The Current Conflict to Protect National Land

On Inauguration Day, after President Trump claimed the largest attendance in history, the National Park Service, administrators of the National Mall, retweeted an image comparing the 2009 event with the current crowd. But the evidence displeased the new resident of The White House, and the NPS was told to cease public communication. It complied, but in response, an employee at Badlands National Park used the official Twitter to retort, criticizing the Trump administration's dismissive policies on conservation and global warming alike. Other National Park staff joined in, creating unofficial NPS handles to express their disapproval of the presumed direction of environmental policy.

They were not wrong to presume.

Republicans in Congress have been eager to deliver Federal Land to corporations at dirt cheap prices for a long time. In 2015, the Senate and the House passed a non-binding resolution recommending the sale of ALL national land except the National Park Service. The vote was passed along party lines, with Republicans voting for the sale, and the final tally as 51-49 in the Senate, and 228-119 in the House. The Obama administration did not follow the recommendation.

So it's not surprising to learn that in the first week of January, Congress altered the existing rules by which it functions, and specifically one in particular. Under previous law, Congress could not sell (or discard) any federal land which generated revenue unless it could recoup the loss in the sale. The rule changes implemented by the outgoing Congress (of 2016) also included an alteration to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO is legally obligated to conduct an economic appraisal of all bills for consideration in the House. But the rule change ordered the CBO to not evaluate the economic cost of the repeal of The Affordable Care Act.

Republicans, implemented the rule change on public land which says, “state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays.” It means, the National Government can give land it owns to a state, city, or tribe, without considered the loss as reducing the income of the Federal Government. And if it suffers no loss, Congress does not need to find a means to account for the cost. This change will allow Congress to pass federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service directly to the states. Together these agencies manage 590 million acres of National Land, or approximately twenty-four percent of the landmass of the United States of America. Experts currently interpret the bill to not apply these changes to the 84 million acres operated by the National Park Service.

Each of these agencies offers different opportunities for use of public land. The National Park's mission for its land is to conserve, provide for the public enjoyment, and leave unimpaired for future generations. While NP land is for people and has no resource extraction, the NFS, BLM and FWS land include leases for oil, gas, timber, and grazing, along with hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking. The agencies also seek to preserve the land, protect endangered species and fragile habitats.

Environmental observers worry that the States will use the land irresponsibility. Partly this is because some state legislators have openly expressed their desire to open the land to unlimited development and extraction. But another worry comes from the difference in economic policy between the Federal Government and State Government. The Federal Government is allowed to run a deficit (when it spends more than it taxes) and incur debt. Approximately forty states have balanced budject Amendments, which prevent them from allowing deficits. Environmentalists and economists predict that States who are suffering (or suffer in the future) from a lack of income, will sell public land to pay debts.

And so, land which protected for decades, if not a century, land never developed, will be subjected to the axe, plow, and the dynamite. There are the People's representatives eager to do the deals, to give back to corporations for the campaign dollars they've received. The conflict resides in eleven states situated in the Western half of the United States. Each of these see at least a quarter of their land managed by the National Government. Representatives like House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), who authored the rule change, are eager to claim control of the Federal land in his state. He's vague on its purpose, using big words like liberty and property, but sparse on details. But conversations believe the end result will be a bargain sale to companies interested in stripping the land bare to access its resources, or a continual development for public consumption until there is nothing left to consume. Recreations, like hunters, campers, and fishers, will suffer when the land has been cleared of its bounty.

Thankfully, the people of these eleven states (twelve if one includes Washington State – land held by the Federal Government - 22%) do not agree with Rob Bishop. A 2016 poll of the residents of the western states show they understand the result of a pact between a Republican controlled Congress and and Statehouses. Fifty-eight percent of Western residents don't want their states to own the land, thirty-three percent do, and nine percent remain undecided.

But the story isn't quite over, and one suspects vigilance will always be required. With Trump's NPS feud lending them cover, US representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced House Bill 621 on January 31^st. If passed, it ordered the Secretary of the Interior to immediately sell 3.3 million acres of BLM land, as it served “no purpose for taxpayers.” That is about the size of Connecticut.

Fortunately, public outcry by recreation organizations in a coalition as broad as Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the Sierra Club, forced Chaffetz to withdraw the bill. But a currently pending bill (H.R. 622), also posted by Chaffetz will strip the NFS and BLM of “performing law enforcement functions on Federal Land,” preventing them from protecting the land and prosecuting offenders.

For the future, one must keep the eyes open, and be sure to enjoy the wild spaces protected by the Federal Government. There will be numerous attempts to diminish them over the next four years.

And If they plan to pave over my lands (and yours as well), burn the forest to a cinder, and contaminate every waterway from Boston to San Franciso, then it will be the citizen duty to remember, “If wilderness is outlawed, only outlaws can save wilderness.”