For Sale: One Super-Volcano; Going Once….

As I perused the digests sent very conveniently to my email this morning, I came across yet another article from a strict constitutionalist with a list of tasks that should be accomplished to bring government spending in line. As usual with these sorts of articles, the idea of “selling all non-defense related government lands” was one of the suggestions.

Now, being a fiscal conservative when it comes to government and really not a nanny-stater, there are probably some federally owned lands we should think twice about selling. Say, the Yellowstone Caldera which is rising at a rate of three inches per year. Yeah, the geothermal formations are massively cool and in this American’s opinion, we should all see them to wonder at the power of God and Mother Nature, but the whole place is a super-volcano rising at geologically quick pace and is due to blow yet another hole in the North American plate whenever it darn well pleases. Can we think over selling this? When it shows signs of erupting, will people owning private property heed an evacuation order? And then, there’s the land that contains Mt. Kilauea, Mt. St. Helens (anyone else remember 1980?), Mt. Hood and of course Mt. Rainier which is dormant, but still a volcano. Who has the cash to pay for volcano insurance? (Well, technically, we’re not supposed to worry about that.)

How about the Everglades? Do the gators come with it? Will they still be “protected,” as if a dinosaur with lots of teeth can’t put up a fight. Other than the Seminoles, most people would want such a place cleared of gators before settling there. And then there’s the snakes, including the invasive Burmese Python (I watch way too much nature channel stuff) that’s screwing with the eco-system. Not just the Everglades, but there are other swamps in federal hands which are SWAMPS. It doesn’t matter where the darn place is, it’s still a low point and is going to flood and have water damage issues. Other than tourism, what is the commercial value? The same is true for flood plains and the Grand Canyon if the Hoover Dam was ever breached.

Just hypothetically speaking, because, well, even conservatives are uncomfortable with the thought of historically significant sites being in private hands, how about the more than thirty Civil War battlefields that were left just as they are 150 years ago. What about Yorktown, Virginia, Lexington and Concord? Fort McHenry in Baltimore? The U.S.S. Constitution which is still a commissioned Navy ship? Does all that go to private hands? Mount Vernon, the Gateway Arch AND the Old Courthouse where the Dred Scott case was tried, Mount Rushmore and other historical sites and monuments at least maintained by the National Parks Service which does charge admission for a lot of it (so it somewhat brings in revenue and partially pays for itself).

In a plan where “all non-defense related federal land” is sold that all goes. So does the lots where federal courthouses stand, many of which are on prime pieces of real estate in downtown areas; the Smithsonian, Air & Space and all; with no manned space fight, Cape Canaveral; federal prisons if it can be justified (any takers for the Super-Max in Florence, Colorado?); and on and on.

The blanket statement “sell all non-defense related federal land” is very baby-thrown-out-with-the-bathwater-esque. If these individuals mean “sell-off all the properties with mineral, oil and gas deposits” or no real useful purpose then say so. Private hands could well make better use of it than is happening now, since the government isn’t generating any rents – and there’s massive value in the property itself. That’s the difference. And when it comes down to it, all this land can be sold only once. Is it more valuable to sell, or to rent and generate annual revenue? That’s another question that needs to be answered.

Cutting the size of the federal government is a necessity, yes, especially in the areas that curtail personal freedom and liberties. That is very true. The federal budget for entitlements is far larger (by A LOT) than the upkeep of federal lands. Yes, it is true, that the Constitution does not have a provision for the National Parks or the upkeep and maintenance of battlefields and monuments, but at the time of it’s formation only the Revolutionary War sites would have been an issue. At that point, the country was thirteen of our smallest states and none west of the Appalachians. We did not own dangerous volcanoes or have a massive court system. Oil and natural gas drilling was not any part of the national energy discussion. We didn’t have a multi-tiered prison system or any thoughts of a Los Alamos, for that matter (oh, yeah, that’s defense. It’s off limits).

No the constitution does not provide at this time for any of that, but what it does have is a provision for changing the document itself. Not to go overboard, but maybe thought should be put toward some happy medium between a government land fire sale and private citizens buying lots of property on volcano faces or in flood plains. In this case, a compromise would not be such a bad thing, and neither would consideration of an amendment that would outline conditions for government land-owning. I know this is not exactly a conservative stance, but this one deserves some attention and not just a blanket yes or no.

P.S. Wouldn’t you love to see a business plan for the Badlands?