You are here

"Add An Acre, Sell An Acre" Proposal Aimed At Keeping Federal Estate From Growing Introduced To Congress

Share

In an effort to keep the federal landscape from growing appreciably, a Republican from Virginia has introduced to Congress a measure that would, in many cases, require land-management agencies to offset every acre added to their oversight by selling an acre.

The measure, introduced by Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, was referred to the House Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry. As drafted, it would have any profits realized from land sales deposited into the federal Treasury for use in reducing the public debt.

NO NET INCREASE IN CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS.

(a) In General.--For acquisition of land by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture that would result in a net increase of total land acreage under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service, the Secretary concerned shall offer for sale an equal number of acres of Federal land that is under the same jurisdictional status.

(b) Exemptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to easements acquired--

(1) by the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate management of Federal lands; or

(2) by the Secretary of Agriculture to facilitate management of Federal lands.

(c) Consideration.--

(1) In general.--Land sold pursuant to subsection (a) shall be offered for sale--

(A) at fair market value (based on local comparable sales); and

(B) at a price that is reduced by 10 percent each month if the land is not sold or under contract to be sold by the date that is 6 months after the land was first offered for sale.

(2) Exception.--Time periods during which land is under contract for sale or withdrawn from the market shall not be counted for the purposes of price reduction under paragraph (1)(B).

(d) Existing Rights.--The sale of Federal lands pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.

(e) Proceeds of Sale of Lands.--All net proceeds from the sale of Federal lands pursuant to this section shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

 

Interestingly, another measure, introduced in both the House and the Senate, calls for 44 acres to be added to John Muir National Historic Site.

Comments

One of the loud cries heard here in the west from those who want to take back our Federal lands is one that sounds like this:  "Don't let those Eastern congressmen tell us how to manage our lands!"

This sure smells like another Eastern congressman trying to tell us how to manage our lands in the west.

 


Meanwhile, here in Utah it's the annual migration of the loons as our legislators gather from the four corners of the state to wreak havoc.

Here's a news article about one of their efforts to "manage" our lands.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2279953-155/utah-lawmakers-set-to-give-sage


A bit ironic that this proposal to limit the size of the "federal estate" could require expanding federal spending. If this were enacted, somebody has to do all the administrative work involved, including gathering the information required to determine "fair market value (based on local comparable sales)," keeping track of when it's time to reduce the price another 10% of unsold parcels, etc. All those steps cost time, and therefore money.

Sounds mainly like a frivilous idea to bolster Rep. Griffith's conservative credentials, so he can tout this effort to "rein in government" to the voters come election time. Based on the above text of the bill, it certainly doesn't get much credit for being carefully thought out.


I agree J Thomas, I think what is really needed, rather than rein in government, is to rein in Wall Street and the mega corporations. 


rather than rein in government,

Yeah, because government is so productive. (eyes rolling).  What are you actually proposing to "rein in"  on Wall Street and with the mega corporations?  What provision of the Constitution are you looking to eliminate?

JT, yes it might cost some money up front but obviously you do undertand that spending some adminstrative money in the short term will be far more than offset by the sale price of the land and elimination of any need to spend money forever into the future. 


"...spending some adminstrative money in the short term will be far more than offset by the sale price of the land and elimination of any need to spend money forever into the future."

Perhaps. However, to take the example from the story of a proposal to add 44 acres to John Muir NHS, I'd suggest that there are plenty of 44 acre parcels under the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Interior which would bring very little at a cash sale based on "fair market value." Furthermore, there's virtually no money to be saved in managment costs by getting rid of such tiny parcels within an area of millions of acres (as in lots of BLM territory).


 by getting rid of such tiny parcels

You are right, they should get rid of massive parcels. That could bring in huge sums of money and eliminate huge sums of management costs.   But I expect that the legislation contemplates that acquisitions and disposals would be aggregated not matched acre to acre on every transaction.  At least I hope that is how the government would approach it.  One never knows. 


"...expect that the legislation contemplates that acquisitions and disposals would be aggregated not matched acre to acre on every transaction. At least I hope that is how the government would approach it. One never knows."

That would certainly be more efficient, but based the  text of the bill, the legislation is silent on any such practical matters. What the legislation "contemplates" needs to be made clearer, because it's pretty vague at this stage.

It would be interesting if someone could provide the total number of new acres added to "the federal estate" last year in the bill(s) that created new NPS areas.  In many cases, new areas added to the NPS are simply a transfer of acres from another federal agency - and therefore would not be covered by this bill.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.