not adequately address protection of species within an ecosys
OCR for page 34
34 SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
tem or landscape context. For example, water resources have not been
considered in land acquisition decisions for conservation until recently.
And natural-resource management has suffered from some erroneous
concepts fostered by a fragmented view of resources. Numerous other
examples demonstrate instances In which lack of knowledge of the re-
source base contributed to conservation policies that were not compre-
hensive in approach.
Equally disturbing, however, is that essential works of science that
might have guided land acquisitions, such as John Wesley Powell's work
on arid lands (Powell, 1879), were ignored wig respect to settlement,
and policies were developed that circumvented resource-limiting factors.
As the turn of the century approaches, it is useful to take stock of the
sciences and their role in shaping conservation thinking. Moreover,
impor~t developments and perspectives in several related scientific
fields in the past several years will contribute significantly to long-ter~
conservation thinking and fi~IfilIment of agency mandates in the next
decade.
Elements of Conservation
and Its Institutionalization
Conservationists have tried to achieve an array of objectives using
numerous managerial strategies and a small set of institutional arrange-
ments. Managerial strategies have included sustained production of
commodity resources using an agricultural model, active management of
reserves either to maintain a particular type of landscape or to protect
biological diversity, and holding wilderness areas that are not directly
managed. Progressive conservation continues to influence federal land
management agencies, and the agricultural mode! of conservation for
commodity production is embodied in much of what those agencies do.
However, conservation biology and related disciplines are gaining sup-
port; hence, active reserve management is receiving more emphasis.
Federal ownership and management has been the predominant institu-
tional arrangement for land conservation, but this situation is changing
as state and local governments and private entities undertake more con-
servation activities.
In a broad sense, acquisition includes obtaining partial interests ("less
OCR for page 35
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
35
than-fee" interests) in land. Federal acquisition is not the only available
conservation tool. Acquisition by state and private conservation organi-
zations may become increasingly important, and regulatory and tax
authorities can be used to achieve conservation ends. Efforts to analyze
conservation policy will be most useful if they address the diverse set of
purposes that conservation has served and might serve as well as the
broad array of instruments for achieving conservation goals.
Conservation efforts largely have reflected interests in different uses
of land. The issue Hat has divided conservationists is He purpose to be
served. Thus, one way to analyze conservation policy options is to
identify and characterize He resources or goods associated wig He
various meanings of conservation. Social scientists have developed con-
ceptual models that link characteristics of resources to appropriate insti-
tutional arrangements for Heir management (Ostrom, 1990; Salazar and
Lenard, 19921. Those kinds of models can be used to consider how
particular conservation goals can be achieved.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
LA N DOWN ER f i H I P
Public Landownership in the United States
The use of criteria to establish priorities for land acquisition is limited
by the lack of a comprehensive source of information on public and
private landownership that provides an overview of lands that are pro-
tected or suited for conservation purposes. All of the land the United
States has acquired on the Norm American continent previously was
owned by other nations and Indian tribes. Federal acquisition came
about through a combination of purchase and conquest (Cogging and
Wilkinson, 1987) (gable 2-1 and Figure 2-~. Until passage of the Indi-
an Appropriations Act in 1871 (IJ.S. Stat. 544, 566), treaties were
negotiated to transfer Indian title to the public domain and reserve cer-
tain lands Belt in trust by the federal government) for He tribes. Much
of the reserved lands became public domain and was transferred to non-
Indian ownership after passage of He Dawes Severalty Act of ISS7 (also
known as He General Allotment Act). That act assigned 160-acre allot-
ments to individual Indians; the remaining reserved lands-more Dan 60
OCR for page 36
36 SE7-llNG PRIORIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
TABLE 2-1 Acquisition of U.S. Temto~y from Foreign Nations
Total area (land and
water)
Date MillionPercent
and acquired acresU.S. total
Ordinal public domain
Cessions by original states 1781-1802 23710.2
Louisiana Purchase 1803 56024.2
Florida Purchase 1819 462.0
Oregon Compromise 1846 1838.0
Mexican Treater 1848 33914.6
Purchase from Texas 1850 793.4
GaWen Purchase 1853 19.8
Alaska 1867 37516.1
.2.,:.', .......... - - : ..... .................
Never public domain
Original states
Texas
Hawaii
, ~ . - - .. - ........
Total
305
170
4.1
13.2
7.3
.2
.................... ...... ... . ..
2,316.1 100
million acres were opened to homesteaders. Through the mid-1930s,
federal policy was to sell or give away Me public lands to private own-
ers and to states so Mat the nation would be "tamed, farmed, and devel-
oped"(Coggins and Wilkinson, 1987)(F;igure2-2~. By1976,mored~an
~ billion acres of Me public domain had been disposed of under public
land laws.
Public land laws usually distinguish between the public domain lands
obtained by the United States from other sovereigns and acquired
lands lands obtained from private or state ownership by gift, purchase,
exchange, or condemnation (Cogging, 1991~. Today's federal lands con-
sist of Me remains of the original public domain in states west of Me
original 13 colonies, some of Weir claims, Vermont, and lands that have
OCR for page 37
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 37
.
b l - .
: ,::::: ~ ° ,- =
U:) =2= .: __,/ ~ o, ~ ~
if- X2 ,o ~ ~ .e
o
E.= C),~
c o c 3
~ ~ ~ 0 ~
SEX 0
0
-
,. .........
,.~.........
1 a, r
I. ~ ~ ;m ~ ~ 1
J. ~ ~ =.0! ~
<::~:::~::::::~N
, . . ,, .. .. . . . . . . . . ~ N. ~
. . ~ . . . .~ . . . . . ., N~`
i;_ ~ V\ ~ \\
o
o
._
-
._
U'
._
g
to
AD
CO _
US on Ct
to al - -
- 0 0 0
0 ~ -
0 ~ ~
O Q {2.
, _ co In
0 ~ .-
1,, ~ 3 3
~ ~ 0 ~
age;
_ en CO
OCR for page 40
40 SE]-llNG PRIORIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
been acquired by Me federal government. The remains are public do-
ma~n lands that were not claimed by settlers or miners under various
homestead and over disposal laws or were not granted to states, rail-
roads, and over entities to promote development and expansion of set-
tIement.
t
Designation of Federal Lands
Starting with Yellowstone Park in 1872, some of We public domain
was reserved in federal ownership as national parks, monuments, and
forests. Formally, a reservation is a federal tract of land Mat Congress
or Me president has dedicated for particular uses (Cogging, 19914. The
bulk of Me reservations outside of those in Alaska were made from ache
IS70s Trough the 1930s. Federal reservations from Me public domain
in Alaska largely were created by Me Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). The federal rangelands now
managed by the Bureau of L`and Management (ELM) effectively were
closed to settlement in 1934, although the policy of retaining most of
them in federal ownership was not made explicit until 1976 win passage
of Me Federal Land Policy Management Act (F~PMA).
Some shifts in status of and jurisdiction over Me federal lands still
occur. The parks and refuges created by AN~CA shiftM jurisdiction
mainly from BEM to the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other federal lands have been shifted from
Me Forest Service (USFS) to NPS and from BEM to the over Tree
federal agencies.
Lands reserved from the public domain decades ago and federal lands
more recently added usually are not solid blocks or units. Lands re-
served since IS72 for national forests, parks, and refuges generally were
unsuited for private ownership, in large part because much of Me land
was semiarid. Homestead laws gave little recognition to the basic condi-
tion of the lands, but homesteaders generally chose watered land. Val-
leys and riparian corridors that provided access to water, natural vegeta-
tion, and opportunities for irrigated pastures were homesteaded in fin-
gers reaching up streams, wig higher, unwatered public land on both
sides; many of Me inholdings in the West today are He legacy of such
homesteads.
Much of the public lands and some of He lands now managed by
OCR for page 41
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
41
BLM were overgrazed, and large portions of Me public domain lands
still are poorly suited for private ownership of large populations. Most
of He national forests and BEM lands continue to be available for min-
eral prospecting and, under the provisions of the Mining Act of IS72,
ultimately are available for transfer to private ownership if mineral
deposits are discoverer]. Particularly in the case of NPS' the inholdings
often are considered priority acquisition sites.
Nearly all of the national parks and grasslands and most of the nation-
al wildlife refuges and forests east of the Rockies are acquired lands.
The national parks and wildlife refuges were acquired mainly for their
particular natural-resource characteristics. The national forests and
grasslands, however, often were acquired for over reasons; for exam-
ple, abandoned farmlands were acquired during the Great Depression.
The only large areas of federal lands reserved from Me public domain
east of the Great Plains are the Superior National Forest in Minnesota
and the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
The 191~ Weeks Act, under which most of the eastern national forests
were established, provided for land acquisition to protect the headwaters
of navigable streams and to ensure continuous supplies of timber. The
lands were in poor condition cutover and burned- from the wave of
logging that took place from 1850-1920; those conditions and burden-
some property taxes made economic management as private timberlands
infeasible.
The federal government acquired rundown farmlands under Me feder-
al emergency land utilization CUD program from 1935 to 1937 and
under Me Bankhead-Iones Farm Tenant Act from 1938 to 1946. The
responsibility for restoring the lands was given to the Soil Conservation
Service. Of Me roughly 11.3 million acres of LU lands, about 2.2
million acres ultimately were transferred to BUM, I.5 million acres were
incorporated into eastern national forests, and 3.8 million acres in the
Great Plains formed the national grasslands, which are administered by
ache USES (Woolen, 1965~. The remaining lands were conveyed to
various other parties.
Federal Landownership
Public land comprises the holdings of the federal government, as well
as Lose of state and local governments (Indian lands held in trust are
OCR for page 42
42 SEl-llNG PRIORI"ES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
discussed in Chapter 31. All Free land accounts have grown as a result
of EWCF outlays. State and local land holdings compose 8% of We
total U.S. land base exclusive of Alaska and are increasing (Wolf,
1981~. Like federal lands, state and local holdings are concentratM in
the West and are a small proportion of total land in Me nation, ranging
from 2% in Me Soup to Il% in the West. In a few states, such as New
York, state and local holdings exceed federal holdings. Most govern-
ment reports estimate that federal lands constitute roughly one-third of
the nation's land base. If only Me West is considered, as much as 48 %
of Me land is federally owned; 63% of the West is federal land when
Alaska is considered.
Federal landownership in the United States has fluctuated greatly with
time. Originally, this was because of federal acquisitions and annex-
ations; more recently it follows from federal commitment to protect land
for aesthetic, recreational and environmental reasons. Whereas in the
nineteenth century public lands were sold to mobilize private develop-
ment, in the present century there has been an impetus to buy back
federal lands. From the IS90s through the 1930s, federal land policy In
America gradually shifted from disposition toward reservation of the
remaining public domain. By the middle of the century, federal owner-
ship stabilized briefly at 760 million acres, or 33 ~ of the total U.S. land
base of 2.275 billion acres. This includes 365 million acres in Alaska,
nearly all of which was federal land before statehood in 1959.~
Despite heightened environmental awareness in Me 1970s, concerns
about further federal land acquisition persisted. In 1979, the General
Accounting Office stated Mat current federal land policies tended to
overlook least expensive laud protection strategies, adversely affected
private landowners, and underestimated facility maintenance costs of Me
expanding land base (GAO, 1979~. Early in the 1980s, the Reagan
At statehood, Alaska was gram ted slightly more than 104 million acres
from federal lands. Alaska made its selections gradually as federal lands were
surveyed. Furthermore, the settlement of native claims in Alaska under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 led to the transfer of about 44
million acres of federal land to native villages and regional corporations. Thus,
the total acreage of federal land in Alaska decreased considerably during the
past 3 decades. In the rest of the country, however, the federal land base grew
slowly.
l
\
OCR for page 43
OWNERSHIP AND MA Ye
43
administration made known its intentions to sell as much 5%
(35,000,000 acres) of Me federal lands for budget relief (Short, 1989)
and to place a moratorium on EWCF appropriations. The latter pledge
may account for We downward trend in EWCF appropriations Figure 2-
3~. Federal acreage purchased was abnormally low in the early years of
the Reagan administration Cable 2-21.
$800
$700
$600
~o $500
o
._
$300
$200
$100
$goo
$0 - - 1 1 ~.
78 79 80 81 82
T r T T I I I I I I
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
I:~Au~orized amount-Total $ appropriated
FIGURE 2-3 I'd and Water Conservation Fund, fiscal years 1978-92
The final years of We Reagan administration were marked by an
executive order creating the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors (PCAO). The PCAO's mandate in some ways resembled Cat
of ORRRC, but it made no assumption Cat additional public lands were
necessary to achieve ache public heady and vitality associated wig out
OCR for page 44
44 SE1317NG PRIOR177ES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
TABLE 2-2 Federal Acreage Purchased Using I and and Water Con-
servation Fund Money
National Fish &
Forest Park Wildlife
Year Service Service Service BLM* Total
1965n/a729n/an/a729
196629,4373,974n/an/a33,411
196770,05852,6713n/a122,732
196885,86158,5222,561n/a146,944
196991,32798,355832n/a190,514
197079,72070,540~15,0310165,291
197180,94444,6514,530536130,661
197275,46968,49911,506594156,068
197391,13849,6433,0172,117145,915
197435,93386,2772,8594,599129,668
197544,05175,4122,6251,744123,832
197657,235149,24625,0641,903233,448
197739,472218,24527,4051,840286,962
197832,429260,55526,5995,249324,832
197994,861122,16737,8423,400258,270
198066,04953,70221,5403,760145,051
1981102,46318,18521,2022,119143,969
19828,33218,06114,10118540,679
198310,44713,28518,92112,04954,702
198419,16214,369164,4482,004199,983
198534,44827,05179,620151,613292,732
198642,86073,68928,66372,842218,054
198785,83217,64555,26848,161206,906
198857,76843,57788,54357,465247,353
1989106,35429,02983,21672,475291,074
Total1,441,6501,668,079735,396444,6554,289,780
Source: The Conservation Fund.
Includes land acquired by exchange.
OCR for page 45
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
45
door recreation.2 As win ORRRC, Me PCAO noted Rat most of Me
nation's population was in the East, whereas most of Me federal lands
were in the West, a regional equity issue requiring attention. Perhaps
more important, the PCAO substantiated ORRRC's earlier estimates of
recreational demand. Indeed, some levels of outdoor use and participa-
tion projected by ORRRC for the year 2000 were surpassed as early as
the 1970s (PCAO, 1986~. Figure 2 - provides an overview of user de-
mand for NPS facilities, a partial indicator of this demand.
Private Landownership in the United States
Alexis de Tocqueville, traveling in He United States early in Me nine-
teen~ century, made note of Me unalloyed devotion to private ownership
in Be new republic:
In rzo country in the world is the love of property more active aru] more
atrocious than in the United States; nowhere does the majority display less incli-
nationfor those principles which threaten: to alter, in whatever manner, the laws
of property (cited in Sakolski, 1957~.
Of tile 2.27 billion acres composing Me United States today, 1.35
billion are owned privately. Although a majority of He American land
base is privately owned, He 1980 census data (the most recent govern-
ment information available3, show Hat the nation's private real estate
was held by only 34 million owners, or approximately 15% of the popu-
lation Lewis, 1980~. The distribution of holdings among the owners is
also skewed: S% of landowners (including corporations) have title to
40% of private lands, and He top 5% own three-four~s of the total. In
contrast, ache bottom 78% of Hose who own land own 3%. Private
landownership is most concentrated in the West and least concentrated
in He norm central states (Gustafson, 1983~.
2PCAO did, however, argue for a dedicated trust fund of approximately $1
billion per year for recreational ends (Madson, 1988), a fund many have inter-
preted as an extension of the LWCF. LWCF is not strictly a trust fund, be-
cause authorizations Mat are not appropriated return to Me federal government
for discretionary use.
OCR for page 46
46 SElTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
400-
300-
200-
100-
O-
346.19 ~
. /~
/
/
1/
65./
52.2~
0.14 0.2
I iII II IIIII ~iI1 ~
9 ~TO9~9 ~9 ~9 ~9~9 ~9~9~9O~9O ~909
.9
29. -
6.33 /
0.34 1.06 ~_~
./
FIGURE 24 Visits to national parks, in millions, 1905-89. Source:
NPS, 1990.
Private landownership has changed over time. As Me land base of me
nation increased, We federal government's share at times grew to 80%
of the total. Witch the help of numerous homestead acts, cash sales, and
grants to railroads, private landownership expanded to well over half of
the nation at some times (CIawson, 1973~. Despite We central place of
private ownership in American life and culture, however, little systemat-
ic federal information has been kept on who owns what land. Wig We
exception of We Agricultural Census of We Department of Agriculture,
which covers only agricultural lands, We federal government publishes
only piecemeal information on private ownership (Geisler, 1983; Gustaf-
son, 1983~.3
3Government time-series data on private forest landownership are presented
in acres rather than numbers of owners (e.ge ~ Waddell et ale ~ 1987)' preventing
trend analyses of ownership e
OCR for page 47
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGE-
47
Available data confirm that a small fraction of private landowners
control most of the land in private hands, and this concentration does not
seem to be abating. The proportion of privately owned lands and the
distribution of ownership among a few are of considerable interest in
light of the consistently high percentages of Americans supporting ex-
panded federal ownership in public opinion surveys (see Appendix C).
Public ownership might be viewed as a way to access land in the ab-
sence of widespread opportunity or material means to own it. On the
other hand, periodic public clamor against federal ownership as a barrier
to private ownership might be more directed protest over private land
concentrations and the ownership access obstacles it presents.
DISINCENTIVES FOR CONSERVATION
Many incentives and disincentives affect the ownership, management,
and use of federal and other public lands. Some of those are the lack of
market pricing for some resources, accrual of costs or benefits to some
who are not direct parties to transactions, uneven effects of government
interventions, and structural problems in particular markets (e.g., long
periods required to renew resources). For example, in the market econ-
omy, near-term results are given priority over long-ter~ results, which
can encourage farming practices Hat lead to soil erosion and rapid cut-
ting of timber. In addition, high inheritance taxes can lead to fragmen-
tation of large land holdings- which also favors short-term over long-
term results. And farmers have long been paid for draining wetlands
and planting croplands from roadside to roadside, although payment for
the former practice was halted with the passage of the 1985 farm bill.
Private owners have little incentive to manage lands for conservation
of biological diversity or other values for which markets do not exist, at
least in the short term. Yet without the cooperation of private landhold-
ers, the size of individual holdings might limit the conservation actions
of landowners, because large areas often are necessary to maintain bio-
logica] diversity and avoid fragmentation of ecosystems.
OCR for page 48
48 SElTING PRIORITIES FOR LAND CONSERVATION
THE ROLE OF LANDOWNERSHIP
IN CONSERVATION
Public landownership has been an important aspect of America's
social and economic history. How much of the nation should remain in
federal ownership is a contentious issue fueled by political philosophies,
changing perceptions of the public interest, and different impressions
about private ownership trends and He "American Dread." But in the
long run, the wisdom of expanded federal ownership in America's future
is contingent on historical circumstances well beyond a scoreboard sum-
mary of public- versus private-sector ownership trends. Factors worm
pondering include population growth and distribution, the nation's
changing occupational structure, new institutional developments that
might lessen the traditional polarity between public and private landown-
er, and growing sophistication about conservation at He ecosystem level.
The potential effect of population change on public ownership is
striking. By 2010, He nation's population is expected to increase by 44
million people ff,CAO, 1986) people who are expected to have an
increasing appetite for outdoor recreation in many forms. As population
grows, the national land base shrinks relatively Her capita), and less
land is available for each new generation. Another relevant demograph-
ic characteristic is age structure. Overall, the American population is
aging, and recreational and aesthetic uses of the public land are changing
as a consequence.
In ways Hat often go unrecognized, die American land base is also
shrinking in an absolute sense. This occurs as public and private lands
undergo changes that eliminate certain uses, e.g., open space used for
recreational or residential sites. Such changes include designation of
lands as Superfund and hazardous waste sites or lands subjected to soil
erosion and aquifer depletion, overgrazing, atmospheric pollution, and
conversion to highways. Land dedicated for highways already is rough-
ly equivalent to lands held by NPS (EUockenbrink, 1991~. And 13
million acres of U.S. rangeland show signs of severe desertification
(C)regne, 1991~. Relative and absolute shrinkage in the nation's land
base warrant serious consideration in planning and land allocation to
public- and private-sector uses.
America has undergone and faces fiercer occupational restructuring,
wig an associated redefinition of land-use needs and ethics. As service
OCR for page 49
OVfENERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
49
sector employment grows at the expense of manufacturing and more
basic extractive livelihoods, land assumes new importance as a consump-
tive, recreational, and aesthetic good, reducing further a direct survival
relationship between Me population and the land. As use requirements
change, so will ownerhsip imperatives and the forms of public and
private ownership.
New forms of public-private ownership dull the distinctions between
public and private. Those new forms include land trusts and intergen-
erational lease-back mechanisms, easements and less-than-fee manage-
ment options, covenants between private owners, development rights that
are purchased or transferred, compensatory zoning, reserved and dedi-
cated rights, and other evolving mechanisms that partition equity in land
to benefit public and private interests. Such quasi-public institutions are
proliferating and offer alternatives to the proponents of traditional public
or private ownership and to planners who must try to balance the inter-
ests of each.
The comTnittee's study concluded that public and private values cannot
be conveniently separated. The vigorous pursuit of public values no
longer takes place only on public lands or out-of-the-way preserves and
set-asides. Just as federal lands host a broad array of private uses and
ownership rights, private lands are shouldering an increasing public
responsibility in the areas of conservation, environmental protection, and
public-interest health and recreation.
OCR for page 50
Representative terms from entire chapter:
federal lands
