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
A way that would serve the people better.
What people, EC? I have to agree with Lee on this one. Somehow, the "people" are always developers. But just when Lee is getting his hopes up, I remind him that the Democrats love developers, too. I say all of us--and that means all of us--should keep our hands off the public lands. They are still the leftovers, no matter what we argue. The best of the worst are already gone, as well. Of course, there is always somebody who thinks the government is "holding out." Sure, on a few million acres. I might even push that to 50 million. But if you think that 640 million acres have survived THIS materialistic society, you haven't been reading Professor Roy M. Robbins. Or His Highness Barack Obama, who wants 40 million of that 50 right now.
Depends on what land. But generally, the people that are affected.
So, "Better use" means "A way that would serve the people better."
Wow, the terms "better, use and people" all get an A+ for subjectivity, so who gets to decide which uses are "better"? Alfred Runte asked a great question: "what people," and ec's answer was the ones "that are affected." He's told us many times in the past that "locals know best" when it comes to decisions about public land, but how do you determine those who "are affected" by those decisions?
Using an NPS area as an example, are the "most affected" those who live adjacent to the park, or within 5 miles, or those who live in the same county, or same state? Is a person who lives in the same county, but who never visits a park more or less "affected" than one from a nearby state who visits the area multiple times a year?
Many small business owners in Gardiner, Montana, depend on revenue from tourists to Yellowstone - but most of that park lies in Wyoming. Do they get to be counted as "most affected" even though they are also live and work "out of state?"
Can't resist having a little fun with this one. If the people who are most affected by public lands should get the main voice in decisions about those areas, it would be hard to find a group "more affected" than the agency employes who work and live in those areas. Under ec's plan, it sounds like they should have even more say in decisions that they do now :-)
Just the dodging, twisting, non-answers we all expected. Can't be specific, eh? Or is it more accurately won't be specific because it would all come down to somebody making more money through development. A few might benefit ($$ in the pockets), but the majority of Americans would wind up as losers.
Dr. Runte is right. Politicians, regardless of party, are all in the clutches of those with the dollars. But a question. I must have missed something. 40 million acres for what?
As I said, the people affected. Isn't that better than people 3,000 miles away that know nothing about the land or how it integrates with the local community?
Thats true, but there might be a few dozen of them versus thousands of people who live/work in the area or tens of thousands that might want to visit the land to recreate.
Lee, I think me answer was quite clear and specific. Sorry you weren't able to keep up.
If you mean specifically vague, you're right. Sorry you can't offer anything better.
As for people 3000 miles away, let's see. Where is this Congresscritter we read about earlier this week from again?
But I agree, that the people most affected should have a say in what happens to the public lands around them. I hope that some day we can change that here in Utah and give the ordinary citizens of the state an effective voice.
But I also feel that all the people who are owners of the land should also have voice regardless of where they live. As it stands now, the loudest voices belong to those who have the megaphone of enough money to drown out all others.