I wrote this article in 2017 when the National Park Service was celebrating 100 years of land control. The intent of the article was to get students who were participating in a national essay contest to think about what the government is actually doing when it creates a national park.
On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the act creating the National Park Service (NPS). The “Organic Act” states that the fundamental purpose of the NPS “is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
The National Park Service, a government agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, manages the national parks, national monuments, historical sites, etc. It oversees 412 areas, covering more than 84 million acres across the country and throughout the territories.
Before the formation of the NPS, the national parks were managed by the United States Forest Service. This is also a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which currently manages an additional 154 national forests and grasslands, encompassing 193 million acres.
National parks and monuments exist in every state. California has some popular ones: Alcatraz Island, Death Valley, Golden Gate, Muir Woods, Redwood, Sequoia & Kings Canyon and Yosemite. Utah, where I live, has a few: Bryce Canyon, Zion, Arches, Capitol Reef, and Canyonlands. Everyone has heard of Yellowstone in Montana and Wyoming, and the Grand Canyon in Arizona.
The National Park Services states that the reason national parks are created is to provide a safe home for native plants and animals, to keep the air and water clean, to learn about the environment in a safe, controlled area, and to provide all people a place to enjoy.
In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed an Act of Congress which returned control of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias (later to be returned to federal control as Yosemite National Park) to California. This Act stipulated that private ownership of land within that area was no longer possible. This set the precedent that in order to create these uninhabited spaces for all to enjoy, all people, including indigenous people, must be removed from the land.
American Pulitzer Prize winner, Wallace Stegner (1909–1993) stated, “National parks are the best idea we ever had. Absolutely American, absolutely democratic, they reflect us at our best rather than our worst.” Keep that in mind as you read on, and determine if Mr. Stegner is recognizing reality.
Bryce Canyon, located in Utah, became a national park in 1928, even though pioneers settled in the area since the 1850s had been using the land for livestock grazing. The NPS allowed grazing by purchased permit, but within 6 years, it began to impose conditions on grazing. In 1964, the NPS eliminated grazing on the land by building a permanent fence around the park. Is the government really at its best when it confiscates land from private land owners?
How Does Land Become a National Park?
The creation of a national park or monument usually takes an act of congress, but the President has the power to proclaim a national monument by executive order if the land already belongs to the Bureau of Land Management. If the land is privately owned, the federal government can use eminent domain to acquire the land.
Currently in Utah, many people are urging President Obama to declare land under control of the Bureau of Land Management a national monument. This BLM land, currently called Bears Ears, would encompass 1.9 million acres, which is over half of the county’s land.
This was special country to me. I did not root for pottery, or destroy cliff houses, leave a mark, or take a souvenir to prove I had been there. What I took was an appreciation for the tenacity of ancients and early dwellers and the understanding of challenges to be overcome when making a living from these tough lands in today’s world.
I witnessed local people making a living through farming, cattle, mining, and oil. I was there when oil exploration teams and prospectors roamed the county along with farmers and ranchers. Everyone I knew was careful to preserve the natural beauty of the area. We lived in a wild country of cliffs and canyons, red rock and pinion pines where water was sparse and sandstone everywhere. Making a living took skill, hard work, and patience.Then the government closed the uranium mill in Monticello, and we watched the town virtually stop growing. Attempts to have the mill taken over privately were rebuffed. The government stopped buying uranium, so mining took a major hit. Oil leases were dialed back, and regulations limited oil exploration. The county was left with dry farming and ranching overseen by the BLM. Government regulations controlled how, when, where and what a person could do to make a living in the county. That was well over 50 years ago and things have not gotten any better.
DC Young, a resident of the area for over 50 years
I compare these to what has happened with the Grand Staircase Monument. I wonder about the wisdom of using government overreach to sequester such a large and sprawling area with “Monument” status. With that move, the towns close to the Grand Staircase have stagnated to the point that businesses have closed, schools cannot keep functioning, and a living cannot be made.
What Is Eminent Domain?
Eminent domain is the power government exercises to seize private property for government use or to benefit the public collectively. There are specific reasons for eminent domain described in the Constitution: “the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings,” and also “to establish Post Offices and Post roads.”
The Fifth Amendment stipulates: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” That “just” compensation is determined by the federal government. How is compensation just when the value is determined by the purchasing entity?
I bet you have seen eminent domain exercised in your lifetime. I have seen entire neighborhoods razed so that a road could be be built or widened. I’ve also seen it used to clear the area for public transportation, build schools, establish parks, and provide utilities to new areas.
The government, as stated in the Constitution, does not have the power to do that. How do they get away with it? The government has created bills, the courts have made rulings, and precedents from former cases have been used as excuses to use eminent domain.
What happens if a person refuses to accept the compensation that the government is offering? A land dispute often makes its way to the courts. The court might evaluate the compensation, but it will not alter the government’s decision to take the property. Quite often, local, state, and federal governments will simply condemn the property to avoid the lengthy litigation process.
The Florida Everglades became a National Park in 1947. Before that, it was home to the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes and to Americans known as Gladesmen. All of these people depended on the land and its resources to fulfill their basic needs, as well as provide individual and community enjoyment.
The Native Americans were removed from the land, and the Gladesmen were forced to sell their homes and leave. The federal government tore down the houses to make way for its preservation efforts.
Franklin Adams, a descendent of the Gladesmen
“It’s a shame they didn’t let those families stay there. There was history to a lot of those old places. The preserve destroyed the old buildings because they didn’t fit into the federal plan.”
What Is the Purpose of Government?
The Declaration of Independence
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
The government’s only purpose is to protect people’s individual rights
When does government’s claim to eminent domain contradict the establishment of government to protect property? If man is free to acquire property, then government is supposed to protect that property. If government claims a power to be able to take property, it is failing in its responsibility to protect property.
When a national park is created, what happens to the private land that the government takes to create the park? Government takes the land from the owner on the government’s terms.
Does the government have the power to do things that, by law, individuals can’t do? Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, which means that governments are limited in power to the power that the individuals have. If man combined his rights into collective rights, the collective rights would be no different than the individual rights.
Is there ever a just use for eminent domain? The definition of eminent domain answers this question. If government uses power to take private property for public use, then essentially, the government has legalized theft, but only for itself. If theft is against the law for an individual, then it must be against the law for the government.
Consider the following scenario: Private land owners often decide to sell their land. A landowner advertises his land for sale and the price at which he’s willing to sell it. The government makes an offer consistent with the landowner’s asking price. The landowner accepts the offer and sells his land to the government. Is this just? No, it isn’t. The government is using funds collected unjustly through taxation. The money is not the government’s to do with as it pleases.
What Is a Right?
Imagine that you washed up on a desert island. What would you need to survive? Would you need some shelter? Would you need some food? Would you need water? Would you need a way to stay warm? Is there anything to stop you from building a shelter, gathering food and water, and staying warm?
You decide that the best way to make a shelter is to go into the island, cut down trees, and build a hut. You choose a place on the beach where the sun always shines to build your hut. You realize that the fruit and vegetables growing on the island will only sustain you for so long, so you decide to use the seeds from these plants to create a garden on the side of your hut. You learn that the only source of fresh water on the island comes from rain, so you create a water-gathering system that stores water in barrels that you made from left-over wood.
Then one day as you are enjoying the warmth of your hut and your abundance of food and water, another person washes up on the island. You allow him to stay in your hut and share your food while he recovers. You agree to show him how to build a shelter, gather and grow food, and how to collect water.
As the days go by, you realize that life is different. You’ve been alone for so long that getting accustomed to someone else living on the island is going to take some time. The island is definitely big enough for the both of you. In fact, you only use a small portion of it.
But that portion that you do use is yours. You have transformed that little bit of land into your home. Through your own blood, sweat, and tears, you have turned that land into a place where you now live quite comfortably.
The more you speak with the island’s new inhabitant, the more you realize how different his ideas are from yours. He doesn’t seem to respect your shelter, and he’s taking so much food! He uses your water like it’s for his use only. It’s time for a chat.
There is no point in arguing over differences, but you both agree that the two of you must come to an agreement about some issues if you are to get along on the island. At your meeting, you both agree that inherent in you both is life, and that you each want to continue living, especially after coming close to death in the accidents that brought you to island in the first place. This desire to remain alive is so important that you decide to base all other agreements on this single desire.
You both agree to respect each other’s will to live. Simple enough, avoiding killing someone isn’t that difficult. But it must go further than that. You know that you will need the ability to sustain your life. And enjoying life would be nice too. You talk to him about the joy you feel when you’ve harvested a crop. How awesome it is to gather fruit from a tree that you planted and cared for. You quite literally enjoy the fruits of your labors. You hold an apple in your hand. You talk about how much of your life it took to reap this one apple. That this apple is as much about your life as the shelter you live in is. He agrees. You both decide that as an extension of staying alive and enjoying life, it is only natural that you keep what you have worked for.
There is one thing about his different philosophy that you need to address. You point out that you are both quite different, which is completely fine. But you are concerned either your differences or his differences might one day be used against the other. And while you respect his opinions and ideas, you would prefer to live in such a way that neither of you will use your differing opinions and ideas to exert force against the other. You both decide that in order to enjoy life, you must both be free to explore your own ideas, to learn from your own mistakes, and to benefit from your successes without the coercion of the other.
You decide to call your agreements rights. That while living on the island, you each have the right to life. You each have the right to keep what you have earned, which you call the right to property. And you each need the freedom to do things your own way without interference from the other. You call this right liberty.
A right, by this definition, is ‘a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context” (Ayn Rand).
Years go by. Each of you is well established on your own part of the island. You’ve even established a trade agreement for things he makes that you want and vice versa. You’ve both made a life for yourselves without the interference of the other simply by respecting the three things you’ve agreed upon.
Then, a raft of people arrive on the island. You and your island companion introduce yourselves and take them on a tour. You introduce them to the rights you and your partner established years ago. They like the system, and they agree to live in accordance to the rights. They quickly go about finding their own pieces of the island to work and make their own.
One day, this group comes to you. They inform you that they don’t think that it’s fair that you and the other were able to take the very best parts of the island. Just because you arrived first doesn’t mean that you should get the very best parts. You hear them out. They don’t want to redistribute the land. That, after all the work you’ve done, would be quite unjust. But maybe if you and your friend could each give up a portion of the land, and they would do the same, that they could establish a central area that all island inhabitants can enjoy. They would allow the land to return to its former beauty, as it was before anyone interfered with it. It would be a place on the island that would belong to all, and all would be able to enjoy it.
You thank them for sharing the idea with you, but you inform them that you have no intention to give up that land. You have put years of your life into cultivating the land, and there is simply no reason why you should have to give it up. The group proposes to put it to a vote. Within a few minutes, they all vote against you, and they inform you that they will take the land themselves. And the last you counted, there were more of them than you.
From a hilltop, you watch as they build a fence through your land, taking several of your trees, water-catching barrels, and even a gazebo you’ve built. Over the next few days, they destroy all the evidence that you were ever there and set the island back on a path to what they call “recovery” so that they can conserve the natural beauty of the island to be enjoyed by all.
Why is there a need to define rights? Throughout history, there have always been people who have wanted to take the seemingly “easy way” by using force in the form of lying, cheating, and stealing, etc. to get others to do things. The purpose of defining rights is to establish a code that protects everyone from such violence that could be executed by stronger groups of people and governments.
What is the correlation between the right to life and the right to property? The right to life means that man is free to take all the actions necessary to sustain and to enjoy his life. In order to accomplish this, he also has the freedom to keep what he makes and earns. Without life, there is no property, yet without property, there is no life.
How Is Property Justly Acquired from Others?
Imagine the trade agreement reached between the two inhabitants of the island. The first might produce sennit (rope made from coconut husks), and the second might produce roof thatch from palm trees. Some sort of an agreement was reached that stated that some length of rope was worth some number of thatch sections. (Maybe the value of thatch raises during a rainstorm.)
This is how a free market works. Everyone is entitled to voluntarily trade his property with whomever he chooses. In a free trade, both parties profit. If I am buying a bag of apples from a vendor for ten dollars, than I have placed a value on those apples greater than ten dollars. The vendor views my ten dollars the same way. To him, my ten dollars is more valuable than his apples. Because we both view what the other has as great value, a fair exchange is made. We both walk away feeling that we have made a good trade.
How are the right to pursue happiness and the right to property similar? As a means of pursuing happiness, man has the right to acquire property. Each person has a different idea of what kind of property he wants. Some might want a house with lots of land to farm. Others might want to collect cars. Some might simply want intellectual property through learning. The right to pursue happiness and the right to property are principles that express man’s need to be free to work for the life he wants. Thus, his right to pursue happiness and acquire property is a direct result of his right to life.
What is the injustice about first inhabitant’s land being taken away without his consent? The others took it without the owner’s consent.
The creation of Shenandoah National Park is an example of one of the greatest abuses of eminent domain in our nation’s history. The federal government destroyed a community and culture of 15,000 people whose ancestors had been living in the area since the 1700s. In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge signed a bill that authorized the park. This bill gave the state of Virginia the power to acquire the land for the park. The state did not want the establishment of this park to be delayed by negotiating prices with each landowner or by court proceedings and lengthy appeals, so it passed the Public Park Condemnation Act. This act granted power to the state to do two things: to establish a general value of the land and to remove the landowners. The state determined that the value of the land was worth only a dollar per acre. This was paid to each of the 450 families who made their living from the land by harvesting timber, mining, raising cattle, etc.
2,800 people refused to leave. All of these people were removed by force. Some were arrested and driven off the land in police cars. Some were removed from their house and forced to watch while the police burned their houses to the ground.
Some residents did try to resist. Robert Via sued the state in district court, stating that his right to due process, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated. The district court ruled against him. When he appealed, the Supreme Court refused to hear his case. Lewis Willis wrote directly to President Hoover, stating: “We are unwilling to part with our homes to help a small part of our population to get their hands into tourists’ pockets.” However, by 1935, every resident of Shenandoah Valley had been removed.
Shenandoah National Park reminds us that whenever eminent domain is used, the government is forcibly removing people from their land.
What is an acre? An acre is 43,560 square feet, approximately the size of an American football field.
What is the size of the property you live on? Is it less than an acre?
Can you imagine being paid a dollar for your property and then told to leave?
Could you buy another piece of land for a dollar?
Would any amount of money offered have been just? No amount of money would have been just since the threat of force remained present. Further, the money used to purchase this property was taken through taxes.
When the government uses eminent domain to acquire property, is a free market in place? No, the federal government does not consider what the property owner values. It is entirely one-sided. Also, any time a person has no choice but to sell, it is a matter of force, not freedom.
What happens to man’s life if government establishes the terms? The property has a value to the owner that is equivalent to the amount of his life that it took to acquire it. When the government determines the value and forces the “sale,” it is completely neglecting the value the owner established; thus, the government is neglecting the owner’s life.
What happens to a person’s incentive to produce when the product of his life is undervalued? His desire to produce is destroyed. If a person can’t have faith that his efforts to produce will be guarded by the people he has entrusted to safeguard them, he will lose his desire to produce.
If the government’s sole purpose is to protect rights, how can it fulfill this function and create national parks at the same time? It can’t. By creating national parks, the government is violating the rights of the people it is supposed to protect.
What does 100 years of National Park Service mean? It means 100 years of eminent domain—100 years of forcing people from their land.
Is There a Better Way to Protect/Conserve Land?
If the federal government shouldn’t own and operate national parks, who should? And if private landowners did, wouldn’t the people find a McDonalds next to Old Faithful or a strip mall among the redwood trees? People often ask, “If people were allowed to own these areas, what guarantee do we have that the areas will still be there in the future?”
The very same question can be asked about the government running the parks. But under a free-market system, landowners and entrepreneurs seek to make a profit by determining the needs of their customers and then meeting those needs. As long as the customer finds value in the product, the people interested in profit will strive towards to the goal of making the customer happy. As needs change, these private companies will change their strategies to satisfy those needs.
There are thousands of models of privately owned and conserved lands throughout the country today. Some examples are historic sites, campgrounds, beaches, and other unique landscapes. The private owner has acquired the property through free-market exchange, determined the best possible use according to his desires, and has implemented that use. In many cases, the owner even profits by implementing a plan that benefits his customers the most.
Mount Vernon
One such example is Mount Vernon, located in Virginia. Mount Vernon is plantation house of George Washington and his wife, Martha. The land had been in the Washington family since 1674.
In 1853, Louis Bird Cunningham was traveling on the Potomac River. She caught a glimpse of Mount Vernon in the moonlight. She feared that such a site would soon be lost forever due to the lack of upkeep. She wrote to her daughter, Ann Pamela Cunningham, “If the men of the United States would not save the home of its greatest citizen, maybe the women should do it.” As a result, Ann Pamela Cunningham created the Mount Vernon Ladies Organization that same year. It is one of the earliest preservation and heritage organizations in the United States.
In 1858, the organization bought the mansion and over 200 acres from the current owner John Augustine Washington III. Washington set a high asking price for the property, and the organization paid it.
The organization has restored the mansion and the grounds to their original state as a means of preserving the site for all Americans and future generations to see. To accomplish this goal, the park is open every day of the year. As of 2012, more than 80 million people had visited Mount Vernon.
Monticello
The home of Thomas Jefferson is owned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc, a private, non-profit company that purchased the house and land from the owner Jefferson Levy. Founded in 1923, the foundation owns and cares for 2,500 acres of Jefferson’s original 5,000 acre land. It does not accept federal, state, or local funding. The foundation has a dual mission to preserve the home, ponds, orchards, vineyards, gardens, and trails for the public to enjoy and to tell the stories of the people, both enslaved and free, who lived and worked at Monticello.
Whitewater Excitement
The company owns 20 acres of land on the south bank of the American River near Coloma, California. This land is used as a campground to accommodate all of the visitors who come to run one of the five rivers that the company uses. Whitewater Excitement is just one of many companies that owns land along rivers for their visitors to enjoy.
Private Land Conservation
Rand Wentworth, president of the Land Trust Alliance, states, “People are not sitting around and waiting for a Washington bureaucrat to solve the problem of strip malls in their own backyard – they’re forming land trusts.” Private groups like the Land Trust Alliance, The Nature Conservancy, and even individuals are establishing land trusts to protect land. Between 2000 and 2005, private land set aside for conservation grew 54 percent from 24 million acres to 37 million acres.
In New Mexico, landowners adjacent to the Gila River have joined together to set aside 48,000 acres to protect the endangered Gila Trout.
Along the shores of Chesapeake Bay, 206 landowners have joined their 38,000 acres of property to create an estuary for migratory birds and marine life.
Does eminent domain represent America at its best?
We have established what the government’s only purpose is. We have established which rights government is allowed to protect. Anything else the government does violates the very principles of natural law and individual rights which caused America to separate from Great Britain and form an independent nation. Taking an individual’s land by force is never just. It is never morally correct. While national parks are pretty, there is a better way to maintain beauty than by forcing people from their land.
Ethan's Journal 