CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 06, 2017 09:33 AM UTC

Yes Colorado, the GOP Just Voted to Make Selling Off Your Public Lands Easier.

  • 11 Comments
  • by: PKolbenschlag

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

EDIT: Cleaned up some typos and repetitive language. Also, Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Chair of the House Resource Committee calls the claim that this is an attempt to make it easier to sell off and transfer public lands, “Bullshit” in an E & E News article (subscription) today. Many observers remain highly doubtful of the Congressman’s claim.

—–

It was just three months ago when Congressman Scott Tipton indignantly denied he favored selling off America’s beloved public lands. And it was just three days ago that he voted to make it more easy to do so.

Which of America’s beloved public lands do Colorado’s Congressional Republicans think should be sold off?

The first response was during the campaign, when he accused his Democratic opponent Gail Schwartz of misrepresenting his record. As Charles Ashby reported in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel about a Schwartz ad:

In it, former state Sen. Gail Schwartz says Tipton wants to sell off public lands and make them available to private individuals and corporations.

That’s not even close to being true, Tipton said.

“I’ve been a longtime advocate of keeping our federal public lands and ensuring that the American people have continued access to them,” Tipton said.

“Never once have I advocated to sell them off.”

In the ad, called “Public Lands,” Schwartz said Tipton “wants to cut off access to public lands for generations to come, killing thousands of jobs,” adding that the land should remain open for ranching, hunting and fishing.

The second action was in the secret closed-door meeting, and subsequent floor vote on House rules.

As the Washington Post reported:

House Republicans on Tuesday changed the way Congress calculates the cost of transferring federal lands to the states and other entities, a move that will make it easier for members of the new Congress to cede federal control of public lands.

The provision, included as part as a larger rules package the House approved by a vote of 233 to 190 during its first day in session, highlights the extent to which some congressional Republicans hope to change longstanding rules now that the GOP will control the executive and the legislative branches starting Jan. 20.

Before the right wing reactionaries scream “Fake News” (it is the Washington Post and not Breitbart.com or Alex Jones, after all)  here is the Cato Institute’s take:

The good news is that the House took a step toward devolving federal lands yesterday, as reported by the Washington Post.

The Cato article is full of half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

But what about the Bureau of Land Management’s 250 million acres, which is mainly used for cattle grazing?

Does the Cato Institute think these public lands would be better used for cattle grazing?

First of all, most of these BLM acres are in Alaska, and not grazing lands. Secondly, BLM lands are not used mostly for grazing, even in the lower 48.

The agency is required to manage these lands for multiple use, which means for a variety of purposes with not every use appropriate for every place.

And not necessarily for immediate monetary return, according to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976.

Browns Canyon is Colorado’s newest National Monument, and includes BLM lands which Rep. Tipton and other GOP Members of Colorado’s Congressional delegation just voted to make it easier to sell off to developers and other private interests.

According to these laws the uses that BLM must consider include Wilderness, protecting areas of critical environmental concern, protection of watersheds and wildlife habitat, providing for recreation, mineral development and grazing (among a host of other things such as scientific study, protection of archaeological resources, etc).

Here’s the bottom-line: Coloradans cherish our role in stewarding some of America’s most prized, most recreated on, most hunted, and most loved public lands.

Not only National Parks like Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Mesa Verde, Great Sand Dunes, and Rocky Mountain–but National Forests like the White River, the nation’s most visited, and home to over a half dozen ski resorts.

Ancestral Puebloan ruins dot the still wild landscape of Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, which sits on BLM lands in Colorado’s Four Corners region.

Colorado’s national public lands include National Wildlife Refuges like Browns Park, and BLM National Monuments like Browns Canyon and Canyons of the Ancients. They include National Conservation Areas like Dominguez Canyons, and Gunnison Gorge.

Rep. Zinke, Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Interior (the parent of the BLM) voted along with the rest of GOP caucus –including Reps. Mike Coffman and Scott Tipton–to grease the skids for “devolving” America’s national public lands.

Although Senator Gardner is so far silent on if Mr. Zinke’s vote should matter in his confirmation hearing, his predecessor in that seat is not, according to E & E News (subscription):

Former Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) suggested that Zinke’s vote should be an issue in his upcoming confirmation hearings. In passing the rule change, Udall said, the House “has essentially written off the value of our public lands and natural treasures.”

Public Lands are one of the primary forces driving Colorado’s multi-billion dollar outdoor economy. Coloradans deserve to know if Reps. Tipton, Coffman, Buck, and Lamborn support this economy or not. And we deserve to know if Mr. Gardner will put this question to the DOI nominee.

Mr. Tipton claims the Cato Institute is mistaken, that his vote to grease the skids for public lands transfers is not how it looks according to an article in the Sentinel.

U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., however, said the issue isn’t all that.

He said the rule doesn’t provide any new authority to transfer federal lands, but merely updates the process for laws already in place that allow for that to happen.

“The process that the Congressional Budget Office had previously used to estimate the cost of federal land conveyances was convoluted and unable to take into account important factors that are not easily measured in dollars and cents, such as the burden that federal land in disrepair has on local communities,” Tipton said in an email.

“Because of the requirement that we offset the ‘cost’ of land conveyance, we’ve seen bipartisan, non-controversial land transfers between the federal government and the intended recipient take years, sometimes decades, to complete.”

But this really does not answer the pertinent questions. Do these Members favor selling off our public lands? If so, which lands? And, if so, why did they misrepresent their positions before the election? How should they be held to account?

Do these Members favor selling off our public lands?  If not, why did they vote for this provision to make selling off our public lands easier?  And how should they be held to account?

 

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

11 thoughts on “Yes Colorado, the GOP Just Voted to Make Selling Off Your Public Lands Easier.”

  1. has the Highest Elected representative from Colorado said anything about this? Does he support it? Does he oppose? Is he ignoring the issue in case something more important comes up?

    2. Zappatero – why would Sen. Bennet comment on House rules?

      This particular move is worrisome, but is pretty low on the list. When public lands are teed up for disposal, that's when we will have the test of public sentiment. Polling in Western states is mixed – but most show  a majority of voters supporting federal control, only worrying about the lack of resources to adequately manage and preserve the lands. I'm expecting Republican overreach – and it will be interesting to see the specifics of what they think will pass muster.

      1. This is part of a longer term strategy, a tactic that specifically seeks to devalue public lands and make it easier to pass legislation that disposes of them. And while higher profile lands may have to run the Senate gauntlet amid lots of public scrutiny, it is also likely that some could well end up in larger omnibus bills and other places where debate is minimal or non-existent. 

        Which lands does Mr. Tipton think should be up on the block? Well, let's look at what he himself says:

        In response to community concerns in Jackson, Mesa, and Delta Counties, I have also introduced a bill that releases acreage from further consideration for designation as wilderness by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

        And let's not forget the legislation he floated, written by and on behalf of one of his largest campaign funders, Texas oil and gas billionaire Russ Gordy and SGI, Gordy's privately held drilling company.

        The new leases would be, by act of Congress, exempt from the typical associated environmental review and imposition of appropriate conditions required by the BLM prior to gas-field development. This is a betrayal of the public’s expectation that gas-field development will happen only in a safe and conscientious manner. These exemptions are particularly ironic in that the current leases were issued illegally, as recognized by the BLM, for failure to comply with the very same federal legal requirements the legislation proposes to bypass. Finally, the proposed exchange most assuredly would not require any payment from the lessees to the federal government to reflect the increased value of their position, as the methodology for appraisal would not be the accepted Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as employed by the BLM.

        …The proposed legislation does not consider the new host communities’ desires to protect their agricultural heritage or quality of life in the North Fork Valley from the same detrimental impacts that we here in the Roaring Fork Valley have sought to protect ourselves. The legislation would simply shift to another community the negative impacts of resource development without appropriate environmental review.

        …The proposed legislation concludes with the removal of the most fundamental level of scrutiny of drilling and extraction practices. It is unclear why such a provision is contained in the proposed legislation other than to further the benefits of avoidance of environmental regulations to these two lessees and perhaps to other lessees in other areas of the United States.

        Mr. Tipton owes it to his constituents to tell us which public lands he believes should be valued as "budget neutral" (i.e. with no value of their own). The beloved Hubbard Park area that he wanted to strip all environmental protection from and hand over to a Texas oilman?  BLM Wilderness Study Areas like Roubideau, The Palisade and Sewemup Mesa?

        So what happens when popular lands get sold to private interests? They may get drilled, they may get developed, and access is often blocked. 

        Tipton sits on the House Resources Committee. Does he agree with his Chair that some of America's most iconic landscapes should be transferred to private entities or out of federal ownership?

        The rule change would allow the House to ignore the cost, at least as part of procedure. CBO would still estimate the cost of such bills, but lawmakers would no longer have to find a spending offset or get a waiver.

        Bishop characterized the rule change as a common-sense fix to a "stupid accounting trick" that would help his committee move legislation more efficiently.

        But Bishop has urged President-elect Donald Trump to undo some of President Obama's monument declarations, and he echoed that call yesterday. He also reiterated that state and local governments would do a better job managing the land that now falls under the Bears Ears National Monument in his home state.

        His constituents, and all Americans that own and pay for these lands, deserve an answer. 

      2. there are quite a few things I feel Bennet should speak up on, especially as Republicans are forming an all-out assault on the federal government. 

        if he chooses to keep quiet, register no criticism, follow long-standing protocol (even as his BFF's dynamite it in real time), maintain his friendships in the senate over calling out their betrayals of our democracy, he can. 

        And he has. 

      3. further, in a state that has now picked the D for president 3 times in a row, and with his re-election and the fact that Senate Democrats have gotten more than 23.5 million more votes than Republicans (In a head-to-head election that would amount to a crushing 59-41 margin in percentage terms) our Senator should be Extra-Bold in his pushback. Due to a racist flaw in our Constitution that perpetuated the power of slave-holders and that’s been perpetrated down the generations, the party that has earned a massive majority of support from the American public is in the minority in the Senate, but the math is clear and Bennet should not fear it. 

  2. Given that this thread is about Republicans, where Michael Bennet comes down on anything isn't real relevant to the thread.

    An unspoken problem with Bishop's rhetoric is that the rule change runs counter to basic concepts of fiscal conservatism. I would think that many fiscally conservative Repub. Reps. could be open to an argument that merely giving land away without getting anything in return doesn't help the deficit. Hopefully, any attempts to give away our patrimony (a word used in a 1984 speech by President Ronald Reagan to describe public lands) will get stuffed early and often.

  4. The DCCC had the dirt on Tipton's hypocrisy on public lands in an oppo research file. Unfortunately, it didn't make much difference. Tipton and Trump played the same con job on Colorado voters – masquerading as people who cared about public lands. Trump even had a supporter make a website showing him as the new Teddy Roosevelt.

    Low info Trump voters turned out, and our people didn't turn out (or turn in ballots)  for Gail Schwartz.

    1. The Denver Post the GJ Sentinel both endorsed Tipton and specifically were not persuaded by the anti-public land information on him. The Post went so far as to note it was "troubled" by Tipton pushing legislation written verbatim by oil and gas industry insiders that totally went against what the local governments asked for, including Republican Delta County and Democratic Pitkin County.

      When the so-called "Fourth Estate" is so easily hornswoggled its not unreasonable that folks who look to it for information follow suit. 

      In general I think the Sentinel does a far better job than the Post covering public lands issues, but in this case it really dropped the ball IMO. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

238 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!