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
Rob Bishop would be proud of you, ec. You're ignoring something. What is the appraised value of much of that land without water, utilities or other value added? The tax rate applied by the state of Utah on similar private lands is just above zero.
Thats the point Lee. If some of those lands were in private hands, they wouldn't be without water, utilities or other value added. They would be far more valuable and would generate much more in property taxes to Utah than the feds pay in PILT.
Would they really, or would be covered with No Trespassing signs as is much of the landscape of Colorado? Where will that water come from? Who will pay to maintain them until they can be "developed" if anyone is ever found to buy them?
It's not as simplistic as you and Robbie would have us believe. Fortunately, most Utah residents are still able to see through the fog of fibs.
Yes
Why would someone purchase the land to then not put it to use?
The sky.
The taxpayer - just as they do now. And of course that assumes there won't be a buyer. Bishop isn't asking for turning over every acre, he asking for turning over properties that are inholdings or near existing communities or otherwise can be put to better use. He is asking for the turning over of properties that ARE (at least potentially) valuable.
And that is why Bishop has been reelected five times.
No.
We need to ask the owners of the land just south of Dinosaur in Colorado why they have No Trespassing signs all over the place.
Someone forgot to tell the sky because Utah is the second driest state in the nation. (Although California is trying to replace us on that list.)
So fewer taxpayers will be expected to pay a whole lot more.
The fact that Robbie has been "reelected" five times is a prime example of why we need term limits and election reform. The deck is currently stacked.
Try coming out of the fog. The sun is shining out here.
Because it is private land paying property taxes.
Maybe you haven't looked at a map lately, there are a number of rivers that bring water into the state. And again, much of the land that Bishop is talking about is in or near existing communities that have existing sources of water
Utah tax payers would foot $36 million on top of an existing $2.7 billion collected in property taxes. A whopping increase of 1.3%. And that increase would be far less than the increase in economic activity and overall property values. But then, I guess you like the system where the taxpayer in NJ is paying for your fire department.
Well, we're finally getting to the crux of the matter, at least in ec's view, which is that Bishop bill is simply a way to covert some current federal public lands to private property, by first "laundering" it through state governmernt hands. That approach, of course, lets the state profit by selling land "transferred" to the state by the feds.
A few comments back, ec indicated transfer of the public land under discussion would allow it to be put the "better use," further defined as "A way that would serve the people better."
When asked which "people" he had in mind, the reply was those who "might want to visit the land to recreate."
Now we've made the leap to "If some of those lands were in private hands, they ...would be far more valuable and would generate much more in property taxes to Utah than the feds pay in PILT."
So, wonder how much "recreating" people "who might want to visit the land to recreate" will be doing once it's in private hands, and developed to allow paying more property taxes? As ec points out above, you should expect "no trespassing" signs on that private property.
Rep. Bishop (quoted above) says he is concerned about using this land to help "solve our budget crisis and reduce the national debt." If that's really the case, the more effective approach would be for the feds to simply sell it to the highest bidder. Giving it to the state does little to reduce the federal debt.
No, I'm not suggesting a big sale of federal land to raise money, but Rep. Bishop seems to, along with an opportunity for a windfall for the state budget.
Finally, don't forget the major revenue the federal govt. currently receives from oil and gas leases on BLM land - some of which is shared with the states. Rep. Bishop clearly would like to have all that revenue in state coffers -at the loss of income that is currently helping reduce federal debt loads.
Perhaps ec could enlighten us on the cost-benefit ratio of federal revenue lost by such transfers, compared to money saved by giving the land away to the state.
False - that was not my direct answer to the question. My reply was "Depends on what land. But generally, the people that are affected." When challanged that that should put employees first, My complete response was " 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."
Those lands upon which they want to recreate, they would decide not to sell, those they don't want to recreate on they would so the could live and work. Don't see why all of you have such a hard time grasping the concept.
In the state coffers, where it should be. And if the feds weren't doing things not assigned/permitted in the Constitution, there would be no federal debt loads.