EDITORIAL: Transfer more federal land into local hands

At the intersection of the energy industry and environmentalism, of ranching and recreation, of economic development and preservation, is U.S. public land policy. No wonder the issue creates such sharp partisan divisions.

But people on all sides of land use debates can agree on one thing: public land policy is broken. Nowhere is that more obvious than Nevada.

The wild horse population is unsustainably large and growing fast, destroying rangeland and requiring roundups of emaciated equines. The government's inability to actively manage all of its holdings in Nevada — Washington owns more than 80 percent of the state — has contributed to elevated wildfire risks and vandalism at culturally valuable sites. And rural counties can't generate enough property tax revenue to support adequate local services, because so little acreage is privately owned. As a result, the Las Vegas area subsidizes schools and state services across the rest of Nevada.

Because presidential hopefuls are visiting Nevada frequently to build support for the state's February party caucuses, the Review-Journal is presenting a 10-editorial series on policies and government reforms we believe both parties' candidates can get behind. Today's topic, the second in the series: the transfer of limited amounts of federal land to state or local control.

As large and powerful as the federal government is, it's not big enough to properly manage its huge land holdings. Washington owns about 30 percent of the nation's acreage, the vast majority of it in the West. The Interior Department doesn't dedicate the resources necessary to oversee those lands, properly maintain them or even maintain structures at national parks popular with tourists. The deferred maintenance and construction backlog for the National Park Service alone is more than $5 billion.

None of the candidates for president, Republican or Democrat, is campaigning on a promise to fix up, rebuild and make new investments in national parks, national recreation areas, national monuments and other federal lands. They're not doing it for good reason. They know there isn't enough money to deliver on their other promises, whether it's increased military spending or new social or educational programs.

Therefore, the best way to protect our most cherished public lands is to not stretch the Interior Department so thin. If we give it less land to manage, it will have more money to manage what it has left. It's simple prioritization.

No one credible is suggesting that Washington hand over all its land holdings in Nevada to state control. No one credible is suggesting that national parks be privatized. The best suggestions involve the transfer of a few million acres that, as Lt. Gov. Mark Hutchison wrote this month, are "already permitted for commercial use or identified for disposal by the federal government."

If we let people put some land to productive use, we all benefit through a stronger economy, less land for Washington to watch over and more resources for federal lands deserving of protection. Free our land.