Why does Washington need more real estate?

In other words, for every acre of land removed from federal control and placed in private hands, another acre somewhere else must be purchased and put under Washington hegemony.

Otherwise, federal land agencies may eventually be unable to justify the massive herd of government agents now employed to oversee these holdings.

This tenet has played out in Nevada for years, where the federal government controls some 86 percent of the state. Heaven forfend that should ever fall to, say, 80 percent, however. So whenever the Bureau of Land Management auctions off acreage in urban Southern Nevada, it uses some of the proceeds to buy “sensitive” lands elsewhere in the state.

This neutrality model, however, is at least preferable to the idea — prevalent with many environmentalists and federal land managers — that Washington should constantly expand its real estate holdings across the country to “protect” more and more property from the ravages of the human population.

The debate over federal land policy may come to a head soon, as Republicans in Washington have targeted for budget savings a fund that feeds future land purchases.

As part of addressing the nation’s spending addiction, House GOP members are pushing to cut the Land and Water Conservation fund, enacted in 1965 to pay for federal land acquisitions. The fund provided $300.5 million in 2011, and the president has asked for a whopping $900 million for fiscal 2012. The Interior Department appropriations bill pending in the House, though, calls for spending just $95 million.

Naturally, some environmentalists are up in arms. But the fact remains that reductions in — or even the elimination of – nonessential programs across the board must be part of any rational deficit solution.

“It is mind-boggling stupid to think the federal government should own one-third of America and not be satisfied with that,” Rep. Rob Bishop, the Utah Republican who chairs the Natural Resources subcommittee on national parks, forests and public lands, told The Washington Post. “It’s impossible, when you’re trying to contract the budget and get some savings. Nobody with a straight face can say that we should be expanding our holdings.”

Indeed, this is a no-brainer. If federal agencies really need to acquire additional lands for “protection” or “preservation,” how about Congress mandate that they then sell off parcels somewhere else at twice the value? Such a policy would have the dual advantage of forcing the government to prioritize its vast land portfolio while financially benefiting taxpayers.