Federalism

On issues such as land use, there are persistent conflicts that pit local control against state or national priorities and values. Unlike many other issues where shared national-state jurisdiction is widely accepted, land policy often centers on arguments about the level of government that is best prepared to make the best decisions. On the one hand, land-rights proponents believe policies should be set by state and local governments (where policy makers are more in touch with local needs and interests), while environmentalists believe policies should be set at the national level (where individual abuses can be regulated and limited). For example, local governments are frequently told by state or national government agencies how they will address particular environmental or land problems. These issues are particularly divisive in the western states where millions and millions of acres of land are owned by the federal government. Advocates for local government responsibility and control argue that local citizens and leaders are much more attuned to the land use and environmental problems they face and the kinds of solutions that are likely to work. On the other hand, advocates for state and/or national control maintain that a state or national focus compensates for the too-locally-focused responses of counties, cities, and towns to such problems. For example, it might be in the short-term financial interest of a city to support clear-cut logging with no reforestation program. State and national leaders, however, might require the local government in question to pay attention to such issues so land use and environmental stewardship issues can be addressed more intelligently and cohesively.