January 06, 2017 09:33 AM UTC

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

•  
• 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.

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?

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.

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.

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?