YOUR PUBLIC LANDS ARE NOW WORTH $0.00…
When a new session of Congress begins, the U.S. House of Representatives typically amends “rules of engagement” used by the previous House. Such was the case at the first session of the 115th Congress earlier this month. Deep in the 36-page rules document is language that implies public lands are worthless, and thus of no value.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop, Utah, a leading advocate for transferring public lands to the States, is the apparent author of this language. In his unmistakable never-ending campaign to transfer public lands to State hands, his “cleverness” has changed how the value of public lands are considered for conveyance.
(q) TREATMENT OF CONVEYANCES OF FEDERAL LAND.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, for all purposes in the House, a provision in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays. (2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: (A) The term ‘‘conveyance’’ means any method, including sale, donation, or exchange, by which all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to Federal land is transferred to another entity. (B) The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means any land owned by the United States, including the surface estate, the subsurface estate, or any improvements thereon. (C) The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, or a territory (including a possession) of the United States.
Basically, because assessed property value is no longer a factor, Mr. Bishop has made the task of transferring public lands to States much easier.
Cleverness or foolishness…
The House of Representatives is required to consider and account for the cost of legislation they consider and approve; basically a benefit/cost analysis. Now, with this rule, House members no longer need to estimate financial effects from conveying YOUR public lands. So, when a House member like Liz Cheney, Wyoming, proposes a bill to transfer public lands in Wyoming to Wyoming, the House can vote without ANY discussion of the costs and benefits to the Federal government. Costs and benefits to YOU as current owner of these public lands.
If public lands are worthless, and thus have no value, then…
I find this new House rule curious and pose a series of questions to Mr. Bishop, Mrs. Cheney and all the other House members who voted for this rule.
- Why would the State that you represent want to acquire their ownership? In other words, why would they want to take on the responsibility of managing and caring for a massive land base that is worthless?
- Why do you pass legislation, such as the National Forest Management Act, that directs how land management agencies are to be public land stewards? In other words, why do you waste your time writing law for something that is worthless?
- Why do you set commodity output targets and other mandates, with a corresponding budget, every year for land management agencies? In other words, if public lands have no value why do you set expectations on what managers are to produce and how they are to spend taxpayer dollars? As a sidebar question, how can something that is worthless even produce outputs?
- Why do you take the time to consult a land management agency when one of your constituents contacts you about concern they are not being treated fairly by that land management agency? In other words, why do you put energy in to assisting a constituent pursue a concern over something of no value?
Where will things go from here…
I have no idea. But I do wonder, assuming implementation of this rule ever actually takes place, if Mr. Bishop and other House members who voted “Yay” for this rule have shot themselves in the foot. It seems to me that any competent attorney hired to represent entities in opposition to public lands transfer could argue, since public lands are worthless, that such lands simply should not be conveyed to the States because there is nothing to convey. Just a thought!
I look forward to hearing your views…
Until the next time, take care and all the best!