Here in Minnesota, there are widely differing attitudes about lands in public ownership. Proof of this is being played out right now at the State Capitol and is something we’re likely to see more of – not less – in the future.

One idea is that public land ownership is an important public good, giving all Minnesotans access to enjoyable and valuable recreational experiences, preserving wildlife popul ations, protecting lands with special or unique characteristics or scientific importance and enhancing management of other resources – like timber and clean water – which are valuable to commerce, wildlife and the general public.

Counter to this is the thought that land in public ownership reduces the tax base of the county, township or whichever unit of government it’s located in, since there’s no private owner to pay property taxes on it. And, public ownership may prevent a parcel of land from being used for other purposes, like commercial development, industry or agriculture.

Evidence that these two attitudes are on a collision course was plain to see recently in the Minnesota Legislature. A vote in the Minnesota House of Representatives basically vetoed an appropriation intended for public land purchase. The funds came from the state’s Environmental Trust Fund – monies from the Minnesota State Lottery that are supposed to be dedicated to natural resources purposes.

This appropriation was slated to be used to acquire a patchwork of private lands within the boundaries of Minnesota state parks and national wildlife refuges and other still-available lands with conservation value near the Metro Area. Instead, the House voted narrowly to overturn the recommendation of the 17-member Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources, which by law is charged with making recommendations on how to spend the lottery-generated funds. The 57-52 vote redirects the $4-plus million from the lottery fund from land acquisition, to instead repair state park buildings and trails.

Consolidating public ownership within existing state park boundaries seemed like a good idea to a majority of members of the LCCMR and to other Minnesota conservation groups. It was intended to reduce conflicts in use and management within parks and refuges that long ago were set aside for recreational and conservation purposes. The amendment shifting the lottery-generated funds was offered by Rep. Tom Rukavina, a representative from Virginia, an area of northern Minnesota that has a large amount of land in public ownership.

Actions to limit public land purchase have recently been attempted at the county level, too, notably in agricultural areas of the state. The issue is about both tax money and control. If it were entirely about lost local tax revenues, there is a mechanism for compensating counties or townships, in the form of “payments-in-lieu-of-taxes.”

This means that payments are made from the state to local units of government to replace tax revenues lost when private land is transferred to public ownership.

The issue of control is less tangible, but plays a role, too. Whether it’s from Washington, D.C., or St. Paul, Minnesota, there seems these days to be more sentiment than ever to resist control or mandates from afar.

When lost local property taxes are replaced by payments from St. Paul, there is still a cost to someone. In some cases, it’s Minnesota taxpayers as a whole. But in the example cited here, it’s state-collected lottery funds and land acquisition is one use intended when Minnesota voters approved the constitutional amendment that created the lottery. Given that fact, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s becoming more and more about local control.

Another sure to be controversial bill was introduced by Sen. Tom Bakk, of Cook, also a northern district with substantial publicly owned land. Sen. Bakk’s bill would place a moratorium on creating public accesses on lakes that do not already have a public access.

Minnesotans have an almost religious conviction that our waters are public and should be open to angling and other recreational uses. It’s easy to understand a lakeshore owner’s desire for privacy, peace and quiet and to be protected from “the public horde.” But it’s hard to justify allowing the general public to enjoy one body of water, while property owners on another lake have exclusive use rights on “theirs.”

Another argument against acquiring more public land is that our resource managers are not able to keep up with improving or managing lands already in public ownership. A recent report by the Legislative auditor’s office makes that very claim. It’s true. In these times of tight state revenues, when the budget of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been cut, with staff positions going unfilled, on-the-ground management work is going to suffer at least temporarily.

The counter-argument is that opportunity to acquire lands for public use will be steadily lost as time passes and property costs rise, or these desirable parcels of land are diverted to other purposes from which they can never be retrieved.

I’ve been in other states with very limited public lands and waters and the outdoor opportunities there are nowhere near as abundant and accessible as they are here. I doubt that most Minnesotans would want to make the trade.