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(2) Exception.--Time periods during which land is under contract for sale or withdrawn from the market shall not be counted for the purposes of price reduction under paragraph (1)(B).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
The scope and intent is to prevent an expansion of land ownership by the Federal Government. Pretty clear to anyone that can read.
If he's not consciously pandering, EC, it would seem he is subconsciously.
This is the problem with Congress, and it goes back most recently to the Defense Authorization Act passed in December that included a half-dozen or so new park units. Congressfolk have no qualms about tossing about legislation when they don't have to account for the dollars, plus or minus. As JT pointed out above, keeping score on land acquisition and disposal is not an inexpensive process.
Yet does the good Congressman Griffith address this matter? Of course not. He just wants to send out a message that he's anti-federal government landscapes.
These folks need to be held accountable. They need to do their homework upfront before they start tossing out legislation that would have some serious financial, and potentially environmental, side effects. Let's see someone introduce legislation that would require each piece of new legislation to contain a cost-benefit analysis, as well as a funding source. That I could get behind. But you'll never see it. It would preclude grandstanding.
As I noted in the story above, there recently was legislation introduced to increase the size of Muir Woods by 44 acres. How long, and at what cost, under Rep. Griffith's measure would you think it would take Interior to decide which 44 acres somewhere else in the public domain can be sold off, and at what cost, and how? Sounds to me that at least an environmental assessment, if not a full-blown environmental impact statement, could be required in some cases. And those are neither cheap nor quick.
I offer the good Congressman Griffith space front and center to explain how he sees these land swaps he proposes playing out, and how much it might wind up costing the federal government, both in dollars and acreage that was set aside for a reason, not a whim.
And what was the reason to set aside 85% of the state of Nevada?
The Interior could sell off 100,000 acres in the Nevada desert and far more than cover the transaction cost and have 99,954 more acres they could then acquire. This is a total red herring. Fact is, their cost of acquisition is likely far higher than the cost of disposal .
And I challenge you, Kurt, to show that he is incincere in his proposal - consciously or subconsciously. Am I incincere in my support? Am I pandering? Can people not honestly hold this view?
Yes, it is clear to anyone who can read that the bill, as written, is vague and does not address the issues raised in the original article nor in many of the comments above.
I challenge you, ec, to demonstrate by quoting directly from the bill just how it proposes to accomplish what you seem to think it will do.
Then let's see you address the concerns Kurt outlines in his post a few minutes ago.
Don't attack anyone. Just provide simple proof from the original source that what you have written here is correct.
Did you learn your moves from Ginger Rogers?
Lee, I don't know how clear it can be. It explictly says in section a) that the feds will sell equivalent acres for any acreage they acquire. What is unclear about that. Heck the name of the bill is "Acre in Acre Out" and the subtile of the section quoted above "NO NET INCREASE IN CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS." You would have to be pretty dense not to understand that.
EC, the points I noted that are missing from the congressman's legislation are proof enough.