Congressional report shows the high costs of transferring public land to Idaho

Idaho Federal Lands

Three federal agencies spent $392 million to manage 32 million acres of public land in Idaho in the 2012 budget year, a Congressional Research Service report shows. The report shows that Idaho would have to make up for much of those costs if it succeeded in getting control over the land, as a resolution passed by the Idaho Legislature demands. The Idaho Department of Lands has estimated that the state could raise $50 million to $75 million annually in timber receipts from federal land. But one cost not figured into the estimate could swallow that revenue by itself — $58 million in payments to counties under two programs, one that makes up for former timber revenues and another compensating for the fact that counties can't tax federal land. The CRS report also suggests the state would have to significantly raise grazing fees to make up for the substantial subsidy federal managers provide. The congressional report examines three federal agencies: the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service. A large portion of the management costs for the first two — $96 million — came from fighting wildfires...more

Haven't seen the report, but there appears to be holes in it. For instance, what is the cost/acre to manage state lands versus similar costs to the feds, and how much would Idaho save versus federal spending.  The state could also expand grazing, timber, mining and recreation to increase revenues, etc.(for forests, see State Forests Management Superior to Federal Forests for Job Creation, Revenue Production, Local Economies and Fire Prevention).

Most importantly, much of the federal spending is used to inflict harm on the citizens and communities of Idaho.

I'm curious why Simpson requested this report.  Was it requested by either the proponents or opponents of the legislation, or the Interim Committee?  Did Simpson or his staff come up with the idea?  Anybody could have added up the budgets of the agencies, so why the CRS report?  Note the article says the CRS report "suggests the state would have to significantly raise grazing fees", so it appears to be more than just a budget summary.

Needless to say, Simpson's position as Chair of the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations would be less powerful and of less value to Idaho if certain federal lands were transferred to the states.

Simpson hasn't taken a position on the state resolution, which to me suggests he opposes it (don't alienate the folks back home while maintaining credibility with the DC establishment).  If he truly supported the concept, he would introduce legislation in Congress to accomplish the transfer.  Simpson's Idaho colleague, Rep. Raul Labrador, has introduced H.R. 1294, the Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act, which would transfer 200,000 acres of Forest Service land to the state for a demonstration project.  Simpson is not a cosponsor.  It is highly unusual for a Republican to introduce a federal lands bill without the support of his fellow Republican from his home state.  If Simpson doesn't support the transfer of 1% of Idaho's 20 million acres of federal land, it seems rather unlikely he would support total transfer.