Forum Discussion
n7bsn
May 29, 2015Explorer
Actually some (quite some now) years ago the Fed offered to transfer a bunch of (mostly) BLM land to the states.
The states largely turned them down. The cost to administer the land exceeded the income they might generate from that land.
The costs to administer has always been the sticking point to land transfers. States have not wanted the costs associated with having the land (road maintenance, etc) for the marginal income it produces (timber sales, grazing fees, etc)
There has also been a certainly amount of "trading" where the Fed traded land with various entities, that is both government and private, to allow both to have consolidated holdings, vrs the broken-up blocks that resulted from rail-road right-of-ways (back in the 1800's a rail-road got land on either side of a new track they laid)
The states largely turned them down. The cost to administer the land exceeded the income they might generate from that land.
The costs to administer has always been the sticking point to land transfers. States have not wanted the costs associated with having the land (road maintenance, etc) for the marginal income it produces (timber sales, grazing fees, etc)
There has also been a certainly amount of "trading" where the Fed traded land with various entities, that is both government and private, to allow both to have consolidated holdings, vrs the broken-up blocks that resulted from rail-road right-of-ways (back in the 1800's a rail-road got land on either side of a new track they laid)
About Campground 101
Recommendations, reviews, and the inside scoop from fellow travelers.14,716 PostsLatest Activity: Jan 14, 2025