As Presidential candidates make their way to Nevada, the
economy will undoubtedly be among their talking points, and in the West,
the future of the economy has much to do with land.
The
issue of land ownership is perhaps nowhere more important than in
Nevada, which is overwhelmingly hogtied by the federal government.
Holding title to over 81 percent of Nevada land, the federal government
controls a greater percentage of Nevada than of any other state in the
union.
And that’s a problem — both for Nevada’s economy and taxpayers in other states.
So
long as the federal government occupies Nevada lands, individuals and
private enterprise are unable to generate prosperity throughout most of
the state. Restricted to less than 20 percent of its own land, the
state’s ability to diversify its economy is constricted, and its
capacity to likewise maintain employment during economic downturns is
crippled. During the most recent recession, America’s energy sector grew
by 40 percent, strongly suggesting that the Silver State would have
seen less economic devastation had it controlled its own land and
resources.
By gaining title to even a portion of the over
56 million acres the federal government currently occupies within its
borders, Nevada could easily generate over $1 billion in revenue through
sales of leases of the land. During the 2013-2015 legislative interim,
Nevada’s Land Management Task Force produced a conservative analysis
that determined local jurisdictions could easily reap an additional
$205.8 million annually by managing just 7.2 million acres land
currently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. With control of
45 million acres, state and local governments could see revenues of $1.3
billion per year.
Those who want to see Western state
lands held in perpetuity by the federal government claim states would be
unable to bear the financial burden of managing the land, particularly
when it comes to fighting wildfires. However, those large wildfires have
increased on the federal government’s watch and are widely recognized,
including by the Congressional Research Service, to frequently stem from
federal mismanagement. Conversely, many states — with an inherently
greater incentive to protect those lands — have identified many ways to
reduce both the number of fires and the costs of fighting them.
States’
abilities to more nimbly manage the land within their borders means
such a transfer would be fiscally responsible for both states and the
federal government. According to the Property and Environment Research
Center, for every dollar the federal government spends managing land, it
loses 27 cents. Conversely, states create an average of $14.51 for each
dollar they spend on such efforts.
Transferring the land
would also give states like Nevada access to natural resources, opening
up opportunities to procure critical elements at home rather than
abroad while also spurring economic development. The U.S. Geological
Survey estimates Nevada could be home to some of the most energy-rich
lands in the world. Yet much of that land is untouchable, under the
thumb of a recalcitrant federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment