A move is expected this week to get the House GOP on the record for transferring federal lands to states and tribes in a bid to both eliminate some red ink in the federal budget and to help grow local economies.
A memo prepared by the House Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, asserts that, "Federal lands create a burden for the surrounding states and communities. These lands cannot be taxed and are in disrepair (agencies estimate a $22 billion-and growing maintenance backlog). Often mingled with private land, federal lands isolate communities, limit growth and adversely impact private property rights."
According to the memo, which was published Monday morning by the Think Progress non-profit on the Climate Change page of its website, also asks that Congress appropriate $50 million "to allow for these conveyances to start immediately."
According to the report, Rep. Bishop wants the memo to be included in the House GOP's budget resolution when it is drafted Wednesday.
The House Committee on Natural Resources (the Committee) recognizes that real reductions in spending must occur in order to solve our budget crisis and reduce the national debt. While careful consideration must be given to ensure that valued federal activities and lands are protected and that necessary cuts do not impede economic growth, tough decisions have to be made. Wasteful, duplicative, and unnecessary spending should be eliminated.
In addition to spending cuts, the President’s budget should also acknowledge that our public lands and natural resources are not only job creators, but economic boosters that bring new funds to the federal Treasury to help pay down the national debt. But imposing new taxes, new regulations, and new fees – as the President’s budget does – will have the opposite effect. It will stifle growth, send American jobs overseas, and forfeit opportunities for new revenue.
Keeping public lands and waters open to public enjoyment and recreation, along with the smart management of our resources, is vital to a strong and healthy economy. This budget should focus on promoting new energy production, implementing active forest management, ensuring an abundance of water resources, and taking care of federal lands we already own. Instead it once again seeks to impose new taxes and new layers of red tape while blocking public access to our lands and resources.
The document does not specify how much land, if any, the National Park Service should release. But it does castigate the Park Service for the way it manages its budget.
The Committee is concerned that NPS is diverting funds away from critical needs of the existing majestic and historic park units and into projects that do not further the NPS’ essential mission to serve visitors and to preserve these parks for the future. It is disappointing that despite increases to NPS’ budget the maintenance backlog on existing parks continues to balloon and visitation continues to decline.
The President continues to propose hundreds of millions of dollars for land acquisition programs administered by NPS. These funds would be better directed toward maintenance projects addressing aging and neglected infrastructure.
After years of expanding budgets, NPS has done little to show for this in terms of increased public use and enjoyment of parks or reduction in the maintenance backlog. The Committee also notes that Obama NPS operations budgets continue to increase, which leads us to conclude that pleas of inadequate park funding may have more to do with management priorities than actual funding levels. President Obama’s unilateral creation of new park units has only put us further behind in the effort to adequately maintain the system.The Committee’s strong support for our country’s unparalleled system of parks notwithstanding, it is important to recognize the need, in coordination with NPS, to commit to finding areas of waste and lower priority spending within the budget.
Comments
I totally agree. History shows us that most of our current national parks were initially opposed by entrenched local interests. That does not mean that all local people were necessarily against new parks, but the political and business leaders were, because it would erode their power base. That pattern continues today across the country, from the Maine Woods to southern Utah to southeast Alaska.
It's certainly true in Utah where polls show a majority of Utah citizens support public lands of all kinds and oppose efforts by small, but very powerful groups of developers and mineral interests to obtain and exploit them. Unfortunately, Utah's lopsided single party political structure gives them a heavy advantage over the rest of us.
What a surprise that real estate 'developers' would push for reclaiming public lands for profit.
Rick, the word is not "reclaiming." The correct word is purloining.
Please be more careful in your choice of verbs in the future!
;-}
Don't forget the Bureau of Land Management--a federal agency--and its plans for "your" public lands. Meanwhile, some states are excellent managers, New York, for example. Where do you think Theodore Roosevelt got his ideas? Unfortunately, Utah is not New York.
Lee, if that is true, why have the majority of Utah citizens not voted out the politicians that support the Feds releasing lands to the state?
I have a love/hate relationship with Utah. My mother-in-law lived there for some time, and so I spent a considerable amount of time exploring the state. While it's beautiful, and there surely is much public lands to enjoy, "the church" has a stranghold on the states political system almost to the point where the seperation of church and state doesn't exist there. If there is one state where I think there is a theocracy in place, it's Utah. While many mormons i've known are great outdoors people and some of the best skiiers and climbers i've ever known, many of the church's leaders (and they run the state politically system too) seem to loathe anything to do with the federal government, and I think a lot of that hostility stems from the fact that they were basically "booted out" because their version of the magical sky fairy didn't fit the status quo from that time period. So that hostility still exists and is an underlying theme in the states political atmosphere. But, on the same token, a majority of that state is public lands, and so I can understand some of the sentiment.
Because voter turnout is dismally low in Utah. It's a terribly unfortunate thing because moderate voters feel there is no chance a candidate they choose might have a chance of winning. Part of it is the system used by the GOP to select candidates through "neighborhood caucuses" where anyone seeking to support a more moderate candidate or issue can expect to be literally shouted down by extremist supporters of the extreme right. (Redundency intended.) I know many people who have attended one or two in the past, but say they will never again expose themselves to the abuse they endured.
The national Democratic party seems to have written off any chance of victory for a candidate in Utah and send virtually no money to help. Thus, Donna McAleer had virtually a pauper's chest against tons of out of state anonymous money pouring in to Rob Bishop's coffers.
Even with the hotly contested races in the last election, Utah's overall voter turnout was below 30%. Most of those voters are the more rabid supporters of whichever ideology they subscribe. The only way we will ever have a chance is when the moderate, independent voters in Utah finally have had enough to motivate them to actually go vote.
If that ever happens, Rob Bishop, Mike Lee, Jason Chafetz, Mia Love and the others will certainly be in for a huge surprise.
http://utahdatapoints.com/2014/11/voter-turnout-in-utah-just-got-worse/
http://www.sltrib.com/news/1873023-155/utah-had-3rd-lowest-voter-turnout...
Gary's post above is only partly true. Most of us tend to be moderate in our political thinking. But there is pressure in some communities (church "wards") on those who express moderation or opposition to more extreme ideologies. It is true that the Church packs enormous wallop in the state legislature. Witness this last session in which as soon as the Church proposed a law intended to balance rights of certain groups and those of people who may oppose those groups' practices because of religious belief, the legislature jumped right on it. On the other hand, even though the Church has proposed more moderate immigration laws, the legislature has refused to consider them.
It's certainly a mixed, and often confusing bag of political manure in Utah. And it all comes down to money and power. There is a small, wealthy, powerful group of just a relatively few people who control the entire GOP process here. (But, unfortunately, that's just a reflection of what is a growing problem nationally.)