You are here

Report: House Natural Resources Committee Wants To Transfer Federal Lands To States, Tribes

Share

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 don't know any Republicans that are anti-wilderness." So, did you mean anti-current wilderness or anti-future wilderness? I tried the suggestion above for a Google search for the terms "Republican politicans opposed to wilderness areas" and didn't have any trouble finding both..but of course you don't "know" them personally, so guess they don't count :-)


Right, Rick and JT.  Time to start ignoring the troll again.  It's amusing, though, that no matter what kind of evidence one tries to present, the troll will somehow try to dodge and make accusations that none of it is valid or even truthful.  Yet, very rarely is there anything of substance offered in rebuttal.  Sounds like Congress at work.

It's important to remember that there are probably hundreds of other readers out there who quietly watch -- perhaps with at least some amusement -- the squabbles here.  I'm sure they are very capable of deciding which comments are valid and which are not.  Then, I hope that after they decide, they at least try to contact the decision makers in hopes their voices may be heard whichever side of the debate they support.

 


We all need to remind ourselves that nothing said or done today will make any difference in a million years and not to take anything too seriously. That is one of the benefits of having a geology background. Read John McPhee's books for his perspective.


Well, ec, there may not be any Republicans in Colorado opposed to present or future wilderness, but there are lots of them in my state, Arizona.  And if yoiu think that changing these areas from Federal ownership to state control would not change the land use, you are smoking bad dope.

Rick


And read Diane Ackerman's books for hers.  If nothing else, they will make you think.


So, did you mean anti-current wilderness or anti-future wilderness?

I meant it as orginally written.  Anti-any wilderness.  I don't know any republicans that are anti-curent Wilderness or anti-future Wilderness.  I do know Republicans AND Democracts that beleive that certain areas should not be Wilderness but that doesn't make them against the concept of Wilderness as a whole. 


And if yoiu think that changing these areas from Federal ownership to state control would not change the land use, you are smoking bad dope.

So you believe that every acre of land transfered would change the land use?  I don't.  Some certainly would and should but that doesn't mean all of it would.  There are 640 million acres of Federal land out there.  You don't believe any of that could be put to better use?


Please define exactly what "better use" means.


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.