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
Meanwhile, Utah has some of the lowest -- if not the lowest -- severance taxes on minerals extracted in the state. Utah is about fifteenth in the country in coal production, but we have NO serverance tax on coal. ZERO. A blatant handout to the energy companies that cheats Utah taxpayers.
Perhaps the reason we have a hard time grasping the concept of privatization of public lands is that we actually know what the consequences will be and refuse to accept that scenario of greed.
Ah, but it comes back to who "they" is, i.e. who controls the decision-making in the state. Based on information from people who actually live In Utah, it sounds like "they" is more likely to be Rep. Bishop and others of his ilk at state levels who are more interested in dollars than public recreation. Significant cuts to the budget for Utah State Parks over the past 5 years doesn't paint a very encouraging picture.
At least we've gotten past the smoke screen, and have an admission from ec that part of the goal of this bill (in his mind and probably that of other supporters of such land transfers) is to ultimately convert some current public land to private ownership. Perhaps that's why Mr. Bishop's memo (link in the story above) says, "The solution is to convey land without strings to state, local, and tribal governments." No requirement there for any of the transferred land to be retained for public recreation.
And don't forget the brokers and developers who all get their taste of the blood along the way.
Bishop and his friends are stauch Utah GOP socialists.
Socialize expense.
Privatize profit.
Actually quite the opposite. A severence tax on coal would only add to the cost to the end users - and who are they? The taxpayers.
JT you may not like Bishop or his ilk but they are the locals. I believe it is much more appropriate for the locals to make the decision than some bureaucrat in Washington who has never set foot in the state. And I would argue the same for California even though I don't agree with Jerry Brown or his ilk.
Come on, EC. You know that the "locals" are bureaucrats, too. This is not about local "decision-making" but rather a raid on our public trust. We the People own those lands. That was the deal our forebears made back in 1777. Where you "lived" mattered less than what was good for the country. Imagine if George Washington had had to fight state by state with only statewide, local armies. Retreating into New York? Okay, New Jersey, the fight is over for you!
The problem with extremist arguments--both liberal and conservative--is that both sound selfish. What's in it for ME! Utah is sounding selfish here, even as they brag in that big tee-vee commercial about the five national parks they "have." No, We the People have. On Normandy Beach, I doubt that anyone was talking about states' rights. Why do we? Because few of our leaders come anymore from the battlefield; they rather come straight out of business school and/or law school where they are taught to make their pile. Then they go to Congress.
Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ike Eisenhower, JFK. You start running out of veterans after the 1960s. Roanld Reagan fought a lot of battles, but all of them were on celluloid. True, then we get George H. W. Bush. And then we are right back to the draft-dodger William Jefferson Clinton. With a photograhic memory, he "forgets" what his draft board said. I don't. I remember it to the minute.
Brave men and women built this country--not on the basis of states' rights but rather what the country itself needed. Shame on Utah for wanting us to forget that, but then, they are not alone.
Yes they are. But they are bureacrats that are much more familiar with the local issues and are directly accountable to their constituents.
Could you point me to where that "deal" was made? As that tedious book someone recommended earlier (whose title escapes me at the moment) describes, it was anticipated (and executed) nearly from day one that the lands would be distributed to the citizens.
That is the anithesis of what our Constitution stands for and I believe our brave men and woment fought for and built this country based on the principles of our Constitution.