Land Exchanges 
An Overlooked Opportunity
Prepared by Clearwater Land Exchange

The western landscape is a mosaic of intermingled public and private lands inherited from 150 years of public land laws, regulations and policies designed to encourage settlement and development. Nowhere are the consequences of this historic land rush more profound than in Idaho. This archaic land ownership pattern presents public and private landowners with both challenges and opportunities.

Nearly 70 percent of Idaho's 53 million acres are public lands. About 95 percent of these public lands are managed by federal agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, while various state agencies oversee the remainder. State management agencies include the Idaho Departments of Lands, Fish & Game and Parks & Recreation.

While some of the roughly 34.7 million acres of federal land in Idaho are in large manageable blocks, much of the leftover is intermingled with state and private lands in a fragmented pattern (see enclosed map). These mixed land ownership patterns cause confusion within the public, frustration among management agencies and discord between government agencies and private landowners. Management for fish and wildlife, recreation, wilderness, timber, grazing, cultural, and other important resources on scattered, inaccessible tracts is often an exercise in inefficiency and failure.

Public land management agencies face a "modern mission" that was not considered when these land ownership patterns were created. Statutory, policy and cultural changes have required federal managers to shift priorities over the past 50 years. The extension of cities into surrounding open spaces as well as past land management practices have created emergencies for some wildlife, certain fish species and rare plants. The Endangered Species Act has resulted in special attention being drawn to private lands not considered important a few years ago. Growing populations are also demanding more outdoor recreational opportunities thereby further stressing already scarce resources. The Ada County foothills management dilemma is just one of many examples in Idaho. 

State land managers face similar challenges. In addition, the amount of money in the Public School Endowment Fund is critical to funding public education in Idaho. Thousands of acres of "endowment" land are returning a meager 1% or less annually to this fund when lands with higher commercial values could help us build a better legacy through public education.

Many lands containing outstanding resource values are currently managed by agencies or private parties ill-suited to sustain or maximize these values. Therefore, public agencies and private entities endorse realigning and consolidating public lands to improve management efficiency. Another common objective is to acquire selected private lands to fulfill the modern missions of the agencies. For example, the USFS may propose to acquire lands inside forest boundaries while the BLM may recommend acquiring fragmented habitat for endangered wildlife species or rare plants, or special places for outdoor recreational opportunities. The State Land Board usually endorses acquiring lands that would result in greater returns to the Public School Endowment Fund and Idaho Department of Fish and Game typically promotes preserving important wildlife habitat or providing public access. These laudable goals are supported by the public but are rarely a priority for individual agencies. Multi-agency collaborative efforts are virtually nonexistent.

The objective of private landowners to consolidate holdings in an effort to increase efficiency is also worthy of support. It is common for private land to surround public land making them inaccessible to the public and creating management problems for landowners. Many of these "land locked" public parcels have minimal natural resource values but would contribute to farming and ranching efficiency. Even some scattered public lands that are readily accessible have unremarkable natural features.

So, what should be done? The ownership or fundamental values of lands can be acquired in only three ways: through purchase, donation or exchange. Outright land purchase cannot accomplish the land tenure adjustment agenda set forth by agencies and supported by the public. Neither the U.S. Congress nor the Idaho State Legislature can realistically provide necessary funds for large-scale land purchases. Most Idaho counties feel a need to protect tax revenues and therefore continue to oppose adding new public acres through direct acquisition without a corresponding increase in private lands that can be added to the tax base. Private landowners are generally concerned about the manner in which federal management efforts will affect the use and value of private property, and therefore routinely oppose efforts to create meaningful land acquisition budgets. Donation of land plays a relatively limited role, which is not likely to increase unless Congress provides greater tax incentives to landowners. While we struggle to find a solution the fair market value of crucial private land is increasing at a rate higher than normal inflation, effectively pushing these lands out of reach for conservation purposes. 

By using local authority and direction, land exchanges offer the best hope to accomplish widely supported land acquisition and consolidation. Due to their flexibility, land exchanges can take many forms to accomplish a range of objectives. For instance, lands can be exchanged between a single private landowner and one governmental agency, between many landowners and one agency, between many landowners and several participating agencies or simply between agencies. Private parties to the exchange can accept cash, other land or real property as individual needs dictate, all based on fair market value. Each party to any land exchange proposal will endure the process only if tangible, relevant benefits can be anticipated. These perceived benefits are based on the particular needs of each participant whether public or private. It is precisely these diverse priorities and preferences among participants that allow dissimilar entities to cooperate and reach agreement. Because of the rigorous nature of the process, including required studies and public involvement, public and political support along the way is essential. When a satisfactory outcome is anticipated by each of the exchange participants, plus the interested groups watching from the sidelines, broad support from the public and elected officials can be expected.

There are critics of land exchanges. Some are skeptical that openness and fairness can prevail or are concerned that conservation laws will not be followed. Agency leaders often avoid land exchanges because they are time consuming, challenging and a drain on already-stretched budgets. Agency and elected officials sometimes harbor the fear that diverse or respected constituent groups will oppose any land exchange. We believe strong leadership and robust communication can help overcome these barriers. Well-conceived land exchanges involving numerous private participants and several governmental agencies working side by side in association with public interest groups present an attractive approach to achieving diverse land management objectives for the least cost in a timely manner.

Because land exchanges offer a practical way to acquire critical private holdings in quantity within acceptable time frames, we recommend their role be expanded. We believe it is reasonable for the public to give up those lands which, after a thorough review, are found to be lacking when measured against appropriate conservation, recreation and administration standards. Conversely, key privately owned properties often become available for purchase only within a land exchange setting, thereby allowing public agencies to further their modern mission on suitable lands that cannot be acquired by other means. In this age of seemingly endless litigation over divisive public land issues, land exchanges offer a hope of collaborative solutions. 

Idaho's future will be enhanced by our ability to wisely adjust our current inefficient land ownership patterns. Agencies will only achieve their modern mission through a modern solution. Opportunities abound.