Senate Amendment 838

R0001564 Amendment No. 838 (Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the disposal of certain Federal land) At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to initiatives to sell or transfer to, or exchange with, a State or local government any Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

_________________________________

At the end of last month the US Senate passed the above, 51-49.  My understanding is that as a budget amendment it holds no force nor compels any action, but given the larger social context the vote has attracted a lot of attention, binding or no.  In the near sense it all started in Utah, with a law voted in over 3 years ago which “provides a framework for transferring public lands into state ownership.”  To keep a long story simple, there is compelling evidence that the Utah law is intended to make those federal lands private, and that the interests behind the Utah effort are those responsible for the continued national prominence of the issue, and the recent senate budget amendment. This concerns me deeply, and to that end I’ve written the Montana congressional delegation, especially junior senator Steve Daines, who voted for said amendment after specifically stating on multiple occasions that he did not support the transfer of federal lands to the states.  In response to two different letters I received the following letter (twice, identical both times), which has been edited for length.

__________________________________

Dear Mr. Chenault,

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to a recent amendment to the Senate budget resolution related to federal lands. As a fifth generation Montanan, please know that I do not support the transfer of federal public lands to state ownership or the sale of public lands that would reduce Montana’s access to these lands.

Senate Amendment No. 838, sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK), does not sell, transfer, or exchange any federal lands. Such action would require the enactment of separate legislation. With that said, states and local governments and Indian Tribes routinely come to Congress to obtain land transfers or conveyances to be used for economic development or to address checker-boarded estates or split estates, a common problem for communities in Montana… The Murkowski Amendment could help facilitate a solution to that matter and enable other exchanges, sales or transfers with states or local governments. These policies are often used to craft balanced public lands measures that strengthen conservation, facilitate economic development, and empower states, local and tribal governments. In fact, these types of exchanges were vital to enacting the 2014 comprehensive lands package, which included the most significant Montana conservation measures in more than 30 years. The North Fork Watershed Protection Act and the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act protected nearly 700,000 acres in Montana-400,000 acres along the Flathead River in addition to about 270,000 acres along the Rocky Mountain Front, including 67,000 acres of new wilderness. The 2014 lands package was a historic agreement for Montana and would not have occurred without other land exchanges being enacted alongside the landmark conservation measures. For Montana, the package included the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act, which transferred over 1,500 federally-controlled acres into trust for that Tribe. Another example of the kind of land exchange that could be facilitated by the Murkowski Amendment includes a land transfer in 1996 used to prevent a gold mine from being constructed outside of Yellowstone National Park near Cooke City in return for the state of Montana receiving Otter Creek coal tracts. It is important to note that budget rules threatened the completion of the 2014 lands package. As a result, the Murkowski amendment is designed to safeguard future transfers or exchanges from budgetary hurdles, and to protect the ability of Congress to enact landmark conservation measures like the North Fork Watershed Protection Act and the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. As a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, please know I will keep your concerns in mind should the committee consider related legislation and continue to fight to protect public lands in Montana…

Sincerely,

Steve Daines

__________________________________

I responded to the senator, thanking him for his letter and his work on the North Fork and Rocky Mountain front acts, expressing skepticism about that the amendment would be limited to the actions he outlined, and requesting that he make a greater effort to make his objection to federal land transfers plain to Montanans. Beyond that, I’m not sure what to make of the whole mess.  The Utah effort can be traced quite directly to a debate which has been simmering since the late 1800s and the rush of western statehood; was it constitutional for the federal government to establish management and “ownership” of so much land?  For example, 86% of Nevada is managed by various federal agencies.  There are many practical arguments to be made on every side, but in the end I think the debate comes down to ideology, which explains its remarkable endurance.  I come down on the side of federalism, and think that the history of these lands being owned by the whole citizenry provides more than enough evidence as to why they should remain in federal custody.

In any case, it is not an issue which is going to go away any time soon.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Senate Amendment 838

  1. Good post.

    In Colorado we had one of only three senate republicans to vote NO on 838. It surprised us all. I can’t say his freshman record has been impressive otherwise. Obviously not enough people pay attention to the issues. It cost us in the mid-terms when someone with the last name, Udall(!) lost to Cory Gardner.

  2. It seems as if the esteemed Mr. Daines has learned the vital truth of social and political engineering–if you want to accomplish something dramatic, far-reaching, and impactful for generations, make it appear as boring and uninteresting as possible. Given the level of behind-the-scenes manipulation, backroom dealing, and double-talk we saw from his single term as a Representative, I would say that he is a quick study.

  3. I must admit, it does sound foreboding at first. The exception to the amendment is the National Park Service, National Preserves, and National Monuments. These are the most recognizable and cherished lands to the public. What other federal agencies control land in these places? The Bureau of Indian Affairs controls trust land. The Bureau of Land Management controls land that nobody wanted during the land rushes. The Corp of Engineers manages dams, reservoirs and the recreation areas they create. The Forest Service manages sustainable resources and some wilderness areas. The wilderness areas would take another full act of Congress to un-designate. I don’t like the idea of the feds losing management of the land, but I don’t see a real disadvantage of it for now. I’m curious what doors they are trying to open by this act.

    • It might be helpful to look at the UT law, which among other things excluded Grand Staircase-Escalante specifically from the lands which the federal government would retain. Clinton was burned in effigy over that one, we must recall. Given the background of the folks who are backing this effort, it might be foolish to not be paranoid.

  4. Pingback: A Call To Action (protect our wild lands) | PopUpBackpacker.com

  5. Thanks for expressing your dissent. Judging from all the state rights activists trolling Backcountry Hunters and Anglers’s Facebook page, it’s clearly the public don’t realize what they are going to lose.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s