FEDERAL FUNDS ARE TARGETING AMERICAN LANDOWNERS
“They said it was Voluntary then the land was gone.”
Author: Burt Rutherford – Working Ranch Magazine
There’s another fight brewing near Columbus, the small southern New Mexico village that was the site of the first military incursion into the United States. In March 1916, Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa led an army of about 1,500 guerillas across the border to stage a raid against the small American town of Columbus, New Mexico. Villa and his men killed 19 people and left the town in flames, according to History.com.
In contrast, the present-day fight over establishing the Mimbres Peaks National Monument is a war of words and agendas. It’s centered just up the road in Deming, New Mexico, and even farther east in Las Cruces.
On one side are the ranchers and others who oppose establishing yet another national monument along the U.S.-Mexico border. On the other side is a coalition of environmental groups that favor protecting the natural and cultural resources encompassed within the proposed borders.
And the proposed area is significant — somewhere around 245,000 acres, roughly 383 square miles.
BACKGROUND
The land within the proposed monument boundaries is a patchwork of federal land under the purview of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), state-owned property, and ranches that operate both on deeded land and grazing allotments leased from the state and BLM. There are four mountain ranges within the proposed boundary.
New Mexico is home to a handful of National Parks and National Monuments. The two closest to the proposed Mimbres Peaks National Monument are the Organ Mountains- Desert Peak National Monument near Las Cruces and the Gila Cliff Dwellings near Silver City. The effort to put the wheels in motion to declare a new national monument began with a news conference in December 2023.
WHAT THE PROPONENTS SAY
The coalition behind the effort to create the Mimbres Peaks National Monument is called Protect Mimbres Peaks. Organizations involved in the coalition, according to its website, are the Sierra Club, NM Café, Friends of the Floridas, The Semilla Project, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Outdoor New Mexico, Friends of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, Las Cruces Green Chamber of Commerce, and New Mexico Wild. Listed as supporters are the Conservation Lands Foundation, The Wilderness Society, and the Native Lands Institute.
“For the coalition as a whole, there are various cultural resources, a lot of biodiversity, as well as there’s a lot of historic war items that we would like to see preserved for future generations, as well as many benefits that come with those protections, such as having more field staff with the BLM, such as having a local ranger, outdoor recreation planner, biologist and manager,” said Antoinette Reyes, Southern New Mexico and El Paso organizer for the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club.
There are different types of monuments, managed by various federal agencies. “This one, because it’s already BLM land, stays as BLM, where BLM prioritizes diverse and multiple uses. So, having some of these staff people is important, and also the type of land designation puts the land in a higher place when it comes to federal funding,” Reyes said.
Then there’s the land itself. “As a state, we have the second most native mammal species, we have the fourth most plant diversity in the country, as well as having along the border area, a lot of migratory paths, especially for birds and some small to medium and a few large mammals as well,” she said, speaking on behalf of the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club rather than the Protect Mimbres Peaks coalition. “And so, since there are already two other monuments not too far away, this would essentially be one of the first monument corridors in the country, which would bring even more tourism.”
Increased tourism is among the benefits touted as a reason to designate the new monument. Citing the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks, which has been a national monument for around 10 years, Reyes said there has been a 300% increase in visitation, using counters at the visitor center and cell phone data to record visits. According to an economic study conducted by BBC Research and Consulting and released by the Las Cruces Green Chamber of Commerce, “New non-local visitors to the national monument would directly spend about $10.2 million per year under the medium visitation scenario ($7.3 and $13.1 million, respectively, under the low and high visitation scenarios) per year on goods and services, creating 88 new jobs under the medium visitation scenario (64 to 113 new jobs, respectively, under the low and high visitation scenarios) in tourism and recreation- facing sectors like accommodations, food service, and retail sales.”
When it comes to ranching, Reyes points to the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks. “So, as an example, for the Organ Mountains in terms of ranching, it stayed the same for how many acres and land they have for it. I know that the number of permittees that have applied has increased since it became a monument. But even with or without the increase, the number of available land has stayed the same in all of their alternatives,” she said.
The alternatives come from BLM’s recently released management plan for the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks. “The only other area that’s multi-use that’s negatively impacted is mining.” That applies to new mining claims. Existing claims would be grandfathered in, she said. “But aside from that, all other uses stay the same.”
On private land that would fall within the proposed boundary, she said ranchers could make improvements on their own property and roads. “But sometimes there is more red tape to expand a road, or to make more lanes, and stuff like that.”
Reyes said she understands ranchers’ concerns and there have been a lot of good questions. “I know that since it’s so early in the process, they haven’t been able to get all the answers they would like, but there’s been a continuing dialog. I would just stress… the boundaries aren’t completely fixed. It’s still so early in the process that people have even considered changing the boundaries to preserve mining since rockhounding is such an important thing in the community.”
According to Reyes, the timeline for establishing the Mimbres Peaks National Monument isn’t clear. “Most national monuments that have been proposed have, on average, taken five-plus years.”
WHAT THE OPPONENTS SAY
“From the get-go of it, we caught wind just through the rumor mill that this proposed monument was being talked about and there was going to be some kind of press (conference) deal,” said Russell Johnson, a fourth-generation rancher in the area. “None of the ranchers that would be impacted by this monument were invited to it. We reached out to our state senator and state representative. None of them knew about it.”
Johnson serves on the state board for the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau and is president of the Luna County Farm Bureau. Luna County is where the proposed national monument will be located. “None of them knew about it.”
Since then, there have been a few meetings to discuss the proposed monument. “There were several county commission meetings that discussed this and several City Hall meetings that discussed it. The city and the county, the City of Deming and Luna County, all passed resolutions opposing this. And then, the only other municipality within Luna County is the Village of Columbus. They also passed a resolution to oppose this.”
Beyond that, he said several counties scattered across the state have joined Luna County in opposing the Mimbres Peaks National Monument. They are Hildago County, Lee County, Otero County, Union County, Sierra County, and Chaves County.
“We started a grassroots movement through the Luna County Farm and Livestock Bureau called No Mimbres Monument. And we’ve got a Facebook page and a website. And the proponents, they’ve got a Facebook page and a website and that’s pretty much the only way that they’ve engaged the public on the matter, is just through social media.”
The concern by ranchers is the proponents have not engaged the community and the stakeholders who will be impacted, he said. For some ranches, the entire operation is within the proposed boundary. “And then, in our case, about half of our ranch is within the monument.”
Johnson said that proponents point to the Organ Mountains-Desert Peak National Monument as an example of how grazing hasn’t been impacted. “My argument there is, even though it’s been designated for over 10 years… they still haven’t developed a resource management plan for that monument.”
The resource management plan dictates how resources will be managed within the monument. “That’s where you’re going to start seeing the effects on landowners, and particularly stakeholders like ranchers. Because (that’s where) you really get into the guts of the rules and regulations of a monument,” he said.
That’s another point of concern. “We went to one of the meetings (about developing the resource management plan for the Organ Mountains-Desert Peak National Monument) and they told us usually these resource management plans take years to develop, which we’re already in year 10, but it seems like up until recently, they finally got serious about developing a resource management plan, but they’re trying to fast-track it and get something in place by the end of the year. And even the BLM was telling us that’s kind of not the norm.”
Then, of course, there’s the concern about being able to continue grazing cattle on federal land within the proposed monument. Johnson points to the Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona where he said that the grazing leases on the southern portion of the monument didn’t renew. “And then, to date on the northern portion where there’s still grazing, (environmental groups) have brought two or three lawsuits against the BLM basically to try to get the BLM to eliminate grazing on the remainder of the monument. So that’s a concern to us. Will our leases be renewed? Will grazing be eliminated right off the bat?”
He gives a nod to statements by the proponents that grazing will remain the same. “But our issue is, you can eliminate grazing from the landscape without saying that you’re going to eliminate grazing. And by that, I mean if you start changing the way we can manage this land in the sense of maintaining improvements with equipment versus doing it by hand or not being able to install new improvements. If a well goes dry, are we going to be able to get equipment in there to drill a new well, things of that nature?”
In Johnson’s mind, establishing the Mimbres Peaks National Monument doesn’t make sense. “The BLM’s already managing it anyway. And I look at it as we’ve got a pretty good working relationship with the federal government through BLM and we’re doing a pretty good job of managing these lands as it is. And there’s really no advantage to designating it a national monument.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Protect Mimbres Peaks: www.protectmimbrespeaks.org
No Mimbres Monument: www.nomimbresmonument.org
Organ Mountains-Desert Peak resource management plan: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/92170/200212669/20107574/251007574/OrganMountains-DesertPeaks%20Natl%20Monument_DEIS%20RMP_20240404_508.pdf
Economic Analysis: https://protectmimbrespeaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/MPNM-Economic-Impact-Report-Nov-29-2023-FINAL-V2.pdf
NGO scams and grants
Jan 10
In 1992 it was a known fact about this scam. Today it has multiplied to an astronomical number. At first it did not seem to be much. Now it is huge.
Millions of acres are being purchased from private enterprise by the feds, states, counties and the sly Non-Governmental Organizations, (NGO). Data shows cattle numbers are the least since 1958, but keep in mind land has been acquired from ranchers and private owners taking it out of cattle production. Up to 45% of the US land mass is owned by non tax paying manipulators who are sucking the land asset away from agriculture. The land for cattle production is fast reducing and these land buyers are a huge enemy to agriculture.
NGOs which have a charter of protecting the lands for bike trails, spotted owls, etc., mostly get funded from *government grants. The mass deception is–“non-government” appears on the surface to be non government, but in fact with every government grant there are regulations with the grant to do certain picayune uses, mostly never evaluated by funders for validity. As a result most grants are poorly managed scams–in this case against agriculture. In fact “non-government” is another word for government. NGOs do not pay property tax.
Attached are 3 articles with data. One from Beef Today, 1992, and two I researched over a year ago. The data is easy to understand. Although it is not Somali Pirates robbing agriculture, yet the fellow you sit
beside at a PTA meeting may be living fraudulently on grants–your neighbor.
*Grants are a parallel to communism. Grants are taken from the successful and given to people who could not get any normal funding for love nor money.
Dr. Duray’s column paints Colorado’s wolf reintroduction as a poorly managed, ethically flawed program causing avoidable livestock losses and financial strain on taxpayers. He strongly advocates for Initiative 13, which would legally end the importation of wolves and impose stricter oversight—argued as necessary to correct CPW’s failures and restore public confidence.
Here’s a breakdown of the guest opinion “Stop the bleeding from Colorado’s wolf disaster” (Western Livestock Journal, Jun 26, 2025):
🐺 Key Points from the Author, Dr. Chuck Duray
- Argues that Colorado’s wolf reintroduction has become a “man‑made disaster,” with only 8 survivors out of the initial 25 wolves (32% survival) en.wikipedia.org+2wlj.net+2wlj.net+2.
- Says Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) is treating wolf reintroduction as an “ongoing experiment” rather than responsible wildlife management, ignoring ethical and legal concerns wlj.net.
- Highlights significant livestock losses attributed to wolves, including direct kills and stress-induced issues like pregnancy losses wlj.net+1en.wikipedia.org+1.
Criticism of CPW & Support for Initiative 13
- CPW allegedly violated its own protocols by relocating chronically depredating wolves, leading to “Memorial Day massacres” at three Pitkin County ranches wlj.net+3wlj.net+3en.wikipedia.org+3.
- The author argues that CPW ignored warnings against translocation and lost public trust .
- Initiative 13 seeks to halt further wolf importations and reintroductions, legally preventing CPW and the Department of Natural Resources from continuing what the author views as reckless management wlj.net.
Broader Implications & Stakeholder Critique
- The author criticizes ranchers’ associations for being “short‑sighted,” lacking effective engagement with Gen Z/millennials urban voters who supported 2020’s Proposition 114 wlj.net.
- Compares CPW’s ongoing compensation to Colorado taxpayers to the inefficiencies of “Cash for Clunkers,” noting compensation claims are 153% over budget wlj.net.
- Concludes that supporting Initiative 13 is the only way to stop what he calls an ideological, government‑driven wolf experiment, restore trust, and protect both livestock interests and taxpayers
No, Mike Lee isn’t paving over Yellowstone for condos
June 20, 2025
The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.
The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.
Here’s what’s really happening.
Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.
The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.
Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.
Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, Ohio or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control compared to federally owned. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.
To sign the petition to eliminate property taxes in Ohio, you must do it in person. Use the link below to find a location near you where you can sign. https://drive.google.com/drive/folder…
Go to Axohtax.com for more information or contact Brian Massie with Lobbyists for Citizens @ stoppropertytaxes@gmail.com
Ohio homeowners are DONE renting their homes from the government.
With property taxes ballooning—$22 billion paid last year alone—and home values up 67% since 2020, the financial pressure is breaking people. Seniors are being forced out of lifelong homes. Working families are crushed under taxes tied to phantom home equity.
Now, a constitutional amendment to eliminate all property taxes in Ohio may be headed to the November ballot.
In this video, I sit down with Brian Massie from Lobbyists for Citizens to break down: What’s actually in the amendment Why your tax bill keeps going up
This is a grassroots movement, not a political one. If you’re tired of paying forever for a house you supposedly own, you need to watch this.
When Biden bought 24 million acres of open land from private owners
few cared. Now when Trump wants to sell 3 million acres, the way
this article is written you would think they were auctioning to the
quickest bidder Niagara Falls, Old Faithful and Pikes Peak. The twist
of militant environmentalists is extremely sad and humorously comical.
The ever expanding national debt could be blasted down with funds
from federal, state, county wasted “public lands.”
Republicans who check it out know this is the right thing to do–sell
90% of “public lands.” Pay the national debt. And, to embellish the
twist, “mass sell-off” equals only 0.46% of federal land holdings. D
https://dailycaller.com/2025/06/18/benji-backer-mass-sell-off-public-lands-bad-america/
While the House bill makes significant cuts to the green new deal agenda, including eliminating pro carbon sequestration pipeline language, the final bill failed to cut one of the key 30×30 programs authorized in the Inflation Reduction Act. $10,050,000,000 remain authorized for conservation welfare programs that commit private lands to mitigating the climate crisis.
American Stewards exposed the slick way in which environmentalists managed to authorize trillions of dollars for existing conservation programs through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) by adding funds to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). These existing programs are funded through the Farm Bill. But the IRA added trillions of dollars to these, and also changed the purpose for these funds now obligating private landowners who enrolled to mitigate climate change and reduce livestock emissions.
Most landowners had no idea the legal purpose for the funds had been changed, and the Biden USDA failed to inform landowners of this switch. This was deliberate so they could create a federal nexus to private lands obligating the use of these lands to mitigating the made up climate crisis.
But free money is hard to pass up, so instead of protecting property rights, lobbyists for big Ag have been working hard to preserve these “climate smart” funds, which they say is necessary for farmers to put food on American’s tables.
They succeeded in preserving those remaining funds for EQIP, CSP and ACEP for a total of $10,050,000,000 through 2026.
The House did reduce the funds obligated to the RCPP program, which directly funds environmental organizations implementing the green new deal. These funds have been reduced from $3,050,000,000 for 2026 to $425,000,000 for 2026, but then also authorizes $450,000,000 annually through 2031.
These are conservation welfare subsidies. They are not necessary for agriculture production. They drive up land and food prices and drive out the small landowners who want to stay in business without relying on federal welfare. They also tie every landowner who enrolls in this pot of funds to mitigate the climate crisis. It creates a dangerous federal nexus to their land, likely to be called in during the next democratic administration.
By: Leo Wolfson – January 20, 2025
One of the most popular political topics in Wyoming is private property rights and how far, or not, they should extend.
On Monday, that topic took center stage in the Wyoming House over a discussion on a bill that would require the sale of all private property to the federal government in Wyoming be matched with a corresponding decrease in federal land.
House Bill 118 would mark a significant change for those wanting to sell their land for recreation or other purposes to the federal government, and likely limit most of these transactions moving forward.
The crux of Monday’s debate came down to whether it’s most important to prioritize blocking growth of federal government land or retaining private property owners’ rights to sell their land to the government as they desire. Blocking the growth of federal land won out, which is the main purpose of HB 118.
The bill sponsor, Rep. Dalton Banks, R-Cowley, said just because federal land transfers have been accepted throughout Wyoming’s statehood doesn’t make it right. He also said his bill protects property owners from federal overreach and sweeping government mandates.
“We’re not limiting who you can sell to, we are limiting the federal government under our Constitutional responsibility by our act of admission that we’re limiting their right to purchase,” Banks said.
The House rejected by a 34-25 vote Monday an amendment brought by Rep. Karlee Provenza, D-Laramie, that would have removed the private property owners’ aspect of the bill while retaining the ban on selling state land without a corresponding trade-off with federal land.
“This limits just compensation,” Provenza said. “This means that, potentially, the greatest buyer who wants to spend their money here can’t buy that property from that private property owner.”
The bill advanced on second reading and will be considered one more time before it’s sent to the Senate.
Stopping Federal Growth vs. Private Property
There have been a few private and state land sales in Wyoming over the last few years that have drawn criticism from some for adding to the acreage that the federal government owns.
The most recent example is the Kelly Parcel that was finalized at the end of last year, which conveyed 640 acres of pristine state land in Teton County to the National Park Service for $100 million for the land to be incorporated into Grand Teton National Park.
Another prime example was the 2023 sale of the 35,670-acre Marton Ranch in Natrona County, private property that was sold for $21 million to the BLM.
“Those people that sold that — it’s their land, it’s their right,” Rep. Steve Harshman, R-Casper, said of the Marton sale. “To infringe on private property rights, it gives me pause.”
Jess Johnson, government affairs director for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, told Cowboy State Daily the Marton sale was critical in providing continuous public hunting and fishing access. She said other land transfers can be beneficial for agricultural interests by preventing land from being sold to make residential subdivisions.
She also pointed out that her organization supported the Marton Ranch sale being opened up to a public comment period even though they already supported the sale. This happened after the state of Wyoming filed an appeal of the sale, which required the agency to seek public comment and complete an additional environmental review.
“Because the process matters,” Johnson explained. “That is there as a stopgap. It’s not willy-nilly sales. There are approval steps the government has to go through.”
Babysitting Or State Sovereignty?
Rep. Tony Locke, R-Casper, said he sees the issue as a matter of protecting Wyoming’s sovereignty as a state. Rep. Tom Kelly, R-Sheridan, agreed, saying that nothing precludes the federal government from pressuring private landowners to sell their land.
Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, disagreed and compared the bill to “babysitting” on part of the state government, while Rep. Cody Wylie, R-Rock Springs, described it as “a cloth we don’t need to be cutting.”
Others who spoke in support of Provenza’s amendment expressed a desire for private property owners to have the final say in what happens to their land rather than the federal government.
“I believe every individual has the right to develop his potential, to use and enjoy his own property, tangible or intellectual, and pursue his own interests, free from restrictions or arbitrary force,” said Rep. J.T. Larson, R-Rock Springs.
Rhetoric against the federal government was sharp Monday from those who support Banks’ bill, with some going as far as comparing the government to an adversarial foreign nation.
“We could have a real debate about adversarial, and I think the federal government could definitely be linked in there,” said Rep. Reuben Tarver, R-Gillette.
Rep. Rob Geringer, R-Cheyenne, brought up the example of a piece of contaminated land owned by the city of Cheyenne west of the city that neighboring private landowners have been unable to get help in cleaning up from various public entities.
“I could see selling it to the federal government to help with,” Geringer said.
Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, pointed out that for any purchase made by the federal government, the money comes from taxpayers.
“Actually taking opportunity away from private citizens who paid into the government’s coffers,” he said. “If you want to protect private citizen’s ability to make these types of transactions, we should limit the ability of the federal government to come in and to make these purchases.”
Constitutional Arguments
Both the Wyoming and U.S. constitutions state that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation. The U.S. Supreme Court has also said that property rights are necessary to preserve freedom by allowing property owners to plan their destiny on an individual basis.
“You have said here this morning, members, some of you have argued that the government knows better on who you should sell your land to,” Provenza said. “That’s a dangerous slippery slope isn’t it? The government knows better. I argue the government doesn’t know better here.”
But under the Wyoming Acts of Admission when it gained statehood, Wyoming was “admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever; and that the Constitution which the people of Wyoming have formed for themselves be, and the same is hereby, accepted, ratified and confirmed.”
“This is the ability of the state of Wyoming to have jurisdiction over all the lands within our borders,” Banks said.
The U.S. Constitution also limits what types of property the federal government can purchase, which Rep. Ken Pedergraft, R-Sheridan, believes it has far exceeded.
“At some point we the people need to stand up,” he said. “Yes, you are a private citizen, you can sell to whomever you want, but the federal government doesn’t have the right to buy any more land.”
Leo Wolfson can be reached at leo@cowboystatedaily.com.
Selling off some of the government’s holdings would ease fiscal stress and help the economy.
By: Thomas Sowell, Wall Street Journal
The incoming Trump administration will confront some huge financial challenges. It will have to cope with the vast increase in the national debt created by the Biden administration’s reckless spending. It will also need to maintain the solvency of the Social Security system after decades of financial irresponsibility by politicians of both parties.
On top of all this, there is an urgent need to build up American military defenses, which have been neglected while taxpayers’ money has been lavishly spent on such things as subsidizing electric cars and paying hotel expenses for illegal immigrants.
There is no question that doing all the things that urgently need doing will require huge amounts of additional government spending. The key question is: Where will the government get this money?
There is much to be said for the new administration’s plan to have a nongovernmental organization investigate how well, or how badly, government agencies are currently handling the taxpayers’ money. But there is a limit to how much money can be recovered by simply cutting back on “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal spending.
There are, however, additional billions of dollars that could be tapped, from a source that not many people think about. That is the vast—almost unbelievable—amount of land owned by the federal government. Some of that land—such as military bases—is used to house the government’s own operations. But the great majority of that land is not.
The rest of this government-owned land is so vast that there is little to compare it with—except whole countries. And not small countries like Belgium or Portugal. The amount of land owned by the National Park Service alone is larger than Italy. The land owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service is larger than Germany. The land owned by the Forest Service is larger than Britain and Spain combined. The land owned by the Bureau of Land Management is larger than Japan, North Korea, South Korea and the Philippines combined.
The idea of selling huge amounts of government-owned land is not new. Before the federal income tax was created in the early 20th century, land sales were sometimes a significant source of federal government income in the preceding two centuries. The prospect of large-scale land sales was considered during the Reagan administration, but the political opposition was too strong.
As of 2015, government-owned lands were valued at $1.8 trillion by the Commerce Department. This is the kind of money that can make a real contribution to the government’s fiscal balance, at a time when so many government operations are urgently in need of support.
As for the current value of these lands to the government, that value is largely negative. The money that these lands bring in is often only a fraction of what it costs the government to take care of them. Wildfires on land managed by the federal government have been about five times the size of wildfires on “non-federal lands,” according to a 2022 study by the Congressional Budget Office.
Land transferred from federal ownership to the market economy can also contribute to more affordable housing. When the same kind of house costs several times more in one part of the country than elsewhere, it is often because the cost of the land is higher rather than because the house costs more to build. That in turn is often because the land is either more scarce or because of laws restricting the building of anything on that land. But, where more land is available to build on, the same kind of house can cost a fraction of what it costs elsewhere.
The federal government owns a little more than one-fourth of the total land area of the United States. The time is long overdue to consider whether that is the best economic arrangement. And reconsideration is especially needed at a time of urgent fiscal problems.
Mr. Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.