Public Lands: Our Collective Birthright is in Jeopardy

I have some questions and complaints about how our federal public lands are managed. I think ranchers pay a pittance in grazing fees, while doing a lot of damage to our collective lands. The timber industry is exploiting fear about wildfire to justify accelerated logging of national forests. The oil and gas industry doesn’t pay anywhere the real value of the Petro-carbons they remove in the lease fees they are required to pay, and miners get to remove minerals worth millions after paying a minimal fee sometimes as little as $5.00 an acre.

These activities damage our public heritage in uncounted ways, but while these industries get subsidies, the public gets stuck with the bills for restoring, repairing and living with the environmental damage.

I also have a lot of positive things to say about our federals lands. Despite my reservations expressed above, most federal lands are better managed than similar state or private lands. They are one of the few places where ecosystem value can and are sometimes considered in management actions. They are the last stand for many endangered species, and they represent a tremendous asset to the American people.

But perhaps the best thing about federal lands is that I, along with the rest of American citizens, own them. And as a part owner, I have a right to voice my objections and my support for federal actions.

That is why it is particularly disturbing to me, and many other Americans that we might lose our public lands. The potential transfer or sale of federal lands to the state or even private entities poses a long-term threat to our democracy and our way of life.

While I don’t always agree with the management of federal agencies like the Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service or National Park Service, I am glad that I have the opportunity and right to disagree, because these federal lands are part of my birthright as an American.

Public lands are one of the great equalizers in our society. Rich or poor. Urban or rural. We all benefit from our national patrimony.

In short, I see any attempts to reduce federal ownership of our lands as an attack on our Democratic values.

Two recent legislative events significantly jeopardize our common heritage.

First the U.S. House of Representatives altered a rule that required any land transfers budget neutral.  All western Republicans including Montana’s Representative. Ryan Zinke, who may soon be the Secretary of Interior, voted for the rule change.

His support for this rule change raises apprehension in some folks that he may waiver on his assertion that he fully supports keeping federal public lands public.  Given Zinke’s recent approval by a Senate Committee and likely confirmation by the full Senate to be Secretary of Interior, it is critical that Zinke oppose all efforts to disenfranchise the public of our collective inheritance.

The implications of this rule change are that the value to the public of these lands is no longer going to be considered. If, say a parcel of BLM lands has oil and gas under it or perhaps is critical watershed value to a community, and potentially worth millions to the taxpayer or have high ecological values, such a value cannot be considered in the transfer, making it easier to depose of the parcel.

The second piece of the puzzle to divest Americans of their birthright was recently introduced by Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, one of the most ardent opponents of federal land management. Chaffetz’s legislation would instruct the Department of Interior to sell 3.3 million acres of primarily BLM lands in several western states.

To give one some sense of how much land we are discussing, 3.3 million acres is larger than the state of Connecticut and about half the size of Vermont. And this could be just the beginning of our losses. The legislation includes 110,000 acres in Idaho, 94,000 acres in Montana, and a whopping 694,000 acres in Wyoming,

The basic list was created in 1997 when the BLM was told to identify federal lands for potential sale that were no longer of “value” to the public.

In that original document the BLM put in a disclaimer to demonstrate that the list was problematic. The BLM said: “Please note many lands identified appear to have conflicts which may preclude them from being considered for disposal or exchange,” wrote then Assistant Secretary Bonnie Cohen. “Conflicts include high disposal costs, critical natural or cultural resources and habitat, mineral claims and leases, and hazardous conditions.”

Specifically, areas likely to be sold off includes 63,000 acres in Campbell County by Gillette, Wyoming, 122,000 acres in Crook County near Devil’s Tower, 35,000 acres in the Powder River Basin near Sheridan, Wyoming, another 27,000 acres along the Shoshone River near Cody, Wyoming. In Idaho, some 10,000 acres in Blaine County in the Wood River Valley, another 11,000 acres in Twin Falls County near Twin Falls, Idaho, another 30,000 acres in Carter County, near Ekalaka, Montana, 45,000 acres in Custer County, near Miles City, Montana and so on.

In some of these places, particularly in eastern Montana and eastern Wyoming, public lands are far less prevalent than in other parts of the respective states, and these federal parcels are critical to public enjoyment and access. For a full list of potential lands on the chopping block:

https://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/land%20disposal%20report.pdf

This attack on our American birthright must be vigorously defended or we may wake up and find that our access to land has been traded away, and hawked to the highest bidder—which is not going to be the average American.

Print Friendly