MANAGING PUBLIC LANDS: Rekindling the Privatization Fires.

• Author: ANDERSON, TERRY L.

Would private ownership of land use rights--either by commercial companies or nonprofit environmental groups--do a better job than the Federal government currently does?

AMERICANS have entrusted the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with some of the most treasured and highest-valued land in the U.S. Approximately 628,000,000 acres, or more than one-third of the nation's land area, is owned by the Federal government. Since 1960, over 30,000,000 acres, an area the size of Florida, have been added to the Federal estate.

Public land management, however, does not always deliver what the citizens expect, either for the treasury or the environment. In Fiscal Year 1996, the three main land management agencies lost more than $2,000,000,000. Interestingly, losses from recreational activities on the Federal estate often exceed those from commodity production, especially if the National Park Service is included. Moreover, these losses came from lands valued at $150,000,000,000 in 1995.

Perhaps the pain of such large losses would be lessened if public lands were in a state of ecological health, but perverse economic incentives also lead to perverse ecological incentives. A General Accounting Office inquiry into U.S. Forest Service and BLM planning found the agencies are not meeting objectives for sustaining wildlife. It also revealed that 60% of the BLM's grazing allotments were in less than satisfactory condition due to overgrazing and that the agency was doing nothing to correct the situation. Nearly 40,000,000 acres of forest land are at risk of catastrophic wildfire.

In his book, The National Parks Compromised, former director of the National Park Services James Ridenour maintains that "The government has just not taken care of these beautiful treasures." Writing in National Geographic, John G. Mitchell said, "Parks were created `for the enjoyment of future generations.' For many, that ... promise is eroding."

Given the economic and environmental costs of operating the Federal estate, the time has come to consider seriously proposals for improving management, including privatization. Private ownership offers an alternative to business as usual in Washington by getting the incentives right for both the treasury and the environment. Privately owned forests and grazing lands cannot and do not operate year to year in the red. Privately owned (and even state-owned) parks raise revenues sufficient to maintain them and produce a profit. There is growing evidence that "enviro-capitalists" can produce environmental amenities, especially if they do not have to compete with below-cost public substitutes.

If divestiture is ever to move forward, a first step would be to develop criteria for evaluating alternative plans. Of the many criteria that might be used, let us examine four:

Allocation to the highest-valued use. Each tract of land or combination of rights to the tract should be allocated to those uses that command the highest value. Thus, land whose value is greatest in timber production alone should not be used for grazing. Similarly, remote wilderness areas for which logging or mining are too costly should be...